Foreign aid is inherently political because it lacks the profit motive

Evidence

The Truman and Eisenhower administrations therefore claimed to support anticolonial national liberation movements; concretely, they announced their intention to aid developing nations by supporting projects that would build infrastructure and foster economic growth. But this economic aid came at a price—they demanded political allegiance. For instance, the United States first sought to bring Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt under its wing through promises of financial aid. Nasser flirted with the Soviet Union, though, and the Eisenhower administration punished him by reneging on its promise to provide funding for the construction of a dam in Aswan. Nasser promptly nationalized the Suez Canal, which led Britain, France, and Israel to launch a war on Egypt. The United States (and the USSR) then intervened on Nasser’s side, allowing Egypt to finally get rid of its former colonial master—Britain. This example reveals the carrot-and-stick approach that the American elite employed again and again during the Cold War: using monetary incentives to win allies, punishing them when they strayed, but also acting to weaken the hold of former colonizer nations when possible. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 143 (#responds-to, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: US Cold War aid coerced political allegiance through carrot-and-stick incentives. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 143; US Cold War aid demanded political allegiance as the price of economic help — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 244

Broader Connections