The White House's recent call for a dramatic increase in U.S. foreign aid, in the form of a new Millennium Challenge Account and an HIV/AIDS proposal, is unexpected but welcome. By themselves, however, these programs can have only modest success in fighting poverty and combating AIDS. Much more must be done.
Steven Radelet is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development and was Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from January 2000 through June 2002. He is the author of Challenging Foreign Aid: A Policymaker's Guide to the Millennium Challenge Account.
OUT OF THE BLUE
One of the greatest surprises of George W. Bush's presidency so far has been his call to dramatically increase U.S. foreign aid. In March 2002, Bush proposed an increase of 50 percent over the next three years through the creation of a Millennium Challenge Account (mca), a fund that would provide $5 billion per year to a select group of countries that are "ruling justly, investing in their people, and establishing economic freedom." That September, Bush released his National Security Strategy, which gave rare prominence to development and aid alongside defense and diplomacy. Then came his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he called for $10 billion in new funding ($15 billion total) over the next five years to combat hiv/aids in Africa and the Caribbean. This proposal was rapidly signed into law in late May, on the eve of the G-8 summit. And Bush's 2004 budget included two smaller initiatives: a $200 million famine fund and a $100 million fund for "complex emergencies." If these programs are funded as proposed, they will increase U.S. foreign aid from approximately $11 billion in 2002 to $18 billion in 2006 -- the largest increase in decades. Perhaps more important, they will also fundamentally change the way the United States delivers aid by making recipients more involved in setting priorities and by demanding greater accountability for results.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
As a matter of policy, Washington is committed to supporting development in impoverished countries, and most Americans believe that it is following through. In fact, U.S. assistance for the world's poorest countries is utterly inadequate. Only a new international development strategy can rectify the situation. Continued failure will be too expensive, for the United States and the world.
With China's economic clout growing rapidly, Americans are accusing Beijing of every offense from currency manipulation to crooked trade policies. None of these charges has much merit, but they have increased the probability of a U.S.-Chinese trade war that would do considerable damage to both sides.
A look back at perhaps the most important foreign policy success of the postwar period. Edited by Peter Grose, with contributions by historians Diane B. Kunz and David Reynolds, a memoir by Charles P. Kindleberger, a profile of Marshall and Acheson by James Chace and one of Will Clayton by Gregory Fossedal and Bill Mikhail. And reflections from Roy Jenkins, Walt Rostow, and Helmut Schmidt.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.