Image repair through medical diplomacy

In her recent contribution to the Diplomatic Courier “Medical Relief: An Effective Diplomacy Tool,” Rebecca Wexler looks at how supporting other countries with medical products and service can assist the US to improve its image.

She says that “medical diplomacy presents the United States with the chance to reaffirm its commitment to humanitarianism and reawaken the spirit that once spawned the Peace Corps and USAID.”

Wexler outlines some of the advantages of medical diplomacy:

• it can be applied both as a short-term or long-term strategy
• it can help both to prevent conflict and assist in post-conflict reconstruction

"Healthy populations are able to work, cultivate food, and earn wages—all of which contribute to economic productivity and a functioning society. Conversely, disease is often born in conditions of poverty, festering in unsanitary sewage systems, overcrowded living quarters, and dilapidated housing structures."

But what exactly is medical diplomacy? Former health and human services secretary and chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, Tommy G. Thompson defines it in his 2005 Op-Ed for the Boston Globe:

Medical diplomacy is "the winning of hearts and minds of people in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere by exporting medical care, expertise, and personnel to help those who need it most."

Arguing that in the fight to end tyranny and the effort to spread democracy, Thompson states it is important that States such as the US apply all “weapons of freedom” to win. Medical diplomacy is one of those weapons.

The Web of Aid in Relation to U.S. Diplomacy

Speaking about the role that foreign aid and development plays in U.S. diplomacy and how the U.S. is viewed around the world, I would like to highlight an article I recently co-wrote for OneWorld.net's online magazine, Perspectives. Here are some excerpts:

 “Governments are one of the primary sources of foreign assistance. Developed countries such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union employ thousands of people in their efforts to plan, coordinate, and sometimes even deliver assistance to communities where it is needed. The United States is the largest provider of aid, spreading some $22 billion around the world in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

But when measured as a percentage of a country's total income, or GNI, every other developed country except Greece provides more foreign assistance than the United States. Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Denmark all commit close to 1 percent of their GNI to foreign assistance. The United States only committed 0.18 percent of its national income in 2007, according to Oxfam, a privately funded, international relief and development organization.”

“Foreign aid has never been a top priority for U.S. budget negotiators, when compared with funding for domestic programs. The foreign assistance budget was approximately $35 billion in 2007, or a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget, according to the U.S. State Department, which administers foreign aid programs through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In comparison, the United States military budget for 2008 was more than $700 billion, according to nonprofit advocacy group Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.”

“Traditionally, U.S. foreign assistance is aimed at supporting national security and promoting economic growth, poverty reduction, and humanitarian relief abroad. Foreign assistance is generally considered an aspect of U.S. foreign policy, so resources often target those nations where policymakers believe the resources will be used to strengthen U.S. security. This may not always include the world's neediest nations. (See "Foreign Assistance: Why Countries Help Others" for more on the motivations behind assistance programs.)”

Thinking about this information, one most truly wonder, as Rebecca touched on in her post, why isn’t aid for development provided for development’s sake? Could this not be used as a diplomacy tool to improve the U.S.’s image abroad? Why does development have to be tied solely to U.S. national security?

It is encouraging that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is promising to strengthen USAID and U.S. foreign aid and development programs, as reported in this Reuters report, yet national security still seems to be the only reason for doing so. This is what Secretary Clinton said on her first visit to USAID:

“I wanted to come here today with a very simple message: I believe in development and I believe with all my heart that it truly is an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy, in the furtherance of America's national security.”