Providing Aid to Fragile or Failed States: A Short Argument for Moderation

Providing aid to fragile or failed states has become a topic of debate that has grown increasingly contentious as the total amount of aid given around the world has increased. What lies at the bottom of this debate is the question of whether or not aid should even be distributed to states that are in danger of collapsing or states without any real form of central government. It is apparent that fragile or failed states should be the recipients of aid. However, they should not be the recipient of monetary aid because of the potential for abuse with the lack of a structured central government. Thus, aid to fragile or failed states should be restricted to in-kind aid and technical assistance with the caveat being sustained security within the country. It is in this way that the citizens of defunct and ineffectively governed countries can be provided with the means of producing a stable society. Not providing aid to fragile or failing states is essentially dooming those sates to flounder in squalor.First, a fragile or failed state is defined as such by a number of factors. These factors can be divided into three groups social, economic, and political military. A failed state is one that fails to uphold the social order, provide basic civil services to all citizens, and the presence of external military intervention or internal strife. (Fund for Peace, 201 1) From these issues, problems arise with providing aid, specifically in monetary form, to these countries. Most of these fragile or failed states that are unable fulfill their obligations to their citizens are incapable of fully exploiting aid as it is intended. One of the first issues with providing aid to fragile or failed states is how exactly aid should be applied. Aid should be applied in such a way that it cannot be abused by those in a position of power. This is generally achieved by providing inkind assistance or technical assistance with the assurances of general security. By removing the possibility of corruption present with a liquid asset such as money, the issue now becomes the proper distribution of goods and the assurance that they are reaching those who need them which is much easier to guarantee.This guarantee can be provided in the form of an external security force. The Economist published an article in 2005 detailing the effectiveness of providing aid in-kind and through technical assistance. (Economist, 2005) The article implicitly states that United Nations [U.N.] security forces are a necessary portion of recovery programs in failed and fragile states. (Economist, 2005) The case of Liberia from 1989 to 2003 provides an excellent example of this point. Between 1989 and 2003, a civil war of massive proportion rocked the country. There were no less than seven political fronts/militias operating in the country at any one time. (Dennis, 2006) During this period of civil war, the only internal security available was provided by militias that were controlled by one gang lord or another who consistently fought over available resources. In order for assistance to become effective, pacification through a visible display of force was a necessary step on the way towards establishing a secure state. (Economist, 2005) Once a secure state was established, the local population was able to act and create a stable government with the resources provided by international aid. This environment for the creation of a stable government can be created with the introduction of a well -financed and internationally supported external security force such as the 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers currently stationed in Liberia.The Economist mentions, in the example of Liberia, that militia members were provided $300 for education or vocational training. (Economist, 2005) This money was provided at great risk as there are few guarantees that the money will be spent on education or vocational training. In addition to this, donors who provided monetary aid to governments considered fragile, many of which are located in sub-Saharan Africa, are considered some of the most corrupt countries at their income level in the world. …