Balancing economic and military policy
At what price is peace and how is it paid?
Peace and stability in the world is the desired, some say, and required outcome. That is a macro perspective. Providing for the common defense is an inward responsibility with global reach for which affinity is given to the military. Providing for optimal economic opportunity might be another equally important role for government that is more akin to economic policy.
Given that the world market is global, attention to economic policy is exceedingly important. New markets come from emerging and developing nations and their people. Undermining market performance is poverty that leads it negative exploitation and violence.
The counter to negative exploitation is positive assistance, and some say positive exploitation. Some might characterize assistance to developing nations as anywhere between nation-building and imperialism to peace-building.
I prefer the latter. All come at a cost for which Americans seek tangible return on investment.
The role of the State Department in helping to resolve and to mitigate and squelch conflict though aid and assistance has been undermined by too much military action. Now, it is time to seek a new equilibrium, IMO.
“Review calls for State Department to focus more on civilian response to conflict
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 28, 2010; 8:03 PM
A high-level State Department review in the works for more than a year will call for the diplomatic service to give much greater priority to improving the U.S. civilian response to conflict, according to a sneak preview released this month.
The draft summary of the review, presented to congressional staffers, also would give the U.S. Agency for International Development a bigger role in running President Obama's two main foreign aid initiatives - health and agriculture.
The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's answer to the Pentagon's QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review). She has argued that the once-every-four-years process will help the State Department set priorities and justify its budget to Congress.
The year-long debate involving State Department and USAID officials has occurred as the White House has been conducting its own review of U.S. development policy. There has been some tension over whether State or the White House should coordinate the aid effort, according to officials involved in the process.”