On Monday, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake hit remote areas of northern Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing 364 and injuring over 2,000 more. With a mounting death toll, officials are attempting to understand the extent of the devastation and find out how to reach to the most affected and often least inaccessible regions. In 2012, Afghanistan and Pakistan were among the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid — receiving $14.02 billion — and the top recipients in Central Asia, according to TIME magazine. How should humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan be appropriated properly in response to disaster, and do you believe that foreign aid has been successfully used in the region? 

Prof. Laurence Simon (HS)

Weeks before the earthquake, Pakistan severely cut back the activities of International NGOs, such as Save the Children, and only a few have been permitted to return to the area hardest hit by the earthquake. The politics of Pakistan and Afghanistan will constrain the role of the U.S. and of our NGOs that normally respond to emergencies abroad. Unless the governments request logistical or medical assistance, the U.S. would be wise to think how we can channel long-term assistance for reconstruction and development in the disaster zones. The issue of whether past foreign aid has been successfully used in the region is important to consider but more to the point is whether any American aid organization can effectively work in the countries. It would be best to channel aid through non-political organizations that have the trust of local people.

Professor Laurence Simon (HS)  is Professor of International Development and Director of the Center for Global Development and Sustainability. 


Prof. Steven P. Cohen (IBS) 
Humanitarian assistance, unlike foreign aid, needs cooperation from local and international governments, nonprofits, and volunteer assistance to do the job.  Foreign aid can build local disaster relief infrastructure; for example, many military vehicles can be used in search and rescue operations as well as trained personnel, who become local feet on the ground well before international assistance can arrive. The value of American aid in Pakistan and Afghanistan can be measured by the interests such aid aims to promote.  One concern is that money, material, and even people who’ve been trained by U.S.-supported organizations may fall into the hands of Afghani or Pakistani groups working against U.S. interests.  Often, foreign aid is basically bribery to buy the loyalty or neutrality of folks who might otherwise work against donor interests.  Ideally, humanitarian assistance yields short-term benefits.  In the case of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the risks of getting what we have paid for rather than what we want are extremely high.
Professor Steven P. Cohen (IBS) is an adjunct professor in the International Business School.


Connor Wahrman ’17

There are many reasons to have misgivings over foreign aid. The U.S. has a long history of using aid programs to advance its own agenda, from making aid contingent on policy changes to selecting recipients based on strategic or personal interests to using aid organizations as fronts for covert operations. When, however, the strategic consideration of regional stability aligns with substantial humanitarian needs, as it does in Central Asia, there is all the more reason to provide aid. Although tracing the path of aid through Afghanistan and Pakistan is difficult, for lack of transportation and telecommunication infrastructure, the 2009 USAID Forward initiative has sought to improve the implementation and effectiveness of aid programs. Additionally, in 2010, President Obama shifted the program’s objectives toward development and food security. Especially with these reforms, the U.S. budget should ensure that USAID can best serve the victims of the earthquake and other humanitarian crises.
Connor Wahrman ’17 is the editor-in-chief of the Brandeis International Journal. 


Henry Snow ’17 

In terms of aid specifically for this crisis, what we give and who we give it to need to be considered. Aid can’t be given effectively without knowing what the affected actually need, and often the impact of well-meaning aid projects is limited because of this. The people of Pakistan and Afghanistan know what they need, and therefore giving aid with information from locals and those who work with them is critical. As for aid policy in the region generally, we’ve insufficiently conditionalized and focused our aid, failing to consider empirical and logical evidence of what does and does not work, and not provided enough. Ongoing cuts to aid in the region, though somewhat politically easy due in part to popularity among those who identify as ‘taxpayers’ rather than citizens or human beings, are not only against our own interests in the region but against our moral obligations both as a state that’s intervened greatly and simply as people with the means to help others. America should be providing more and smarter aid.

Henry Snow ’17 is a member of Amnesty International.