Aiding and Abetting: U.S. Foreign Assistance and State Violence

Lethal aid and human security: The effects of US security assistance on civilian harm in low- and middle-income countries

“…In contrast, recent analyses by both Jadoon (2018) and Darden (2019) provide evidence that aggregate US military aid significantly reduces civilian targeting by state security forces. Bell et al (2016) also find evidence of a negative relationship between state violence and US security assistance in their investigation of the effects of US troops stationed abroad in peacetime.…”

“…To my knowledge, these are the only large-N, cross-national studies of the relationship between security aid (including arms transfers) and state repression published in the academic literature over the past 30 years. The results are mixed, some studies finding evidence that arms transfers, military aid, or military training have detrimental impacts on the security of civilians in recipient states (Blanton, 1999;McCoy, 2005;Sandholtz, 2016;Sullivan et al, 2020), while others find security assistance reduces statesponsored human rights violations (Jadoon, 2018;Darden, 2019). Two studies suggest that the effect of security cooperation is conditional on either the type of assistance (Omelicheva et al, 2017) or the strategic value of the recipient country (Bell et al, 2016).…”

“…Until very recently, there have been few systematic attempts to evaluate the effects of security sector assistance. Those studies that do exist draw contradictory conclusions about the impacts of military aid, some providing evidence that arms transfers, military aid, or military training have detrimental impacts on the security of civilians in recipient states (Blanton, 1999;McCoy, 2005;Sandholtz, 2016;Sullivan et al, 2020), while others find that security assistance actually reduces state-sponsored human rights violations (Jadoon, 2018;Darden, 2019).…”

The European Union's migration management aid: Developing democracies or supporting authoritarianism?

“…But, somewhat ironically, while the EU promoted democratic decision‐making within migration policies abroad, it relied on less transparent, less accountable, and less participatory modes of decision‐making at home (Freyburg, 2012a). Finally, Darden (2020) found that US foreign aid (specifically economic aid) was associated with greater repression and state killings since governments were able to redirect aid from its intended purpose toward state violence. In addition, the literature on aid fungibility shows that when donors increase funding for specific sectors like education, recipient governments decrease their spending in that area and instead spend the money on other sectors (Feyzioglu et al, 1998; McGillivray & Morrissey, 2000).…”

“…Throughout and since the Cold War, foreign aid has been used as a means of democracy promotion with the assumption that increasing democratic governance provides a net benefit for international security and stability. Academic literature on foreign aid as democracy promotion shows mixed effects (Jones & Tarp, 2016; Scott & Steele, 2011) and demonstrates that, contrary to its goals, democracy promotion can bolster authoritarian regimes by empowering incumbents, tying civil society to state power, or removing accountability of authoritarian leaders by outsourcing social services to international organisations (Bader and Faust 2014; Darden, 2020; Foley & Edwards, 1996). We argue that just as attempts to use foreign aid as democracy promotion assumed that enhancing state capacity would help build democratic institutions, migration management aid assumes that building the capacity of security actors within the state to monitor borders will prevent irregular migration, failing to account for the negative externalities of human rights abuses and increased surveillance for migrants and citizens alike.…”