[almatabata]

I remember reading the argument in the "dictators handbook" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook), that foreign aid helps corrupt regimes.

"When aid funds are used to substitute for government spending, then few, maybe even no one, has actually been helped unless the government uses the freed-up money for other projects of benefit to the general population. Of course, they don’t. They use the money to shore up their political position and the loyalty of their essential backers."

So there is definitely an argument to be made, that if you are not careful with how you dispense foreign aid, you will definitely empower corrupt politicians.

The book discusses examples where foreign aid was used more effectively.

[duxup]

Yeah I'd be open to "more effecitve" rather than wholesale cuts.

But as for starving the poor to effect change you want, I think history has shown you just end up starving the powerless (folks in power don't care) and change doesn't necessarily happen. So who are you punishing?

[almatabata]

I am not even sure this administration is cutting it with the goal of causing populations to rebel against corrupt politicians.

> I think history has shown you just end up starving the powerless (folks in power don't care) and change doesn't necessarily happen.

I know. I was not specifically arguing that it was definitely going to happen in all or even any current scenario. I just wanted to make the case that giving aid to countries with corrupt governments can definitely keep them in power longer.

I am not making the case, that we should sacrifice starving people, in the hopes of triggering a revolution. We just should stay cognizant of the fact, that foreign aid can influence internal political balances between factions. After analysis it might be, that we have to accept helping a dictator by stabilizing his country, if it saves more lives.