Foreign aid has been essential for decades in international development, funding education, health care and infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries. In recent years, governments and organizations have increasingly redirected aid spending toward strategic objectives, emphasizing security, border control and military collaboration. This new trend, sometimes called “security diplomacy,” raises questions about the changing dynamics of foreign assistance and its lasting impact on poverty alleviation.

Assistance from countries such as the U.S., Italy and European Union (EU) members is increasingly allocated to military training efforts, anti-migration enforcement and surveillance technologies, rather than financing educational institutions or hospital facilities. Case studies from Africa and the Mediterranean demonstrate the effects of this transition on recipient states and the challenges it presents to traditional development objectives. This shift exemplifies how security diplomacy and foreign aid are increasingly intertwined in global policy.

Coastal Control Over Community Needs: Italy’s Aid to Libya

In recent years, Italy has invested millions in foreign aid to bolster Libya’s coast guard and border control initiatives, particularly to curtail migration across the Mediterranean. This approach, financed via bilateral agreements and EU-supported frameworks, has faced criticism for prioritizing security containment above sustainable development assistance in North Africa.

According to a 2023 study, Italy allocated at least $37.5 million between 2017 and 2022. This funding was part of a broader strategy of security diplomacy and foreign aid, supporting patrol boats, training and equipment for the Libyan Coast Guard. The principal objective has been to intercept migrant vessels before their arrival in European seas and to repatriate the individuals on board to detention facilities in Libya.

This strategy, ostensibly humanitarian to avert perilous maritime journeys, has faced extensive criticism for facilitating human rights violations. United Nations (U.N.) and human rights groups have reported instances of arbitrary incarceration, torture and forced labor in Libyan detention institutions, to which many returnees are sent. Critics contend that by emphasizing border control, Italy and the EU have neglected investment in Libya’s faltering education and health care systems. These sectors have declined owing to persistent violence and insufficient finance. The financing change establishes a precedent for using assistance as a mechanism for migratory deterrent, rather than for human development.

The Sahel: Development Deferred in the Name of Stability

The EU has allocated billions to the Sahel via the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), primarily focused on poverty alleviation and migration control. By the conclusion of 2020, the EUTF had mobilized more than $4.8 billion, with 46% of the capital allocated to resilience and economic opportunity. Approximately 31% was explicitly designated for migration management and border control within the Sahel and Lake Chad framework, highlighting the EU’s increasing use of security diplomacy and foreign aid.

Audits conducted by the European Court of Auditors and academics at SWP Berlin have highlighted issues over the Fund’s ambiguous development aims. It indicates that its design increasingly caters to EU migration interests, implying a shift from conventional poverty alleviation to security-oriented measures. Similarly, analyses by think tanks such as the Foundation for European Progressive Studies suggest that mechanisms like the EUTF and the External Investment Plan reflect a shift in EU funding priorities.

Rather than focusing solely on development, these tools now also serve goals related to policing, border security and migration diplomacy. This marks a significant evolution in the EU’s “security–migration–development nexus” in the Sahel. Civil society organizations, like Oxfam and Euractiv, have emphasized the need to reallocate education, employment and health care assistance. They contend that emphasizing border control and stabilization may exacerbate instability rather than mitigate it.

Donor Alternatives That Prioritize Development

Certain donor initiatives, including those spearheaded by USAID, have persistently prioritized locally driven development, especially in the Sahel and Horn of Africa. The USAID Resilience in the Sahel Enhanced (RISE) program prioritizes enduring outcomes like education, food security and conflict prevention by collaborating directly with people instead of relying on security intermediaries.

Similarly, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have developed frameworks. These are focused on human security, including education, health, economic stability and protection from violence. These paradigms establish development as fundamental to security, rather than as a deterrence mechanism.

Focus on Root Causes: Re-Centering Aid on Human Development

Prominent international institutions, such as the OECD, the World Bank and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), continually underscore the need to address the fundamental causes of instability for sustainable development and migratory governance. The fundamental reasons are poverty, social marginalization, shaky governance, economic instability and environmental shocks.

The OECD asserts that successful development aid must promote inclusive economic growth, education, gender equality, health care and access to social safety systems. These objectives transcend mere humanitarianism; they represent strategic investments in enduring resilience. A global analysis by the World Bank highlights that improving equal access to employment and education is key to reducing migration driven by hardship. This is especially true for adolescents in precarious environments, where limited opportunities often make migration appear to be the only viable path forward.

IOM emphasizes that an exclusive emphasis on border control neglects intricate realities: most migration is internal or regional and is propelled by structural development disparities. Investments in local governance, labor markets and climate resilience might initially reduce the need for irregular migration.

Conclusion

As countries increasingly allocate development financing to border security and migration control, the fundamental purpose of foreign assistance is jeopardized. Across institutions, communities and advocacy networks, there is an increasing acknowledgement that human development, rather than deterrence, is the best sustainable approach to world stability.

– Ray Bechara

Ray is based in Glasgow, Scotland and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Unsplash