An American Approach to Foreign Assistance

On that first day when I entered the Ronald Reagan Building as administrator of USAID, I professed my belief that “the purpose of all foreign assistance should be ending its need to exist.” In my first sessions with senior staff, I added that when we came across communities, countries, and leaders who were taking up the often-difficult reforms needed to pursue self-reliance, we should strive to walk with them on that journey.

The policy framework that became known as the “Journey to Self-Reliance” may have been unveiled in Washington, DC, but it was really born many years earlier in a small village in rural Kenya.

In the little school where my wife Sue and I taught as volunteers, most of our classes had only one textbook for every half dozen students, forcing us to write out lessons word for word on the thick black paint that served as a chalkboard.

When the rains came, the moisture would blow in through our glassless windows and later drip down through holes in the corrugated tin roof, forcing students to rearrange their chairs to the driest parts of the classroom. When there were heavy downpours, the roar of rain against tin made teaching nearly impossible.

But our greatest challenge wasn’t the changing seasons or even the material shortages we faced each day; it was the financial costs that often kept families from sending their kids to school. There were the indirect costs: hours in the classroom or walking miles to school were hours not spent working the fields or retrieving water from a local pump or stream. There were the direct costs—school fees and uniforms—that put schooling simply out of reach for many.

Too many traditional aid programs are unintentionally patronizing. Without meaning to, they treat people as though they are hopeless and helpless—as though they need to be taken care of. Our goal was to seek out leaders who were doing whatever they could to help their people rise and their country to become more self-reliant.

And that tragedy was driven home to us every month or so when our headmaster felt compelled to “chase” students for money. He would solemnly walk into each classroom and then read off the names of those whose families had fallen behind in their payments. The “offending” students were expected to leave class immediately, not to return without some “small money” in hand.

I’ll never forget my first encounter with “chasing.” It was just a few days before an exam, and seven or eight students had their names called. While others kept taking notes—they were clearly accustomed to this process— these poor kids quietly stood up and left the room.

Not quite sure what to do, after a moment’s pause, I turned back to the chalkboard and began writing once again. A few minutes later, I heard a soft noise over my shoulder. When I stole a glance, I saw some of those same students carefully sneaking back into my class.

Thinking back to my days at Edison Junior High, now the notion of students sneaking 

But in our entire year at that small school, not one student ever asked us for money. They might ask for help with books or extra lessons, but they never asked us for a handout. They wanted opportunities—and the chance to work for them. What we saw in our students’ eyes—their desperation to learn—what we heard when their parents hosted us for tea in their mud-walled homes, what we felt when village leaders shared their hopes for the community’s future…

 was the basis for the “Journey to Self-Reliance” the Trump administration brought to USAID.

Too many traditional aid programs are unintentionally patronizing. Without meaning to, they treat people as though they are hopeless and helpless—as though they need to be taken care of. Our goal was to seek out leaders who were doing whatever they could to help their people rise and their country to become more self-reliant. Countries that weren’t waiting around for the world to help but were putting their own skin in the game and investing in their people to build their capacities and position them to seize opportunities for growth and development.

We wanted to play a role in helping countries go from being aid recipients to development partners to, in a perfect world, fellow donors. With those Kenyan students in mind, and many millions like them around the world, we wanted to walk with good leaders and their communities on their Journey to Self-Reliance.

Ambassador Mark A. Green (Ret.) is the president & CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He served as administrator of the US Agency for International Development from 2017-2020, US Ambassador to Tanzania from 2007-2009, and a Member of Congress (WI-8) from 1999-2007.

Cover photo: Sudanese Children suffering from malnutrition are treated at an MSF clinic in Metche Camp, Chad, near the Sudanese border, on April 6, 2024. AP Photo/Patricia Simon, File.

Ambassador Mark A. Green reflects on his time as USAID administrator and the policy framework he introduced, called the “Journey to Self-Reliance,” which is rooted in empowering communities and countries to achieve independence. Drawing on personal experiences in rural Kenya, Green writes about the importance of providing opportunities instead of handouts.

Foreword: The Work of the Kennan Institute Has Never Been More Important

Marking 50 years as America’s leading institution for research and scholarship on Russia and the former Soviet Union is a remarkable achievement. Reaching this milestone against the backdrop of open warfare between Russia and Ukraine—warfare with significant impacts in the immediate region and every corner of the world—demonstrates that the Kennan Institute’s work has never been more important.

An Era-Defining Conflict Brings Era-Defining Impacts

Not long after President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it was clear that he unleashed an era-defining conflict. The invasion has displaced more than 10 million Ukrainians, both 

. Poland, whose relations with Russia seem to worsen by the day, hosts the most Ukrainians in raw numbers, while Moldova (one of Europe’s poorest countries) hosts the largest number per capita.

While the war is breaking Europe of its established dependence on Russian imports, China, India, and Turkey have quickly moved to become the largest importers of Russian oil and gas. 

Nearly one million Russians also fled their homes, fearful they could be forced to become part of Putin’s war machine or face retribution for criticizing Kremlin policy. The flight of young Russians is rapidly becoming the country’s greatest “brain drain” since Soviet Union days. Of the estimated million who have left, nearly 90% are younger than 45 and approximately 80% are college educated.

Putin’s war is also having a significant impact on global food security. Russia and Ukraine are among the world’s largest producers of wheat and together, produce nearly a third of the world’s nitrogen-based fertilizer. In February 2024, NASA’s Global Food Security and Agriculture Consortium, NASA Harvest, reported that in 2023, Ukrainian farmers abandoned approximately 7.5% of the country’s cropland, while Russia’s military campaign increased production costs for Ukrainian farmers and reduced the country’s overall grain exports. Caitlin Welsh of the  Center for Strategic and International Studies 

 that the war has caused “the greatest military-related increase in global food insecurity in at least a century.”

The impact on the cost and availability of energy is even greater. In March 2024, Hugo Rojas-Romagosa wrote for the International Monetary Fund that the war had “disrupted the supply of natural gas for many European countries, triggering an energy crisis and affecting energy security.”

It also rapidly changed longstanding energy relationships. While the war is breaking Europe of its established dependence on Russian imports, China, India, and Turkey have quickly moved to become the largest importers of Russian oil and gas. But the most profound impacts of the war are felt by the Ukrainians themselves. Russia’s war atrocities are well-documented—from the 

” of more than 500 residents in the town of Bucha, to the 

 of more than 19,000 Ukrainian children. The UN Human Rights Council established an independent commission to document and review thousands of alleged incidents and its 

 are painful to read: indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians, widespread and systemic use of torture, rape and violence, and an overall “profound disregard towards human dignity” by Russian soldiers.

The tragedy of Alexei Navalny’s death reminds us that there is a competing vision for Russia and that Putin fears that vision and those who hold it.

With support from the US and Europe, Ukraine launched its own investigations into more than 120,000 claims. Of these cases, 511 perpetrators have already been identified and 80 convictions imposed—albeit in absentia—in Ukrainian courts. 

 a center in The Hague to help collect and preserve evidence and provide much-needed funding to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. In the US, four Russian military personnel have been charged for detaining and torturing an American citizen in Ukraine under our 

Much has been written about what drives Vladimir Putin and his belligerent foreign policy. Some claim that Russia’s declining economic fortunes mean that Putin needs an enemy to blame. In this case, Western institutions that he claims have conspired to keep Russia down. Others argue that Putin’s hold on power is built upon an ideological belief that democracy and market-based economics are creatures of the West and therefore alien to Eurasian culture. Therefore, if any country in the neighborhood becomes a successful capitalist democracy, the flaws in Russia’s autocratic approach become even more glaring. Still others argue that Putin is an unshakeable disciple of the myth of Russian “greatness.” They maintain that his military and economic adventurism is simply part of an ill-conceived drive to reclaim past glory and restore the empire. Putin wants the world to respect Russia and fear Russia. One sad reality of the war is that its brutality is overshadowed by what his country could and should be respected for: centuries of scientific and cultural contributions to civilization.

The tragedy of Alexei Navalny’s death reminds us that there is a competing vision for Russia and that Putin fears that vision and those who hold it. They believe in a Russia that is a modern, thriving democracy, one where corruption and injustice are held in check by limiting the power of officials and eliminating impunity—as Navalny liked to say, “the wonderful Russia of the future.” Opposition leaders and whistleblowers like Sergei Yushenkov, Anna Politkovskaya, Sergei Magnitsky, and Boris Nemtsov all championed this future and 

The Kennan Institute will analyze every development—bringing its independent, scholarship-driven approach to help us better understand past and current events, which often happen in a whirl, so that world leaders and policymakers can be cleareyed when helping shape and prepare for what lies ahead.

Following an attempt on his life in 2020, Navalny bravely returned to Russia and was immediately detained, tried, and convicted on dubious charges of fraud and embezzlement. In August 2023, he was charged again—this time for funding and promoting “extremism” and was sentenced to another 19 years in prison. From behind bars, Navalny remained a strong voice for the Russian opposition and a force to be reckoned with, a voice that wouldn’t and couldn’t be silenced, even after his transfer to a penal colony in the Arctic Circle.

When the Kremlin staged a faux election to extend Putin’s time as president, despite all the elaborate steps taken to project pro-Putin unity, democracy activists still found subtle ways to show the world that Navalny’s death wouldn’t end their movement. In the words of former Kennan Institute fellow Lucian Kim, who recalled in a 

 observations he made while serving as an Moscow-based NPR correspondent a few years ago: “Everywhere I went in Russia, I met people who wanted freedom, peace, and justice. They are still in Russia, and they are still alive.”

Whenever I am asked about Russia’s future, the courage of my friend, Vladimir Kara-Murza comes to mind. Vladimir, a Russian journalist and political activist, was sentenced in April 2023 to 25 years in a Russian prison because he dared to speak out against Putin's war on Ukraine. When presented with his pre-ordained guilty verdict, Kara-Murza said courageously: “I subscribe to every word that I have spoken and every word of which I have been accused by this court. I blame myself for only one thing: that over the years of my political activity, I have not managed to convince enough of my compatriots and enough politicians in the democratic countries of the danger that the current regime in the Kremlin poses for Russia and for the world. Today this is obvious to everyone, but at a terrible price—the price of war.”

Kara-Murza’s refusal to recant or back down is especially courageous because he knows all too well the ruthlessness of Putin’s Kremlin. In both 2015 and 2017, he was poisoned by Kremlin agents, and nearly died as a result.

I first met Kara-Murza in 2015, not long after he emerged from his first coma. Though he was still in the hospital when he learned that the International Republican Institute and its then-chairman John McCain was presenting a posthumous Freedom Award in honor of Kara-Murza’s friend, pro-democracy leader Boris Nemtsov, he insisted on attending the ceremonies honoring Nemtsov’s life and public service. This took extraordinary effort, as he needed a cane to help move his partially paralyzed body any significant distance. His soft and raspy voice demonstrated the lingering effects of the breathing tube needed during his coma.

We chatted privately before the ceremony began, and I asked if there was a message he wanted me to bring to the policymakers and democracy community. Despite his weakness, his eyes burned brightly and he declared, “Never give up on the Russian people. Never give up on the Russian people!” 

I’ve never forgotten his admonition. And as the Kennan Institute marks its 50th anniversary, despite all that has happened in recent years—the atrocities committed in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s brutal repression of critics at home—there are still competing visions for Russia’s future. Vladimir Putin sees a world where Russia’s neighbors bend their knee before Moscow and the West trembles in fear of the Kremlin’s ruthless might. Kara-Murza, on the other hand, sees a world where the Russian people are the center of its power. The clash of these visions has profound implications for Russia, its neighbors, and the world.

 is the President and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. From 2017 to 2020, Green served as administrator of the US Agency for International Development. He also served as President of the International Republican Institute, and Senior Director at the US Global Leadership Coalition. Green served as the US Ambassador to Tanzania from 2007 to 2009, as well as four terms in the US House of Representatives where he represented Wisconsin’s 8th District.

Cover Photo: Monument of Independence of Ukraine in Kiev, May 2018. Historical sights of Ukraine. Shutterstock/

Wilson Center CEO Ambassador Mark Green elaborates on the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war and the need for insightful analyses in his foreword to the issue. As the premier institution of research and scholarship on Russia and the former Soviet Union, he believes that the Kennan Institute is more important than ever. 

As America’s leading institution on Russian research and scholarship marks its 50th year, its relevance is skyrocketing.

The Work of the Kennan Institute Has Never Been More Important

Maneuvering the United Nations in Shifting Global Waters

As global alliances undergo profound changes and traditional coalitions are increasingly taking a back seat to both formal and informal partnerships, we look to the United Nations. Arguably the biggest, most established global governing alliance, it often comes under criticism for being too big and too bureaucratic. With the emergence of regional and issue-specific coalitions, how can the UN be most effective in addressing today’s complex challenges? To explore these issues, we turn to 

 (retired), who served as US Ambassador to the United Nations. He speaks with Wilson Center President and CEO, 

Throughout your career you’ve negotiated or been involved in some of the most groundbreaking, robust, and many would say successful, agreements between nations—the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and the North American Free Trade Agreement among them. How does today’s evolving landscape of alliances, multilateral institutions, and ad hoc alliances affect how we go about the business of global problem solving?

Our relative power on the world stage has declined in recent decades, but we remain the most influential country in the world. So our ability to help shape the international agenda remains strong, and leaders around the globe almost invariably seek our involvement in dealing with serious problems—whether bilateral, regional, or truly global in nature. The way we go about problem-solving has not particularly changed over the years and I would say that the US approach has essentially been pragmatic. Sometimes we will resort to the UN Security Council and its related agencies. Indispensable work is done by UN Peacekeeping Operations—especially in Africa—and UN Humanitarian agencies such as the UNHCR, the World Food Program and UNICEF (to mention just three) alleviate suffering and distress in hotspots all around the world. 

During the Vietnam War, because it was a conflict between US and Soviet proxies, the Security Council was unable to do anything to broker peace in Vietnam. On the other hand, when the Cold War ended, there was a revival of UN influence on issues almost across the board.

The Treaty function is another important way of dealing with difficult international problems. You mention the 

—which is a treaty. It now has 198 signatories, and has been one of the most successful international agreements of recent years. And, of course, the NAFTA agreement, and more recently the USMCA, has been foundational to the efforts of ourselves, Canada, and Mexico to foster a North American approach to the region’s economic issues. There are numerous other mechanisms and approaches. Working with treaty allies, such as NATO or economic partners such as the European Union, remain bedrock elements of our foreign and national security policy.

As a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, you’ve tried to steer the biggest tanker of them all. Can the UN be as nimble as is needed in today’s increasingly fractured world?

The UN has many different parts. I sometimes respond to that question by saying, Which UN are you talking about? Do you mean the Secretary General? The Security Council? One of the six main UN Committees? Or the humanitarian agencies? It is fair to say that, overall, the UN has a mixed record. But we must remember that the United Nations consists of its country members. Individual states are members of the UN and we members are responsible for whether or not the institution is successful in its work. It is true that the ability of the UN to work effectively can depend substantially on the state of relations between the great powers. If, like during the Cold War, relations between the superpowers are poor, work at the United Nations becomes more difficult.

The single most important factor impeding UN effectiveness is the absence of great power harmony.

For example, during the Vietnam War, because it was a conflict between US and Soviet proxies, the Security Council was unable to do anything to broker peace in 

. On the other hand, when the Cold War ended, there was a revival of UN influence on issues almost across the board—especially during the 1990s. Even today, when something of a Cold War atmosphere has returned, the UN and its agencies can play a significant role in such matters as peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, and numerous other issues. We should always think of the UN and its agencies as one of the tools in our diplomatic tool kit. As 

 like to say, “When all is said and done, if the United Nations didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.”

With the growth of ad hoc alliances—which some have dubbed “minilaterals“—is the United Nations more or less relevant as it once was?  

Alliances play a critical role in United States foreign policy; so too do “coalitions of the willing” and other forms of partnership. A pragmatic foreign policy will use the multiple tools available to achieve its objectives, including secret diplomacy. Think of the various secret initiatives ongoing with respect to the Middle East—especially Gaza. President Wilson, a proponent of “open covenants, openly arrived at,” might have objected.

We should never underestimate or neglect the very valuable network of friends we have around the world—and, of course, we must cultivate them as best we can.

There is no indication that multilateral and “minilateral” alliances are slowing down. How can the United Nations be most effective in addressing the biggest global challenges for which it was created?

The single most important factor impeding UN effectiveness is the absence of great power harmony—that is to say, between the five permanent members of the security council: China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. The ideal would be if they saw the biggest problems of the world in the same way. Next best would be that—notwithstanding differing views—that they make earnest efforts to either forge consensus, or at least avoid use of their veto except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Tension between great powers reverberates through the system; conversely, harmony at the top can make it easier to manage problems down the line. 

I think we can expect the United States to continue to play a strong role in international affairs for as far as the eye can see. We have a strong economy and a strong national defense. We have robust alliance relations and partnerships in North America, Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. Even in regions where we do not have actual alliances, such as South America or Africa, we have long established economic, security, and people-to-people ties. We should never underestimate or neglect the very valuable network of friends we have around the world—and, of course, we must cultivate them as best we can.

 is vice chair of McLarty Associates and has held a number of high-level diplomatic positions including United States Ambassador to the United Nations. 

 is the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Among other leadership roles, Green served as Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, as the US Ambassador to Tanzania, and for four terms in the US House of Representatives.

Cover photo: Exterior of the United Nations building in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo by 

United Nations building in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo by nexus 7/Shutterstock.

As global alliances undergo profound changes and traditional coalitions are increasingly taking a back seat to both formal and informal partnerships, we look to the United Nations. Arguably the biggest, most established global governing alliance, it often comes under criticism for being too big and too bureaucratic. With the emergence of regional and issue-specific coalitions, how can the UN be most effective in addressing today’s complex challenges? To explore these issues, we turn to Ambassador John Negroponte (retired), who served as US Ambassador to the United Nations. He speaks with Wilson Center President and CEO, Ambassador Mark A. Green (retired). 

With the emergence of more nimble coalitions, how can the UN meet the challenges of today? Explore the issues with former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte.

Ambassador Mark A. Green (Retired)