Are these countries very poor, where PEPFAR would be a huge percent of their GDP,
They can be poor at the moment, and you can hope they will eventually be rich, so you can trade with them. Maybe you try to make that happen. It’s uncertain, yes, and in some cases not very likely at all. But it can still be one of your reasons.
or are they so rich that the goodwill generated exceeds the charity?
It’s unlikely you’ll make a net profit off them right now. You can; occasionally there’s some really valuable deal. In expectation it’s probably a financial loss in the near term. But it’s not a dead loss in expectation.
And you might cut down on the number other governments that decide not to let you run a road across a corner of their territory or whatever. And on the number of random not-necessarily-government people harassing shipping. People who aren’t profitable trading partners, or even in the picture on a particular aid decision, can still seriously obstruct things that are profitable.
Or, is it that they virtue signal to other, richer countries that America is a benevolent dictator, and it’s okay to keep the dollar hegemony?
Sure, that’s one big reason. Did you think I’d say it wasn’t?
I mean, I’m not saying USAID was anywhere near the core of it, but that hegemony didn’t happen for no reason to begin with. It helps to be big, it helps to be everywhere, it helps to be ready to deal, it helps to be at least relatively trustworthy about keeping bargains, and it helps to have not been as devastated as everybody else in a huge war at a critical time. But it also truly helps to be seen as the “good guy”.
The hope you mention for reciprocity from future hegemons is also a possible reason, although I don’t know that the people actually making the decisions are thinking in those terms, and I’m not sure that memories are that long.
You can do this stuff because you think your people want to help the unfortunate overseas[1] , and because you want to cut down on the amount of HIV or whatever sloshing around the planet[2], and because it plays well with people in other rich countries, and because it makes poor countries less likely to get in your way just because they can, and because it may build markets, and because it’s cover for both spies and not-spies-who-are-still-good-information-sources, and because it tends to mean you get consulted (or at least hear about it) when people are making decisions about this or that region, and for whatever other reasons, and no single one of them has to carry the entire burden.
You’d like to eradicate it domestically, but you can’t actually do that without eradicating it globally. Sure, it’s a long-term project, but it never happens if you don’t work on it.
They can be poor at the moment, and you can hope they will eventually be rich, so you can trade with them. Maybe you try to make that happen. It’s uncertain, yes, and in some cases not very likely at all. But it can still be one of your reasons.
It’s unlikely you’ll make a net profit off them right now. You can; occasionally there’s some really valuable deal. In expectation it’s probably a financial loss in the near term. But it’s not a dead loss in expectation.
And you might cut down on the number other governments that decide not to let you run a road across a corner of their territory or whatever. And on the number of random not-necessarily-government people harassing shipping. People who aren’t profitable trading partners, or even in the picture on a particular aid decision, can still seriously obstruct things that are profitable.
Sure, that’s one big reason. Did you think I’d say it wasn’t?
I mean, I’m not saying USAID was anywhere near the core of it, but that hegemony didn’t happen for no reason to begin with. It helps to be big, it helps to be everywhere, it helps to be ready to deal, it helps to be at least relatively trustworthy about keeping bargains, and it helps to have not been as devastated as everybody else in a huge war at a critical time. But it also truly helps to be seen as the “good guy”.
The hope you mention for reciprocity from future hegemons is also a possible reason, although I don’t know that the people actually making the decisions are thinking in those terms, and I’m not sure that memories are that long.
You can do this stuff because you think your people want to help the unfortunate overseas[1] , and because you want to cut down on the amount of HIV or whatever sloshing around the planet[2], and because it plays well with people in other rich countries, and because it makes poor countries less likely to get in your way just because they can, and because it may build markets, and because it’s cover for both spies and not-spies-who-are-still-good-information-sources, and because it tends to mean you get consulted (or at least hear about it) when people are making decisions about this or that region, and for whatever other reasons, and no single one of them has to carry the entire burden.
Which a large majority of them do, by the way.
You’d like to eradicate it domestically, but you can’t actually do that without eradicating it globally. Sure, it’s a long-term project, but it never happens if you don’t work on it.