The protection of U.S. political, economic, and/or security interests should be seen as an added bonus to-- not the primary driving force of-- humanitarian efforts which prevent and resolve conflict, reduce poverty, protect health, and promote and defend human rights. 

Sadly, this outlandish concept that we should promote human rights because it's the right thing to do, rather than because those individuals live on, say, bountiful oil reserves, is not reflected in reality.

For the past eight years, U.S. foreign policy making has been monopolized by the Department of Defense and, for decades, U.S. policymakers have chosen to support the ideals of democracy and freedom only where it was in the interest of the United States to do so.

But, as we've been reminded many times over the last few weeks, elections do matter.  And, as in other aspects of policy making, there exists a great opportunity in this new administration and in this new congress to rethink our approaches to U.S. foreign policy. 

There is an opportunity to affirm international development as a core component of foreign policy, alongside defense and diplomacy, and restructure our efforts to measure the success of our foreign aid not by the U.S. interests that have been protected, but by the positive political, economic, or social change within recipient countries.

For far too long, foreign aid and international development programs have been subscribed to the sidelines of political discourse around U.S. global engagement.  With our military deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a looming war on terror which lacks a traditional nation-state home base, and a need to maintain the security of our borders against outside threats, it's not hard to see how this may have come to be. 

But we need to outgrow the use of humanitarian assistance and development programming as covers for securing U.S. interests abroad.  Soft power, as it were, is a positive alternative to hard power, which relies almost exclusively on military might.  Read: the carrot often makes a great deal more sense than the stick. 

But what if we started to follow the example of other international donors-- particularly those in Europe-- by basing our development assistance on humanitarian concerns rather than self-interest?  Or, you know, giving people carrots just because they were hungry, not because giving them carrots would appease their hunger and thus deter them from becoming political dissidents or terrorist actors in a way that could disrupt U.S. security.

All this being said, where are we now?

We have a President who is aware of the challenges we face in restoring U.S. leadership abroad, who recognizes the value of soft power (yes, still limiting, but it's a start), and who is attune to the fact that we must no longer rely on military might at the expense of broader diplomatic strategies.

In President Obama's inaugural address he spoke to the peoples and governments of the world, "from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us.  I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate. 

It is time that we end the politicization of this issue.  In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.

• More multilateral aid through international organizations like the United Nations and the Global Fund to Prevent AIDS, TB, and Malaria and donor coordination in cases of bilateral aid.  This limits the extent to which U.S. government interests are infused into foreign assistance strategies and makes most everything easier for aid recipient countries.
• Agency coordination.  For example, in current policy (and, for the most part, practice), HIV/AIDS programs aren't integrated with reproductive health programs.  This is just outrageous.  And that's just a specific example of a ginormous issue that spans the whole of the U.S. development establish, which is spread out across the Executive Branch. 
• A focus on outcomes, oriented towards recipient countries and communities.  Goals and objectives should not be set based on the priorities of donor countries alone.