Rohingya refugee children from Myanmar read the Quran in a Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, on April 16, 2018. Investing in preventive humanitarian assistance can save the United States money in the long run, writes Patrick Quirk. (Shutterstock/Richard Juillart)

Why Saving the Children in Other Countries Is National Security

Share this link on Facebook

Share this page on X (Twitter)

Share this link on LinkedIn

Share this page on Reddit

Email a link to this page

Investing in preventive humanitarian assistance both saves money and ameliorates the causes of conflict.

At a moment when America’s role in the world is under intense debate, and Congress gears up for a post-midterm budget battle, new polling finds bipartisan majorities support US investments in humanitarian relief, global health, education, and economic development. The findings reinforce a broader trend: Americans continue to believe they should help people facing hunger, conflict, and humanitarian emergencies.

They are right to do so. Helping children in crisis is not only a moral imperative. It is also an investment in a safer and more stable world. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill should take heed.

For the first time in history, the capital exists to ensure no child dies from preventable causes before the age of five. For investors focused on American security, there’s no better return on investment out there.

Intra-state violence is escalating globally, and children are suffering the most. Across the world, more than one in six children—over 473 million—live in conflict-affected areas, a number that has doubled since the 1990s.

From Syria to Myanmar, Ukraine to Haiti, children in conflict zones are starving, falling behind in education, and contracting preventable diseases. This unnecessary suffering is not only terrible for........

© The National Interest