Why This Is Important: Bush's political steps toward Africa, along with his consideration of troop deployment, highlight the marked growth of his foreign policy. Bush campaigned against nation building -- and now we're in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Liberia, doing just that. This is an important withdrawal from the GOP voices that call for an America First policy (which is typically, though not always, disguised isolationism) and an evolution toward a more mature, balanced policy. Part of the shift is attributable to September 11th. Bush needed to realize that aggressive engagement with foes (and with friends and erstwhile allies) was the only way to protect America. Clinton's world engagement, on the other hand, was a product of a lazy and undisciplined foreign policy (and a desire to admired).

Now, obviously the Bush administration has not reached for the crown of international police and aid agency. In fact, I suspect that his Africa tour will -- as it should -- culminate in a realignment of priorities for American funds. It's time to stop giving money to countries that are impoverished; too often they remain so despite the aid (and often because of the aid). Instead, we should reward market reforms, economic transparency, rule of law, and democratic franchise. (Emergency famine aid should continue, but via relief efforts that bypass corrupt and incompetent governments that exacerbate disaster.) Arguably, socialism (and various quasi-socialistic kleptocracies in which it manifests itself) has done more harm to Africa than drought. It's time to end the feel-good charade in which we offer international welfare and food stamps to regimes (and wantings thereof), assuming we have done our humanitarian duty. Like domestic welfare, this breeds helplessness, resentment, and perverse incentives; and like the Iraqi oil-for-food program, this kind of "charity" is easily manipulated by the powerful, which in some cases (Somalia, for instance) is anyone with a gun. Paying people to be poor has never worked; and it always breeds extra employees.

That said, don't hold your breath for anything too sweeping. We won't cut off aid to Egypt tomorrow (although we probably should), although we might quietly step up some demands to, say, reign in a virulently anti-American, anti-Israel press, at least until some progress is made toward a Palestinian state. But it wouldn't surprise me to see repeat offenders in the Famine-Aid-Corruption racket (Tanzania, Ethiopia) get a little stick to go along with the carrots we're buying them. A rush and a push on GM food aid might get the African bureaucracy to buck Europe on the very crops that could save lives efficiently and quickly.

As we've seen domestically, weaning the poor off charity is politically and socially tough business. We're not yet saving much money from welfare "reform" and poverty hasn't run up the white flag yet. But we can take tougher measures with foreign countries. They don't get to vote -- and if they don't like our conditions, they can find someone else to subsidize their poverty. It's immoral for us to continue doing so.