The President’s FY11 International Affairs Budget request represents only 1.4% of the entire federal budget and less than 7% of national security funding.    Knowing the great need that exists for more funding for development and diplomacy, the military leaders close their letter saying, “we urge you to support no less than the Administration’s request of $58.5 billion for the International Affairs Budget.”

The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, of which USGLC is a member, identifies increased funding and accountability of foreign assistance as a priority action in “New Day, New Way: U.S. Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century.”

Click here to view the letter.

In an effort to address the many global challenges the U.S. faces today through increased partnership and multilateral engagement, Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and Congressman Anh “Joe” Cao (R-LA) created the American Engagement Caucus.  The new caucus establishes a forum for Members to discuss best practices and lessons learned from international bodies like the United Nations and the African Union and partnerships made between countries to overcome threats.  A statement from the caucus reads “America’s security, economic, environmental, and moral interests are inextricably linked with those of the international community.  The United States must find creative new approaches for working with other nations to create a safer, more peaceful, prosperous, and just world.”

MFAN Principal and President and CEO of InterAction Sam Worthington noted, “We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with the new American Engagement Caucus and Representatives Carnahan and Cao as we draw on our common goal of an American foreign policy that demonstrates in word and deed the desire of the American people to work in a bipartisan manner with all of our partners and with multilateral institutions to build a more just and sustainable world.”

The American Engagement Caucus is guided by the following principles:

• Smart Power: To achieve its security objectives, America must project smart power—a blend of military strength and creative diplomacy. America always reserves the right to act in service of its national interests, but prefers and prioritizes international cooperation to address common concerns and shared objectives
• Don’t Go It Alone: In today’s interconnected world, America can’t go it alone. International cooperation is a better way of addressing some of the world’s key problems, whether they are economic problems, environmental problems, or problems of peace and war.
• Cooperation and global partnerships are essential for security: Given threats from terrorist groups ad unstable foreign regimes with nuclear capabilities, working with other countries around the world is essential to our security. Other nations can help shoulder the burden of counterterrorism efforts, especially in regions where the U.S. may lack access and leverage. And America must balance our military might with diplomacy in order to successfully address global security challenges like nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
• International engagement expands trade opportunities: By creating new international markets, we cancapitalize on the power of American innovation to spur economic development and job growth here at home.
• A srong relationship between the U.S. and the United Nations is key to rebuilding alliances and keeping us safe: Our standing in the world is in large ways shaped by and representative of our engagement with the United Nations. It is in America’s economic, environmental and security interest to work with the UN to solve global challenges.
• America’s economic and environmental interests are irrefutably connected: Addressing climate change through new, clean energy strategies will reduce our dependence on oil, revitalize the American heartland and give developing countries a chance to meet their own energy needs and alleviate poverty.

Current membership for the American Engagement Caucus includes:

• Russ Carnahan (D-MO)
• Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA)
• Brad Miller (D-NC)
• Laura Richardson (D-CA)
• Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
• Joe Sestak (D-PA)
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
• Mike Honda (D-CA)

Click here to read an op-ed from The Hill on the American Engagement Caucus

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a forceful case to Congress last week on the importance of President Obama’s recently submitted request for the fiscal 2011 International Affairs Budget.  In four separate hearings – on back-to-back days – before House and Senate authorizers and appropriators, Clinton discussed the budget request for U.S. foreign affairs spending and explicitly linked it to our national security and national interests.

Of the $4.9 billion increase from FY2010, $3.6 billion would go to what the State Department calls “frontline states”—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.  The remainder represents a mere 2.7% increase that Clinton said would “address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people and resources.”

She acknowledged current economic constraints, citing her former role as U.S. Senator and the valid concerns of constituents across the country: “For every dollar we spend, we have to show results.” But she went on to affirm that the budget request supports programs that are “vital to our national security, our national interests, and our leadership in the world, while guarding against waste, duplication, and irrelevancy.”

In elevating the role of development within U.S. foreign policy, Clinton said the budget “makes targeted investments in fragile societies which, in our interconnected world, bear heavily on our own security and prosperity.”  She also argued for paying it forward, that a little bit now will go a long way: “These investments are a key part of our effort to get ahead of crises rather than just responding to them, positioning us to deal with the threats and challenges that lie before us.”  To bring this point home, she emphasized: “We can bury our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later, or we can make hard-nosed, targeted investments now, addressing the security challenges of today while building a stronger foundation for security and prosperity in the future.”

She highlighted the Administration’s global food security and health initiatives, along with climate change, as the major components of the budget’s investments in development.  A cross-cutting focus of these initiatives is women and girls “who are the key drivers of economic and social progress in the developing world.”

There will also be money for an additional 410 Foreign Service Officers at the State Department and 200 at USAID in an ongoing effort to ramp up civilian capacity.

“These initiatives are designed to enhance American security, help people in need, and give the American people a strong return on their investment,” Clinton concluded.  “Our aim is not to create dependency, but to help people develop solutions that they can sustain for themselves over the long term.”

Senate

“Alleviating Global Hunger:  Challenges and Opportunities for U.S. Leadership”

March 24, 2009 – Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Panel I - The Honorable Daniel R. Glickman, the Honorable Catherine A. Bertini, MFAN Co-chair David Beckmann, Robert Paarlberg.

Panel II - Edwin C. Price, Gebisa Ejeta.

“The Obama administration, especially Secretary Clinton, is actively considering what is needed to make our aid programs better coordinated and more effective…But right now, people outside the beltway don’t have a very effective way to urge their senators to show their support for the Committee’s work for foreign assistance reform. We need a bill or resolution they can ask their senators to cosponsor.” (Beckmann)

“USAID in the 21^st Century”

April 1, 2009 – Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, MFAN Principal Steve Radelet, MFAN Principal Carol Lancaster.

“For our development policies and programs to contribute to the U.S. smart power agenda, we need to be smarter about who sets our development policies, how they inform the decision-making process and where they sit within the U.S. government.” (Radelet)

“There is more consensus today than ever before among our political leadership, public officials, scholars and policy analysts and the American public that promoting development abroad should be a key element in US foreign policy – along with diplomacy and defense.” (Lancaster)

“The Case for Reform:  Foreign Aid and Development in a New Era”

July 22, 2009 – Senate Foreign Relations Committee

MFAN Principal Peter McPherson, MFAN Co-chair David Beckmann, Jeffrey D. Sachs.

“While foreign assistance is part of overall U.S. foreign policy, development must have a strong voice to articulate how a development strategy strengthens foreign policy goals.” (McPherson)

“When we try to achieve defense and diplomatic goals with the same dollars, aid is usually much less effective in reducing poverty. In my mind, that’s the basic reason we need a strong development agency, with its own capacity to plan and carry out programs. These programs should be coordinated with other foreign policy purposes, but distinct from them.” (Beckmann)

House

“Foreign Assistance Reform:  Rebuilding U.S. Civilian Development and Diplomatic Capacity in the 21^st Century”

June 25, 2008 – House Committee on Foreign Affairs

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, MFAN Principal Peter McPherson, MFAN Principal J. Brian Atwood

“Because of these staff cuts, USAID has been forced to move from an implementation to a contracting agency…The existing situation means less coherence in the overall effort, less flexibility and diminished leverage with other private and public donors.” (McPherson)

“Diplomacy and development are mutually reinforcing assets in preventing conflict, but they are distinct missions requiring very different mandates and resources. Unfortunately, these two missions have been pitted against one another as rivals for a limited resource base within the foreign affairs budget (the 150 account).” (Atwood)

“Building a 21^st-Century Workforce”

February 25, 2009 – House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations

Thomas Pickering, Prudence Bushnell, MFAN Principal Jim Kunder.

“The Role of Civilian and Military Agencies in the Advancement of America’s Diplomatic and Development Objectives”

March 5, 2009 – House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations

John Hamre, MFAN Principal Nancy Lindborg, Gordon Adams, George E. Moose.

“…we now must turn more effectively to the challenge of “complex development” in countries burdened by a potent combination of deep poverty, insecurity and weak governance. The solution in these environments is not humanitarian in the sense of saving lives, but rather adapts the fundamentals of development practice to the challenges of these complex environments.” (Lindborg)

“Striking the Appropriate Balance:  the Defense Department’s Expanding Role in Foreign Assistance”

March 18, 2009 – House Committee on Foreign Affairs

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, General Michael W. Hagee,  MFAN Principal Nancy Lindborg, MFAN Principal ReubenBrigety, the Honorable Philip L. Christenson.

“We now have a pivotal political moment, with an emerging and welcome bi-partisan consensus in Washington and beyond around the idea of “smart power – the notion that America’s foreign policy is best served when there is a more balanced application and funding of the now familiar “Three Ds” of Diplomacy, Defense, and Development.” (Lindborg)

“Development assistance is not just a moral good or a matter of enlightened self-interest. It is in our vital national interests. There is no greater evidence of this than the military’s increasing involvement in this sphere.”(Brigety)

“U.S. Assistance to Africa:  A Call to Foreign Aid Reform”

April 23, 2009 – House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa & Global Health

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Earl Gast, Ousmane Badiane, MFAN Principal Steve Radelet, Meredeth Turshen, Bill O’Keefe.

“We can, and must, do better with our foreign assistance. But we must also bear in mind that foreign assistance alone will not be enough to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals…Getting a bigger bang for our development bucks requires being smarter about our development strategy, legislation and organizational apparatus.” (Radelet)

“Hearing on USAID: Management Challenges and Strategic Objectives”

April 28, 2009 – House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement

Mike Walsh, MFAN Princpal Jim Kunder, MFAN Co-chair George Ingram, Thomas Melito.

“While we perform many important humanitarian and development services around the world, it is notable that there is not a comprehensive model for foreign aid from the United States that addresses, worldwide, our nation’s strategic goals and the needs of the developing world.” (Kunder)

“The trend toward focusing on the results of development projects is a good thing. We should care about whether our developmentdollars are invested in ways that improve peoples’ lives.” (Ingram)

“A Call to Action on Food Security:  the Administration’s Global Strategy”

October 29, 2009 – House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa & Global Health

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Thomas Melito, Helene Gayle, Julie Howard, MFAN Co-chair David Beckmann, Richard Leach.

“The appetite for meaningful reform of our food security efforts – and more broadly our foreign assistance programs – is large right now. But the window of opportunity for enacting reform is small. We must collectively capitalize on this rare moment in history to help poor people around the world.” (Beckmann)

• To strengthen the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) by extending its benefits and focusing on trade capacity building;
• To put more fairness in US preference programs by creating a new model that extends duty-free, quota-free preferences, as well as encouraging trade and capacity building among Least Developed Countries (LDC); and,
• To simplify and extend the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) by instituting a new single rule of origin and reviewing the current GSP statutory exclusions that were first established in 1974.

To accomplish these goals, the act calls for the creation of the following:

• An Office of Trade and Competitiveness for Least Developed Countries (LDC) and African Countries in the White House that is responsible for planning, developing and coordinating trade capacity building and private sector competitiveness programs; and,
• A Trade Capacity Coordinating Committee to organize federal TCB programs, focusing on infrastructure, labor and environmental standards, trade facilitation, economic opportunity and relationships with NGOs, donors and contractors. The Committee is to be made up of the Director of the Office of Trade and Competition; the US Trade Representative;  and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, State and Defense.

Also on the panel were: Dr. Helene Gayle, President and Chief Executive Officer of MFAN partner organization CARE; Thomas Melito, Director, International Affairs and Trade Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Julie Howard, Executive Director of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa; and Richard Leach, Senior Advisor for Public Policy at Friends of the World Food Program.

In his testimony, Beckmann praised the Consultation Document that has been released by the State Department on the U.S. Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, calling it “a thoughtful, coherent, comprehensive approach to hunger and malnutrition.”  He added that it “includes several core principles that form a blueprint for broader reform of U.S. foreign assistance that Bread for the World and the other organizations in MFAN subscribe to: investing in country-led plans; enhancing strategic coordination both within the U.S. government and among international institutions, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and civil society; leveraging the assets and tools of existing multilateral actors; and establishing benchmarks and targets as part of transparent and accountable evaluation systems.”

Beckmann made an impassioned plea for an empowered, distinct U.S. development agency: “When we try to achieve defense and diplomatic goals with development dollars, aid is much less effective in reducing poverty.  In my mind, that’s the basic reason we need a strong development agency, with its own capacity to plan and carry out programs.  These programs should be coordinated with other foreign policy purposes, but distinct from them.”

He further called for the Coordinator of the administration’s food security initiative to be based out of the U.S. government’s lead development agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID): “Despite the fact that USAID continues to languish without an administrator, I strongly believe that the coordinator of the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative should reside at USAID. Agriculture production in poor countries is fundamentally a development issue and should be led by our chief development agency. For far too long, we have usurped the critical responsibility of USAID to lead on the key development issues of the day through the proliferation of new entities and work-arounds. This has led to a fragmentation of our development policies so severe that it has perpetuated a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more we farm out USAID’s authority, the more incoherent and convoluted our development assistance apparatus becomes.”

“We cannot afford to continue on this road. President Obama and Secretary Clinton are committed to elevating development as a coequal pillar of U.S. foreign policy alongside defense and diplomacy. To do so successfully, the U.S. government needs to have a strong and distinct development voice at the policy discussion table that can speak on behalf of development issues in a credible way. The new USAID Administrator should designate a high-level representative to coordinate the interagency efforts of the global food security initiative.”

In his other points, Beckmann urged that improved nutrition be a primary indicator of success, stating that “focusing our agriculture and food security investments on improving the nutrition of women and children will shape better, more targeted programs that have a lasting development impact… And, because nutrition is affected by other factors such as access to basic health care services and the protection of women and girls, measuring the impact of U.S. investments on the nutritional status of women and children will also tell us how well our overall development efforts are working.”

He also pushed for more consultation with civil society and governments in developing countries: “The United States should insist that the process of developing and implementing country-led food security plans include the network of local institutions focused on alleviating hunger and poverty.  By including local civil society organizations, faith groups, farmer cooperatives, private voluntary organizations, and local advocacy groups in identifying problems and solutions to hunger and undernutrition, the effectiveness of U.S. investments will increase.  Inclusive participation will also increase commitment at all levels, making the grants the U.S. provides more sustainable over time.”

Beckmann concluded his testimony by underscoring the historic opportunity the U.S. for foreign assistance reform: “The appetite for meaningful reform of our food security efforts – and more broadly our foreign assistance programs – is large right now. But the window of opportunity for enacting reform is small. We must collectively capitalize on this rare moment in history to help poor people around the world… To ensure its overall success, it is imperative that…the Initiative serve as a building block for lasting foreign assistance reform.”

In her testimony, Dr. Gayle called for the following elements of a successful food security initiative: 1) flexible approaches to food assistance; 2) moving away from the practice of monetization as part of modernizing our food assistance system; 3) gender integration and women’s empowerment; and 4) the creation of social safety net systems that prevent people on the margins from falling into extreme poverty.

As we noted yesterday, WWF US President and CEO Carter Roberts, one of the world’s leading conservationists, has a unique view on foreign assistance reform.  Today, he brought his message to Capitol Hill for a bi-cameral hearing on the innovative Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), hosted by Rep. Ed Royce (D-CA), chair of the International Conservation Caucus.  In his testimony at the hearing, Roberts drew important links between conservation and foreign assistance reform:

“More work should also be done, for the benefit of the Congo Basin and other developing countries, by the U.S. government to modernize its foreign assistance.  We are in need of an overarching development strategy that recognizes the critical importance of securing the underlying natural resource base. We need a USAID Administrator and a strengthened development agency to carry out programs like the model CBFP in other regions and scale up efforts to meet pressing natural resource challenges. And we need to help build the capacity of civil society and governments within these regions so that host countries will own these programs and assure their sustainability into the future.”

For more information on the hearing, click here.

For more information on WWF’s foreign assistance reform work, click here.

In his rousing speech at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative yesterday, President Obama tied together his administration’s recurrent themes of international collaboration, public-private cooperation, and service. By planting these themes in the context of our highly globalized world—the ways in which it presents real opportunities and grave threats, Obama struck chords resonant with his campaign’s global development and democracy policy statement to “strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity.”

The key feature of his speech was a call for a new spirit of global partnership, emphasizing that real progress in lifting millions out of poverty and countering transnational threats cannot be made by governments alone. The president declared his desire for this spirit to guide his administration and he referred to it as “a defining feature of our foreign policy.”

It is heartening to hear the president say “we’re renewing development as a key element of American foreign policy,” and he is right to place significant importance on the role of public-private partnerships and service. Of course the devil is in the details.

In a piece we wrote this summer, Brookings colleagues Homi Kharas, Johannes Linn and I recommended elevating global development on the administration’s agenda and we commented on key elements of reforming U.S. global development policies and operations: leadership, strategy and legislation.

On the issue of partnerships, there are a number of straightforward steps the U.S. government could take to advance global development efforts. These are presented in Strengthening America’s Global Development Partnerships: A Policy Blueprint for Better Collaboration Between the U.S. Government, Business and Civil Society, a paper I wrote with Jane Nelson, another Brookings colleague who is also the director of the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard and a Director of the International Business Leaders Forum. Here’s the brief summary:

In the face of compounding global crises threatening development, the outdated U.S. foreign assistance system must catch up to a changed landscape of influential actors including corporations, mega-foundations, faith-based organizations and other non-governmental groups. Within the context of broader foreign assistance reform, the Obama administration and Congress have an opportunity to retool official U.S. efforts to more effectively and efficiently support global development by adapting to this new ecosystem. This paper offers recommendations on how the U.S. government can better position itself by:

• Strengthening its capabilities to make innovative and strategic investments;
• Encouraging cross-sector partnerships aligned with core competencies;
• Promoting international service, professional exchanges and citizen engagement;
• Supporting development of global norms and guidelines; and
• Leveraging the bully pulpit to mobilize stakeholders.

To understand the tie-ins to Obama’s service agenda, it is also worth checking out analysis by Brookings’ Initiative on International Volunteering and Service. In his CGI speech, Obama linked domestic and international service. This approach presents real potential for global development efforts. As Jane and I note in our paper, new models at home may also apply overseas. The lessons that will be learned as the White House

Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation fine-tunes its programs—including an innovation and replication fund to invest in proven approaches to poverty alleviation—could also accelerate progress through similar efforts on the global development front.

The effort to fundamentally upgrade U.S. global development policies and operations is still gearing up. With policy reviews underway at the White House and the State Department, and with legislation percolating in both the House and the Senate, momentum is apparent. The degree to which these different efforts move in the same direction—toward more effective development policies and implementation—will determine whether the U.S. can restore its leadership on these issues. The effectiveness of programs in the field are directly linked to Washington efforts to make development  more coherent, better resourced, and suitably oriented toward partnerships with other key actors—including multilateral organizations, other government donors, international business and civil society, and, most notably, the recipients.