On August 13th, nearly 500 people gathered at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle, WA to hear USAID Administrator Shah discuss the role of technology and innovation in development with a panel of leaders from the local development community. In Administrator Shah’s opening remarks he emphasized USAID’s commitment to evidence-based development strategies and the need for scalable and sustainable solutions. He was joined on the panel by Congressman Jim McDermott, Congressman Adam Smith, Dr. Akhtar Badshah of Microsoft, Dr. Christopher Elias of PATH, and Dr. Prema Arasu of Washington State University. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, moderated the discussion, which included questions submitted by audience members. Read more of Global Washington’s recap of the event here and see photos or watch the full event below.
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah Speaks at a Global Washington Event
August 24th, 2010
Noteworthy News – Pakistan Floods
August 20th, 2010
See below for a sampling of opinion pieces and news articles discussing the floods in Pakistan and the disaster’s implications for security and development:
- Pakistan’s tragic flooding demands an international response (The Washington Post editorial, August 17) There is a strategic case for aiding Pakistan in this time of crisis. Timely, generous assistance could improve America’s image in an area of the world where it has been unpopular. After a 2005 earthquake shook Pakistan, U.S. aid proved helpful in burnishing America’s reputation. But the positive impact of that assistance has largely faded; in this volatile region, images of helicopters bearing food have been replaced with helicopters delivering soldiers. Now the West has a chance again to show solidarity with Pakistani citizens — or it can risk losing ground to the extremist groups that some say are already stepping up to offer assistance. Aid might help build trust and reinforce Pakistan’s position as an ally in the international war on terror.
- U.N. Warns of Supply Shortage in Pakistan (The New York Times, August 18) The United Nations, which had been saying that as many six million people needed some manner of emergency assistance — shelter, food, drinking water or medical care — estimated that figure could reach eight million. “The funding response to the floods is improving but much more is needed,” he said. “The effort must be sustained in the days and weeks ahead in order to have the resources to reach the people who desperately need help.” The United States was by far the largest single donor, with $82 million, according to United Nations figures, with the next largest donor Australia at $26.6 million. The United States said its total contributions amount to $90 million, including helicopters, boats and temporary bridges, according to the State Department.
- US to boost Pakistan flood aid to 150 million dollars (AFP, August 19) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US aid is swelling to 150 million dollars for Pakistan and called for a halt to extremist attacks during the flood crisis as an “expression of common humanity.” “I want to see more, and today at the United Nations I will be announcing more US assistance,” the top American diplomat told Dawn TV, in a transcript provided by the State Department. When asked if the new aid total would be 150 million dollars, she said: “Yes. And I will also be announcing a way for individual Americans to contribute; a fund that I’m setting up here in the State Department.” The State Department has said US flood aid was being distributed through the Pakistani authorities or relief organizations on the ground to “provide critical supplies to flood affected populations.”
- Holbrooke: Donations Offer Leverage Over Pakistan Floods; Need Still Enormous (PBS Newshour, August 19) Holbrooke: … we all know how important Pakistan is strategically and politically to the U.S. We’re doing this, however, because the people are in desperate need, as you pointed out a moment ago. And it but we are not oblivious to the political and strategic implications of it. It’s just that we’re the president, President Obama, who has issued a statement, the United States government, all of us are just pitching in to do everything we can right now. And then we will let the dust settle and see where we go from there.
Trade and Aid for Effective Foreign Assistance
August 19th, 2010
By Mark Green, Ambassador and Congressman (ret.)
I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause. Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.
To summarize, here are my first six reasons:
Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.
Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.
Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about.
Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.
Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.
Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.
And now . . . Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.
Conservatives believe, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “The best possible social program is a job.” In that same spirit, in the international realm, we believe the best possible development program is trade – because it creates jobs and reinforces the values of entrepreneurship. Again in President Reagan’s words, “I recognize … the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”
While Americans sometimes complain that foreign assistance is merely a “giveaway” (a view to which I do NOT subscribe), robust trade is mutually beneficial – it boosts OUR job creators and entrepreneurs as well as allowing them to compete in an increasingly challenging commercial world. This potential benefit has never been more important: developing countries are the fastest growing markets for American goods and services. They already account for 40% of our export markets.
Conservatives, of course, aren’t the only ones who recognize the value of growing trade. President Barack Obama recently said in a policy address, “We are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates. . . . Those who once would oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.”
What too many policymakers don’t realize is the potential for American foreign assistance to accelerate our trade opportunities in
the developing world. On the other hand, successful business leaders do – and it’s a principle reason so many support our foreign assistance programs. Foreign assistance, done right, can help foster conditions that strengthen consumerism, democratization and markets. It can, for example, help to seed microfinance programs in the developing world that help farmers and entrepreneurs to grow and expand. It can help provide technical assistance to transportation authorities to make it easier to ship goods in and out of countries. It can support democratization programs that enhance stability – a prerequisite for long term investment.
As Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development under President George W. Bush puts it, “There is no real example of a country leaving the ranks of the poorest countries and becoming a middle income country without an export-based strategy. . . . However, you can’t do it in the absence of aid. Trade is essential, but it’s not aid or trade. It’s trade and aid.”
So why is trade an argument for foreign assistance reform? As with so many other aspects of foreign assistance reform, it comes down to the need for better coordination and communication amongst the myriad agencies, departments and offices involved in these programs. Unless those sectors which administer assistance are closely coordinating with those involved in our trade initiatives, we can end up with policies that undermine the effectiveness of both. For example, in its 2010 report, “The Business Case for Foreign Aid Reform,” the Initiative for Global Development revealed that the U.S. government had given“$120 million in aid to two extremely poor countries, Bangladesh and Cambodia, while at the same time collecting $853 million from them in import duties – as much as was collected from France and the United Kingdom combined.” As David Beckmann of Bread for the World, put it, “So we are taking away with one hand, and we give with the other.”
In short, Conservatives should support foreign assistance reform because (a) we believe in the power of robust American trade to improve the economic fortunes of both ourselves and our trading partners, (b) the developing world is an increasingly important part of our trade potential, and (c) our foreign assistance programs significantly affect how trade functions in many parts of the world. When foreign assistance and trade policy operate at cross purposes, everyone seems to lose ground. But when assistance and trade work together, entrepreneurs on both sides of the equation win.
Secretary Clinton Speaks about GHI at SAIS
August 17th, 2010
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillay Rodham Clinton addressed a packed room of students and faculty from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) to discuss next steps for the Obama Administration’s Global Health Initiative (GHI). The speech focused less on the policy and implementation of GHI, and instead placed GHI as the next phase of American leadership in global health and, more broadly, development. Clinton remarked, “What exactly does maternal health, or immunizations, or the fight against HIV and AIDS have to do with foreign policy? Well, my answer is everything.”
Clinton used the speech as a platform to get buy-in from the community for GHI — underscoring the fact that global health continues to be a nonpartisan issue that even the American public wants to support. She reiterated the GHI’s holistic approach to global health prevention and treatment with a specific focus on outcomes not inputs, priority care for women and girls, and innovation.
Watch the full event here and read excerpts from Clinton’s speech after the jump:
PSD to be Released Next Month?
August 16th, 2010
On Friday, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah joined Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Jim McDermott for a discussion on U.S. foreign aid hosted by Global Washington in Seattle. Shah recognized the need to do more with the limited resources available for foreign aid dollars, making the case for development with an increased focus on transparency and innovation. Shah said, “If we can continue to show things are really effective, generate results with the dollars and take efficiency very, very seriously, I believe Americans want to do more.” Shah also spoke of the evidence-based approach the Agency has adopted, which has already yielded incredible success in Haiti.
Coverage of Shah’s visit by the Associated Press cites Shah alluding to a report on foreign assistance programs — presumably the Presidential Study Directive or PSD-7 — coming out next month. Referencing the aid programs spread across the U.S. government, AP reporter Donna Gordon Blankinship writes, “There are no plans to consolidate that work, Shah said, but the administration is concerned about efficiency and transparency and growing the reach and effectiveness of foreign aid. A report on these efforts is due out within the next month.”
Other speakers at the Global Washington event included Prema Arasu, associate vice president for international programs at Washington State University; Akhtar Badshah, senior director of global community affairs at Microsoft; Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global development program; and PATH CEO and President Christopher Elias.
Read more on the event here.
