blog logo image

MFAN Principal Ray Offenheiser Comments on Lack of USAID Administrator in Washington Post

September 16th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Today in his  ”In the Loop” column, Al Kamen mentioned MFAN’s USAID Administrator poll while lamenting the continued lack of a lack of a qualified person to oversee U.S. development efforts.  Kamen also throws out some eccentric suggestions for a new nominee, including South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) , former deputy Secretary of Defense and head of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz, and even Bono.  Tongue-in-cheek nominations aside, Kamen makes a great point.  The proclaimed vetting process and failure of the Obama Administration to get a USAID Administrator in place, despite ambitious pledges to elevate development as a pillar of U.S. foreign policy,  is just as ridiculous.  He writes:

“Clinton a few months ago blamed the clearance process for the delay, calling it a “nightmare.” No one is going to disagree with that, but pretty much the same ridiculous process was in place in 1993 when Bill Clinton named Brian Atwood to the job only two months after inauguration. And nothing in the process had changed by 2001 whenGeorge W. Bush named Andrew Natsios to the job scarcely one month after taking office.”

Kamen notes the unease felt in the community given the unique opportunity to reform foreign assistance based on current legislation in the House and Senate, as well as the QDDR and the recently announced Presidential Study Directive.  He points to MFAN’s poll to find candidates for USAID as a sign of urgency needed to fill the position and save a crumbling agency.  MFAN Principal and President of Oxfam Ray Offenheiser notes of this “serious crisis” and the need for a leader to  ”inspire a demoralized staff, who is a strong manager” with “gravitas” and development experience.

Noteworthy News – 9.15.09

September 15th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

This weekly posting includes key news stories and opinion pieces related to foreign assistance reform and the larger development community.

What we’re reading this week:  Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan. And the fall congressional outlook on foreign assistance.

  • Afghanistan: Going long or going home (ForeignPolicy.com-Ian Bremmer, September 10) - Within the Obama foreign-policy team, there looks to be a growing divergence of opinion on what to do next. There appears to be an internal consensus that the current strategy isn’t working. But senior officials appear more divided on whether to “go long” or “go home.” In the go long group, those who want more troops and more resources because “failure isn’t an option,” we see Secretary Clinton, envoy Richard Holbrooke, most of the generals on the ground, and most Republicans in Congress. In the go home camp, those who want to pull troops out before things get much worse, are Vice President Biden, most of Obama’s political team, and a growing number of senior Democrats. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to have grown much more skeptical.
  • It’s the corruption, stupid! (The Washington Times-Rep. Jane Harman, September 10) - But electoral fraud is merely a symptom of a much graver problem plaguing the country — the failure to establish good governance. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal appears to understand this. His emphasis on joint civilian-military efforts to improve governance is much needed, but the American people deserve some accountability. Congress should not even be asked about more troops without first being shown evidence that some anti-corruption metrics have been achieved, not just announced.
  • Afghanistan’s ‘civilian surge’ fizzles (The Christian Science Monitor-Gordon Lubold, September 13) - But when it comes to Afghanistan, the problem is that a “civilian surge” probably won’t happen. “We don’t have any more capacity now than we did,” says one former aide on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff who didn’t want to speak publicly on a politically sensitive matter. In Afghanistan, the former aide predicts, “They will make the same commitment and have the same lack of follow-through.”  There are some reasons to be optimistic about the future, with the State Department developing an expeditionary ” civilian response corps” ready to deploy quickly to hot spots around the world. But that effort will take time. For now, America’s apparent inability to deliver a robust civilian surge threatens to undermine any military progress.
  • Senate Foreign Relations Committee sneak peek (ForeignPolicy.com-The Cable, September 8 ) - From there, Jones expects the “blistering pace” of hearings to slow slightly as Senator Kerry focuses on two issues: Afghanistan and climate change.  “[The chairman] is very concerned [about Afghanistan],” Jones said, “on whether America is finding the most effective solutions to the challenges there and whether they are pursuant to our national-security interests.” Also a high priority, Jones said, is passing of an aid bill for Pakistan — of which there are currently House (sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)) and Senate versions (sponsored by Senator Kerry and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)

USAID Poll: Voter comments show deep interest, diverse views

September 9th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Over the past two weeks, MFAN’s USAID poll has drawn thousands of votes from around the world.  More importantly, those voters have made their opinions known about who they voted for and why, leaving us with a rich collection of comments that show how important people think it is for the Obama Administration to get a USAID Administrator in place to lead U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic opportunity in the developing world.  The new Administrator will also need to take a lead role in the push to modernize the outdated U.S. foreign assistance system – a push that is gaining strong momentum with the launch of President Obama’s Presidential Directive on Global Development Policy last week.  As we move closer to the end of the poll in the next couple weeks (note: CGD’s Nancy Birdsall is still in the lead position), we thought it would be worth recapping some of the comments, which prove that our call to action – We need a USAID Administrator now! – is being heard:

  1. It s a great idea for the US to reorganise its Foreign Aid Strategy however care should be instituted such that aid goes down to then eedy grassroot poor instead of chanelling through corrupt Governments or deneying the poor if they are being ruled by a corrupt Government
    Justus Lavi
    Kenya

  2. kitty hempstone says:

    Where is Andrew Natsios on this list? He knows the problems, the players and, probably most import right now, how to get things moving again. I don’t see that any of the others have all three and we’re losing ground daily as private funders step in to fill the gaps, experienced USAID employees retire and leadership moves on.

  3. Gary Merritt says:

    Hempstone’s comments are well-taken. MFAN’s list of 10 candidates includes people with outstanding representational, academic, executive/bureaucratic, legislative, and board skills but few that bring proven development practitioner’s skills as well. USAID’s most forceful and effective leaders over the past five decades have been those who had practical experience in development assistance combined with leadership skills in Executive and Congressional terrains. I voted in this poll but predict, based on an open-ended poll of about 600 USAID retirees in March, that a good number of people who have extensive experience in development will explore the poll but won’t vote because there was no write-in option. That said, kudos to MFAN for launching this public poll!

  4. Mike says:

    I voted for Lancaster, but would be equally happy with Brainard or Birdsall. What the three have in common is a good understanding of development, and (additionally) a good understanding of the agenda for foreign aid, which includes much more than development. At this point in history there is great lack of clarity and great confusion about the challenge of development, the role of foreign aid in promoting development, and the role of foreign aid in promoting other foreign policy concerns besides development. What we need most need is an Administrator who understands and thinks clearly about these issues, and considers them important. Lancaster, Brainard, and Birdsall are the three candidates that stand out in this respect, based on the work they’ve produced.

  5. There is one possible candidate for Administrator who stands head and shoulders above any other American in qualifications and experience and that is Rufus Phillips !!! He carries no adverse
    political baggage and is available, He resides Arlington County, Virginia. His recent book
    “Why Vietnam Matters” may be the best yet written on that conflict. He initiated the Provincial
    Reconstruction Team Concept for AID in Vietnam which has been transferred, though not completely,
    to Iraq and Afghanistan and aims to get AID thru NGO’s, the UN, and all American agencies, civil and
    military, to the rural masses.

  6. Nancy Wrenn says:

    I voted for George Rupp. I have great respect for the International Rescue Committee and believe his work with refugees, which are a major constituency needing USAID support, will be valuable. Several other candidates look very promising. Who is doing the vetting process?

  7. This is a list of “Known Knowns”, some of whom are very well qualified, others of whom are not, some of whom have been compromised by having been too closely associated with the last administration, and several who are not realistic choices, such as Bill Gates and Zoellick.

    Why not open the poll up for nominations from the floor, so we can consider the qualifications of more people like Rufus Phillips who could bring great development and administrative skills to the jobe without all the baggage carried by some of the listed candidates.

    Thanks, in any event, for all that you are doing to bring attention to yawning void at the top of USAID.

  8. jerry pagano says:

    mccoll might be themost viable choice as he is the more likely to compehend the subordinate relationship of aid to state, and thereby the administrator to the secretary in discharging commensurate political operational leadership. for related insights, discuss with doug bennet his relationship with cyrus vance; and with peter mcpherson his relationship with george schulz. another relevant insight would be gained by discussing with jack sullivan governor gilligan’s relationship with vance and getting fired for scheming to gain independence from vance/state. note that usaid’s institutional demise began when it was moved out of the state building, with the misguided enthusiastic support of the atwood administration, thus negating the day-to-day working relationships of the state/aid political leadership. while ngos have long sought usaid independence, it is folly not to recognize aid’s place in the usg’s diplomatic operational scheme-of-things.

  9. Harvey Neese says:

    The only person I can think of to head the infamous USAID at this time is Rufe Phillips. He knows counterinsurgency which is what is needed with all the turmoil in developing countries. We need a program to win the hearts and minds of the people through America’s foreign aid program. I doubt that any of your nominees including the celebs know what counterinsurgency is about. Sorry to be negative, but based on past selections by he Washington bureaucrats, the person will be in with the party politically but have little knowledge of foreign assistance as it should be administered. And whoever is chosen, he or she will be able to foul up continuously without any repercussions. Thank heaven the new administrator won’t be able to destroy again one of, if not the most important program in foreign assistance, and that is agriculture and food systems development. The reason: there is no ag and food assistance program as this was taken care of under the rule of Nastios and his famous agriculture director, Emmy Simmons. !!!!! Please, please, none of these people again.

  10. Jill Buckley says:

    I voted for Carol Lancaster. She has the knowledge, experience, and commitment to development needed by the USAID Administrator. She has traveled the developing world learning and “doing” for years. She is a person of vision and compassion and has management experience. I have worked with her and known her as a friend and colleague. This is a very tough job and Carol could do it extraordinarily well.

  11. John Harbeson says:

    There are some good candidates on the list and a number of people I can think of ought to be on the list, e.g. Paul Farmer as someone suggested. I can think of several colleagues in academia who meet all the criteria who ought to be on the list. Tough to choose from those on the list, when good friends are there–Gayle, Emmy, and Carol especially. But on balance I vote for Carol as best meeting all the criteria, Emmy as a close second. Nancy Birdsall looks good, and I’d be happy with her I think, but somehow she seems like a better candidate for the World Bank. Gayle has the grassroots dirt under the fingers experience that it is so important, as does Emmy. I respect Colin Powell but don’t see that he has any business being on this particular list.

  12. Bob Lester says:

    This is a critical time for USAID as an organization and development assistance as a significant sector for the USG to invest scarce resources. The key issues faced by USAID at this time to me are less developmental in nature than they are political: rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, relationships with other agencies particularly State and DOD, internal organization and management. I voted for Colin Powell as someone who knows how State and DOD work and can deal with them, has shown the leadership that USAID desperately needs, boosted morale at State and improved its management capabilities. If a rewrite of the FAA is going to shape the organizational structure of how the USG provides development assistance and what agency is to be the primary actor in making development policy, then it seems to me that Colin Powell would be the best person to influence the debate in a way that best fosters development interests.

  13. Herb Miller says:

    Although I think it unlikely that he would take the job, my vote would be for former senator Chuck Hagel. With all of the present debate about which direction USAID should be going and just exactly where it should be within the administrative hierarchy, the Agency needs someone with the gravitas of Hagel to deal with the Congress and to deal with other departmental political appointees – all of whom want a part of the pie. I was quite impressed with Hagel’s column in the Washington Post of September 3rd. Without explicitly stating such, I believe he has demonstrated insights on the foreign policy implications of a strong USAID and the role it must play in engageing the developing world – from whence our present problems spring. Intimate knowledge of the theories and practice of development work is of secondary importance. There will be numerous Deputies, Assistant Adminstrators, Deputy Assistant Adminstrators. Office Directors, Mission Directors, etc., who will have countless years of experience to advise and counsel him on the nuts and bolts. In fact, a vast knowledge and experience in development work may even be detrimental to the task ahead for a new Administrator which might bring the wrong focus to the necessary political work ahead. In the immediate future, the new AID Administrator must focus his energies and talents on ensuring AID’s strong presence and independence within the bureaucratic hierarchy. This will require a strong personality to interface with Congress, State and the White House on non-development work grounds. I am still haunted by memories of the fate of USIA. The Agency needs someone to protect it from a similar fate. And United States’ foreign policy desperately needs a strong political direction from and for AID.

  14. I vote for Emmy Simmons who has the USAID experience and knowledge of what needs to be done to revitalize the agency. USAID needs an individual who appreciates the cultural, social and political envinroments of developing world and knows the changes which have occurred over the years in the developing world and new challenges he/she has to face. It’s my conviction that new comers are not properly prepared for this work and they take too long to learn. The history of USAID shows beyond doubts that development needs are responded through leaders who turn intuitions and visions into planning and action and lead the people to follow in the process. Hence the need for an Administrator with practical experience in development assistance and a people person.

UPDATE: MFAN USAID Poll Draws Votes from Around the Globe

September 3rd, 2009
Bookmark and Share

On August 28, MFAN launched a web poll asking the public to vote for who they think should be the next USAID Administrator and take the lead role in elevating and modernizing U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic opportunity for struggling people in developing nations.  We also asked voters to visit the ModernizeAid blog and tell us who they voted for and why.  

The results of the poll have been interesting, but we were most amazed by the fact that visitors from more than 90 countries and 480 cities have come to the site since the launch of the poll (see below for the analysis).  Voices from around the globe have joined us in our call to action: We Need a USAID Administrator Now!

Map1

Map2

Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Calls for Broader U.S. Strategy of Global Engagement

September 3rd, 2009
Bookmark and Share

MAYORS

In a Washington Post op-ed today titled “The Limits of Force,” former Nebraska Republican Senator and Vietnam combat veteran Chuck Hagel warns against excessive use of military power in the face of new and rapidly changing 21st-century challenges and realities.

“We need a clearly defined strategy that accounts for the interconnectedness and the shared interests of all nations,” Hagel writes. “Every great threat to the United States — whether economic, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy, or water and food shortages — also threatens our global partners and rivals.”

He goes on to discuss the importance of non-military means of securing the peace: “Development of seamless networks of intelligence gathering and sharing, and strengthening alliances, diplomatic cooperation, trade and development can make the biggest long-term difference and have the most lasting impact on building a more stable and secure world.”

“Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically, strategically and politically unsustainable and will result in unnecessary tragedy — especially for the men and women, and their families, who serve our country.”