Yesterday, The New Republic foreign policy blog, “Entanglements,” posted a piece by David Rieff examining Secretary Clinton’s recent speech on the Global Health Initiative (GHI) at Johns Hopkins’ SAIS. Rieff discusses Clinton’s speech in terms of the Obama administration’s approach to development – questioning whether there is enough funding and bureaucratic support to realize the numerous goals Clinton laid out. Rieff offers a critical review of GHI and other development efforts: the decision to have three agencies in charge of GHI’s day-to-day operations; policymakers’ claims of development assistance as a tool of “public diplomacy” and a way to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and the continued priority funding for military programs. Despite the critical tone, Rieff raises some interesting points about the overall direction of the Obama administration’s approach to development. Read full text of the post here and see key excerpts below:
Posts Tagged ‘Afghanistan’
Aid Effectiveness in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010
Earlier today, more than 40 international leaders gathered in Kabul to discuss how Afghanistan can take control of its security and reduce corruption to set the country on a sustainable path over the next five years. The conference signified renewed support from the international community — particularly support from Secretary Clinton who acknowledged the unpopularity of the war effort at home. The official communiqué following the conference sets a 2014 date for a complete transition from foreign to Afghan security, though many details are left out of the document.
The Kabul Conference highlights several reform principles: ownership, accountability, and effectiveness. Country ownership – though loosely defined – is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s new approach to foreign assistance. In Afghanistan, this means reducing corruption in government, transferring capacity, and empowering civil society. Oxfam International recently asked local Afghans what they want as they begin to take control of their own development, and here is what they had to say.
CQ Article Quotes MFAN Co-Chairs, Highlights Hill Aid Reform Leadership
Monday, July 19th, 2010
A CQ article (full text below) published today, which quotes MFAN Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram, gives a rundown of how the leadership of Congressional leaders Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) has helped drive unprecedented progress on foreign assistance reform. The missing ingredient that could push reform efforts over the top, according to the article? Presidential leadership.
To join MFAN’s effort to urge President Obama to show leadership on foreign assistance reform and strengthen the U.S. commitment to development, please sign our Open Letter to the President, which has already been endorsed by more than 70 organizations and prominent individuals.
CQ WEEKLY – IN FOCUS
July 19, 2010
Backers Say Time Is Ripe For Foreign Aid Overhaul
By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff
The earthquake that slammed Haiti in January also rocked the U.S. Agency for International Development and its brand-new administrator, Rajiv Shah, who were promptly assigned to head up the civilian U.S. response to the disaster. The experience of the next several months afterward was eye-opening and “helped me shape my agenda for reform for the agency writ large,” Shah said in a speech last month.
Aid Reform that Works: How Ownership, Partnership, Coordination, and Innovation Should be the Core of America’s New Approach to Development
Monday, July 12th, 2010
New approaches to aid over the last decade have transformed the lives of countless individuals struggling with poverty, battling disease, and seeking opportunities to build a better life. The onset of these new approaches has sparked a debate on reform and how the U.S. can build on them to make foreign assistance more accountable and effective for the people we are trying to help and the U.S. taxpayers who generously support it. To demonstrate principles of effective aid – and communicate what still needs to be done – MFAN canvassed its Partners to share cases in which a new, innovative way of thinking led to improving the livelihood of an individual, a community or a country. The following success stories articulate some of the core principles – Ownership, Partnership, Coordination, and Innovation – that MFAN believes should provide the underpinnings of foreign assistance reform.
Ownership
The most effective way of ensuring long-term development is to allow recipients of aid to take the lead in designing and implementing their own development programs. Country ownership is about donors being transparent and consultative, helping to build capacity over the long term, and supporting local efforts to take control of their own development. This principle of aid effectiveness has become the cornerstone of reform efforts, but is also the most difficult to put into practice because it is dramatically different than the current U.S. model for the delivery of aid. The success stories that follow demonstrate ownership in action and prove that country ownership is essential for development.
- Ethiopia halved malaria deaths in just three years (The Global Fund to AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria) – In 2005, the Ethiopian government, with support from the Global Fund, unveiled a strategy to deliver two mosquito nets to every family at risk for malaria. By 2008, 20.5 million bed nets had been delivered, and 30,000 young women – two high school graduates per village – had been trained and mobilized to act as health advisors and to carry out on-the-spot malaria tests, made possible thanks to a new lightweight disposable kit. The program shows strong roots of local initiative, leadership, and ground-up action.
- Read more about Ethiopia’s grassroots health care initiative here.
Stimson Center’s Adams on Encroachment of Defense
Thursday, June 24th, 2010
See below for a strong piece by Gordon Adams, distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, analyzing the recent dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal and the military’s continued dominance of foreign policy issues and programs. Read more about this issue and other budgeting for foreign affairs on the Budget Insight blog.
McChrystal-izing a Problem: The Militarization of American Statecraft
Gordon Adams
June 23, 2010
General Stanley McChrystal’s candid disrespect for civilian leadership is being treated as an issue of bad judgment and personality. But this episode reveals a much deeper dilemma for American statecraft, one that has long roots but has reached near crisis proportions over the past ten years: the gradual erosion of civilian leadership and the militarization of our foreign and security policy.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned about this trend in remarks to the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University last year, but it has been under way for years. Its manifestations include:
- DOD and the military now define what America’s national security strategy will be. The DOD strategic document – the Quadrennial Defense Review – was for many months the only definitive description of our strategy; the National Security Strategy followed, and is significantly less informative or clear. DOD has for years done our only real national strategy planning, well ahead of any White House guidance.
- DOD and the military have determined that our most important engagement abroad will be to fight terrorist and insurgents, despite the fact that terrorist tactics hardly threaten our existence and, outside of insurgents in Afghanistan (and in decline in Iraq) it is not clear either that there are a lot of insurgencies for us to fight or that other countries will welcome a major US military presence to deal with those that do exist. (more…)
