Shah used the visit as an opportunity to rethink U.S. aid to Pakistan, announcing that some of the funds from the five-year, $7.5 billion aid package will be redirected to assist in flood-related relief and recovery.  Shah showed great flexibility, saying “I fully envision some of the priorities will have to shift, and shift so that there’s more of a recovery and reconstruction focus.”

Since Congress passed the Kerry Lugar bill for aid to Pakistan last year, the Agency has spent time determining where the aid can be most impactful.  Secretary Clinton recently announced the aid would be geared toward large-scale water and energy projects.  And Ambassador Holbrooke has stressed that the aid will go directly to the Pakistani government and organizations.  While Shah noted $50 million of the funds will be immediately redirected to emergency relief, he also said “we will need to reassess the full extent of our commitment to the people of Pakistan and do whatever is most appropriate and most effective to really help people recover.”

Though top ranking officials lament the country won’t see significant progress on reconstruction for years, Shah pressed that this is an opportunity to build more sustainable systems and services.  The new Administrator exercised innovation – assisting in the launch of an information-sharing system using Pakistan’s Humari Awaz cell phone network.  In describing the tool for an interview on Pakistan Radio, Shah said, “We are pleased that Pakistan has a forum for information sharing that people everywhere can use to engage each other in the flood relief effort.  Information sharing can help connect people to resources to aid in disaster recovery and to engage one another in problem-solving.”

Apart from the flexibility – on the ground and in Washington – and the innovation already being exercised as part of the relief effort, Administrator Shah touched upon principles of effective aid he hopes to see as reconstruction moves forward.  As part of a piece on PBS News Hour, Shah said, “I am thankful that Minister Qureshi and others…have also indicated their full commitment to making sure that relief efforts are transparent, resources that go in are accounted for, and there’s real verification, so that we can all continue to stand by the people of Pakistan during this hour of humanitarian need.”

Text FLOOD to 27722 to give $10 or go to www.state.gov to learn more about how you can help in the relief effort through the Pakistan Relief Fund.

“The secretary was already on record as claiming that the initiative would be a “crucial component of American foreign policy and a signature element of smart power.” On its face, this seems highly unlikely. Anyone doubting this should ponder the fact that one military program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—a weapons platform that no one claims is needed for the counter-insurgency operations that are currently at the core of the U.S. military’s requirements—is on course to cost $325 billion, and may well go higher (the budget request for fiscal year 2011 is $11.4 billion, roughly the same as each of the six years of the Global Health Initiative). In other words, Washington is going to spend on a ‘signature element’ of its smart power less than one-fifth of what it is already committed to spending on something that even the Pentagon does not claim is a signature element of our hard power. No, money may not be everything, but ‘follow the money’ remains the best advice for understanding what the priorities of the American government really are.”

“In her SAIS speech, Secretary Clinton closed by saying that, “We’re aware of all the pitfalls and all the obstacles, internal and external.” I see no reason to doubt this…But in either designing or at least signing off on a program which grants authority for day to day running of the program to three separate agencies (USAID, the Centers for Disease Control, and PEPFAR, the Bush-era President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief), each with their own institutional interests, while calling on the resources and expertise of the National Institutes of Health, the Peace Corps, not to mention the departments of Defense and of Health and Human Services (“among others,” as Secretary Clinton said, without irony, in her speech), all reporting to Deputy Secretary Lew, the administration has laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic calamity. Rube Goldberg, call your office.”

“Of course, America’s reliance on winning hearts and minds through humanitarian relief and development assistance is not restricted to southwest Asia…In a brilliant paper published recently by the Humanitarian Policy Network in London (full disclosure: I am on the advisory board of the unit’s parent, the Humanitarian Policy Group), Michael Kleinman and Mark Bradbury analyze the effectiveness of these initiatives. While agreeing that “these military aid projects provide an entry point into communities that are potentially hostile to the US and its interests,” Kleinman and Bradbury conclude that the most they can actually be said to have achieved are tactical successes.”

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 inthe 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.

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:

“We invest in global health to protect our nation’s security. To cite one example, the threat posed by the spread of disease in our interconnected world in which thousands of people every day step on a plane in one continent and step off in another. We need a comprehensive, effective global system for tracking health data, monitoring threats, and coordinating responses.”

“So therefore, we must be strategic and make evidence-based decisions in targeting the most dangerous threats, to ensure that our investments that, after all, come from the American taxpayer, deliver results. And we must also must stay focused on the long-term picture – not only addressing the urgent needs that people have today but building the foundation for better health tomorrow and for the next generation.”

“The fundamental purpose of the Global Health Initiative is to address these problems by tying individual health programs together in an integrated, coordinated, sustainable system of care, with the countries themselves in the lead. We are taking the investments our country has made in PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, maternal and child health, family planning, neglected tropical diseases, and other critical health areas – building on the work of agencies across the federal government, such as the Centers for Disease Control – and expanding their reach by improving the overall environment in which health services are delivered. By doing so, our investments can have a bigger impact and patients can gain access to more and better care, and as a result, lead healthier lives.”

“Too often, the social, economic, and cultural factors that restrict their access to health services—such as gender-based violence, child marriage, female genital mutilation, lack of education, lack of access to economic opportunity, and other forms of discrimination—remain unacknowledged and unaddressed. We are linking our health programs to our broader development efforts to address those underlying political, economic, social, and gender problems. And we’re working with governments, civil society groups, and individuals to make sure that the needs of women and girls are recognized as critical not only by us, but by the health ministers, the people at the grassroots who administer care every day, that they are taken into account in the budgets and the planning of finance ministries, prime ministers, and presidents.”

What Real Foreign Aid Reform Means

U.S. foreign assistance has helped drive some of the greatest human progress in the last 50 years. The impact of America’s generosity and leadership can be measured in millions of lives saved and transformed. For example, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe’s economy after World War II, and the Green Revolution in agriculture helped put Asia on a path to long-term growth in the 1960s and ’70s. The Campaign for Child Survival raised immunization rates from 15 percent to nearly 80 percent in the 1980s, and efforts to increase access to HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa helped millions of people over the last decade.

Led by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the current administration has strengthened America’s commitment to development by calling it a “moral, strategic, and economic imperative,” building on the campaign pledge Obama made to ensure that “development is established and endures as a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy.”

But the rhetorical rubber meets the road when we look at the current system we use to deliver foreign aid. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), written during the Cold War era, is outdated and does not address the challenges of the modern world. Nearly 500 pages long, it includes hundreds of overlapping and uncoordinated goals, provisions, and directives. The programs it authorizes are executed by at least 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and almost 60 government offices.

According to Oxfam America field research, this lack of strategic order and coordination has real on-the-ground consequences:

In Afghanistan, where a “civilian surge” is under way, two separate U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors recently discovered by chance that they were doing virtually the same project in the same town.

In Bangladesh, the United States collects several times the amount in tariffs that it provides in assistance, essentially taxing the very trade U.S. leaders tout as a solution to poverty.

In Cambodia, government officials typically find it easier to get information on aid resources from the Chinese government than from the U.S. government.

The people we are trying to help, and the generous U.S. taxpayers who support our efforts to improve their lives, cannot afford this inefficiency when budgets are tight and effective development is such a critical element of our foreign policy and national security. The time has come for the president to lead the way in reforming U.S. foreign assistance:

First, the president should use his “New Approach to Advancing Development” paper, released at the recent G8 summit in Muskoka, Canada, as a basis for creating America’s first-ever Global Development Strategy. The paper makes a strong case for reorienting and strengthening U.S. development efforts, but it does not answer crucial questions: Is achieving broad-based development a distinct goal of U.S. global engagement, or is it merely a tool to serve diplomatic or defense objectives? And will USAID experts in the field have the authority to implement foreign aid programs, or will diplomats and soldiers? A new strategy must resolve these issues.

Second, the president should signal publicly that he is ready to work with Congress on foreign aid reform, particularly by overhauling the FAA. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has already released a working draft of a new FAA, and last year, 126 representatives and 23 senators from both sides of the aisle supported foreign assistance reform legislation.

At stake is America’s ability to effectively address the global challenges of the 21st century. And the timing is important. In just two months, the eyes of the world will be on the Millennium Development Goals Summit, where committed nations must pledge new energy and resolve in the fight against global poverty. By showing leadership on foreign assistance reform, President Obama will attach actions to his words on development — and hopefully lead others to commit to more effectively empowering the world’s poorest people to realize a brighter future.

Forty days after President Obama pledged to issue a new development policy “in the near future” – and with no word yet on when it will be released – MFAN, joined by more than 200 partner organizations and individuals, has published an Open Letter urging the President to show much-needed leadership to reform foreign assistance and strengthen America’s commitment to global development.  The letter, published in today’s issue of Politico, urges President Obama to:

• Create America’s first-ever Global Development Strategy – which is referenced in the leaked Presidential Study Directive draft, “A New Way Forward on Global Development”; and
• Partner with Congress to rewrite the outdated Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a working draft of which House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman recently released.

We applaud the steps taken by the Obama Administration thus far to elevate development as a pillar of U.S. foreign policy, which will help us do a better job of reducing poverty and spurring economic growth worldwide.  But these efforts, including initiatives such as Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative, will not reach their full potential unless our country has an overarching Global Development Strategy.

“The volume and variety of signatories – from NGOs, think tanks, and corporations to former U.S. government officials and private-sector leaders – indicates the widespread support and urgent need for the President to take definitive action toward reforming our foreign assistance system,” said Co-Chair George Ingram.  “We must have a Global Development Strategy to clearly state what we are trying to achieve, how different actors within the U.S. government will contribute to that mission, and who will be in charge of – and accountable for – achieving results.  Likewise, the Cold War-era Foreign Assistance Act no longer provides a realistic and understandable framework for the U.S. foreign assistance system, and the President must be engaged with Congress in a collaborative effort to rewrite the legislation.  The stakes – for U.S. national interests and for the health, prosperity, and stability of the developing world – are too high for continued inaction.”

The Open Letter is the centerpiece of our Reform Within Reach campaign, which is also focused on sharing development success stories and educating the American public about the important role U.S. development efforts play in our national security.  Individuals can still sign on to our Open Letter by clicking here.

Panelists in the briefing highlighted the crucial role that science and innovation play in foreign aid, with a focus on past successes and future opportunities in global health research. The event, “Innovation to catalyze development:  Leveraging research in US foreign assistance,” was moderated by Susan Dentzer, Editor-in-Chief of Health Affairs, and included Mr. Kalil; Dr. Jeffrey Sturchio, MFAN Principal and President and CEO of the Global Health Council; Dr. Maura O’Neill, Senior Counselor to the Administrator and Chief Innovation Officer at USAID; and Dr. Corey Casper, Director of the Uganda Program on Cancer and Infectious Diseases (UPCID) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

In order to maximize the US investment in science and technology and deliver effective assistance, panelists stressed a whole-of-government approach to foreign aid. It is “essential” that the United States has a “coordinated, multidisciplinary” approach to international development, Dr. Casper said. For example, panelists highlighted a study conducted among nearly 900 women at two sites in South Africa that showed a notable reduction in the risk of HIV infection associated with an experimental HIV prevention gel, called a microbicide. The research benefited enormously from interagency partnership—the study was supported, in large part, by USAID, as well as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—and demonstrates the type of success possible when US agencies collaborate effectively.

Jeff Sturchio specifically argued that the US needs a global development strategy that is whole-of-government, coherent, and responsive to local needs.  Such a strategy should also be built on transparency and accountability and partnership with civil society, donors, and other governments.  Sturchio then put forward the notion of a whole-of-society approach, which the other panelists picked up on throughout the remainder of the discussion.

Panelists also highlighted that several US officials are prioritizing science and innovation as a pillar of US development efforts. For example, Mr. Kalil explained how the Obama administration has made science and innovation priorities for United States’ global development policy, recently deploying the first three US science envoys throughout the Muslim world to foster scientific exchange. He further highlighted the new leadership from non-development agencies, such as NIH Director Francis Collins’ prioritization of research to meet global health challenges.

In addition, Dr. O’Neill emphasized that USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has made innovation a priority for the agency. Earlier this year, Shah highlighted science and technology as one of USAID’s four core pillars, noting that the agency will find “new ways to leverage science and technology to develop and deliver those tools and innovations that we believe can lead to exponential growth and transformational change.”

In order to keep pace in a changing world, panelists argued that US policymakers must capitalize upon the country’s strong history of advancing science, research, and innovation to benefit the developing world.  As Congress and the Administration reform the United States’ approach to global development, policymakers should incorporate US agencies’ scientific prowess as a key component of a new development strategy.

Check back for a video of the event in the coming week and see additional resources below:

• GHTC fact sheet on research in foreign assistance
• Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network website
• GHTC feature story on microbicide trial
• GHTC recent news bulletin on USAID science conference
• GHTC announcement on Obama Administration’s prioritization of science in diplomacy
• The role of innovation in foreign assistance reform

On behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, thank you to the following organizations and individuals who endorsed MFAN’s Open Letter to President Obama:

Organizational Endorsements

34 Million Friends of the United Nations Population Fund, Jane Roberts, Co-Founder

3D Security Initiative, Eastern Mennonite University, Lisa Schirch, Director

Abt Associates, Kathleen L. Flanagan , President & CEO

Academy for Educational Development, Stephen F. Moseley, President & CEO

ACDI/VOCA, Carl H. Leonard, President & CEO

Action Against Hunger

ActionAid USA

Advocates for Youth

Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation, R. Gordon Douglas, Jr. M.D., Executive Chairman

Africa Action, Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director

Alliance to End Hunger

America’s Impact, Executive Committee

American Friends Service Committee

American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, President

American Refugee Committee, Daniel Wordsworth, President

Americans for Informed Democracy, Karen Showalter, Executive Director

Americas Relief & Development Team, Dr. Teo A. Babun, Jr., Executive Director

Amnesty International USA, Larry Cox, Executive Director

AMREF USA, Lisa Meadowcroft, Executive Director

AROGYA, Nalini Saligram, Ph.D. Founder & CEO

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs, Randall Kempner, Executive Director

Barer Institute for Law and Global Human Services, University of Washington School of Law, Manisha Singh, Executive Director

Better World Campaign, Peter Yeo, Executive Director

Bread for the World, David Beckmann, President

Building Tomorrow, George Srour, Executive Director

Business Council for Global Development, LLC

CARANA Corporation, Eduardo Tugendhat, CEO

CARE, Helene D. Gayle M.D., MPH, President & CEO

Cargill, Incorporated

Caterpillar

Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, President

Center for American Progress, John Norris, Executive Director, The Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative

Center for Health and Gender Equity, Serra Sippel, President

Center for Interfaith Action on Global Poverty, Jean F. Duff, Executive Director

Centre for Development and Population Activities, Carol Peasley, President & CEO

ChildFund International, Anne Lynam Goddard, President & CEO

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, Andrew Ryskamp, Director

Church of the Brethren Global Mission Partnerships, Jay Wittmeyer, Executive Director

Church World Service, Rev. John L. McCullough, Executive Director & CEO

Congressional Hunger Center, Edward M. Cooney, Executive Director

Creative Associates International, Inc., Charito Kruvant, President & CEO

Cummins Inc., Tim Solso, Chairman &CEO

Devex, Raj Kumar, President

eBay

Episcopal Relief & Development, Robert W. Radtke, President

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Rev. Andrew D. Genszler, Director for Advocacy

Evangelicals for Social Action, Ronald J. Sider, President

Family Care International, Ann M. Starrs, President

FHI, Albert J. Siemens, PhD, Chairman & CEO

Florida Association for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean and the Americas, Demian Pasquarelli, Executive Director

Food for the Hungry, Dave Evans, President & Global Executive Officer

Foundation Builders –Nigeria, Aigbe Omoruyi, CEO

Freedom House, Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director

Global Action For Children

Global Alliance for TB Drug Development

Global Health Council, Jeffrey L. Sturchio, President & CEO

Global Rights: Partners for Justice, Mary E. McClymont, Executive Director

Global Washington, Bookda Gheisar, Executive Director

Habitat for Humanity

Heifer International, Charles Stewart, Interim CEO

Helen Keller International, Kathy Spahn, President & CEO

iLEAP: The Center for Critical Service, Britt Yamamoto, Ph.D., M.S., Executive Director

Initiative for Global Development, Jennifer Potter, President & CEO

INMED Partnerships for Children, Linda Pfeiffer, Ph.D., President & CEO

InterAction, Sam Worthington, President & CEO

International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Seth F. Berkley, President & CEO

International Center for Religion and Diplomacy

International Center for Research on Women, Sarah Degnan Kambou, President

International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Bill Sweeney, President & CEO

International Fund for Animal Welfare, Jeff Flocken, DC Office Director

International Housing Coalition, Bob Dubinsky, CEO

International Medical Corps, Nancy A. Aossey, President & CEO

International Population & Health Services, LLC

International Relief & Development, Dr. Arthur B. Keys, President & CEO

International Rescue Committee, George Rupp, President &CEO

International Resources Group, Asif M. Shaikh, President

International Women’s Health Coalition, Adrienne Germain, President

International Youth Foundation, William S. Reese, President & CEO

Interplast, Susan W. Hayes, President & CEO

IREX, Amb. W. Robert Pearson, President

Just Foreign Policy

Khmer Institute of Democracy, Chhaya Hang, Executive Director

Levi Strauss & Co.

LTL Strategies, René Lake

Lundy Foundation, Vic Dukay, Ph.D., President

Lutheran World Relief, John A. Nunes, President & CEO

Malaria No More

Management Sciences for Health, Dr. Jonathan Quick, President & CEO

Mars Incorporated

Medicines for Malaria Venture, Dr. Dennis Schmatz, CEO

Mennonite Central Committee U.S., J Ron Byler, Executive Director

Mercy Corps, Nancy Lindborg, President

Micah Challenge USA, Jason Alfonse Fileta, National Coordinator

Millennium Water Alliance

Nathan Associates, Lakhbir Singh, President & CEO

Nike Inc.

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, David Krieger, President

ONE, David Lane, CEO & President

Outreach International, Matthew Naylor, PhD, President

Oxfam America, Raymond C. Offenheiser, President & CEO

Partners In Health, Ophelia Dahl, Executive Director

Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, Julie Howard, Executive Director & CEO

PATH, Christopher J. Elias, MD, MPH, President &CEO

Pathfinder International, Daniel E. Pellegrom, President

Peace Action West, Jon Rainwater, Executive Director

Philanthropy Support Services, Inc.

Plan USA, Audrey Bracey Deegan, Interim President & CEO

Population Action International, Suzanne Ehlers, President & CEO

Population Communication, Robert Gillespie, President

Population Institute, Bill Ryerson, President

Pre-vent, Robin Jafari,MD MBA, Chairman of the Board

Professional Services Council, Stan Soloway, President & CEO

Project Concern International, George Guimaraes, CEO

Publish What You Fund, Karin Christiansen, Director

Puget Sound Millennium Goals Project

Relief International, Farshad Rastegar, President & CEO

Root Capital, Willy Foote, Founder & CEO

SAFE NEPAL, Jayaram Poudel, President

Save the Children, Charles MacCormack, President & CEO

Sensitization Centre, Abdul Samad Said

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., Joseph DiNorcia, Jr., President & CEO

Sibley International LLC, Donna Sibley, President

Sojourners, Rev. Jennifer Kottler, Director of Policy and Advocacy

Student Global AIDS Campaign, Ntiokam Divine, Founding President

Taxpayers for Common Sense, Ryan Alexander, President

The Episcopal Church

The Nature Conservancy, Mark. R. Tercek, President & CEO

The Timmy Foundation, Matt MacGregor, Executive Director

Transparency International-USA

Trickle Up, William M. Abrams, President

Truman National Security Project, Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, CEO

U.S. Coalition for Child Survival, Andrew E. Barrer, Ph.D., Executive Director

U.S. Fund for UNICEF, Caryl M. Stern, President & CEO

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, Liz Schrayer, Executive Director

United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, James E. Winkler, General Secretary

University of South Florida Office of International Affairs, María de los Angeles Crummett, Ph.D., Dean of International Affairs

U.S. Overseas Cooperative Development Council, Robert I. Nooter, Executive Director

USAID Alumni Association, Hank Bassford, Terry Brown, Co-Chairs

USF Health International, Ann C. DeBaldo, Ph.D., Associate Vice President

Vermont Council on World Affairs, Gail Stevenson, Executive Director

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Washington Office of Public Policy, Women’s Division, United Methodist Church

Washington Office on Latin America, Joy Olson, Executive Director

Water for Humans, Rick McKenney MBA, Executive Director

Water For People, Ned Breslin, CEO

WaterAid, America, David Winder, PhD, CEO

Wellstart International, Audrey Naylor, MD, DrPH, President & CEO

Women of Reform Judaism, Shelley Lindauer, Executive Director

Women Thrive Worldwide, Ritu Sharma, Co Founder & President

World Learning, Adam Weinberg, President

World Neighbors, Melanie Macdonald, President & CEO

World Wildlife Fund, Carter Roberts, President & CEO

Individual Endorsements

Eli Y. Adashi, Professor of Medical Science, Brown University

J. Brian Atwood, Dean, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota; Former USAID Administrator

Richard H. Beahrs, Senior Advisor, Revolution Foods, Inc.; Former Senior Executive, Time Warner Inc.

Richard C. Blum, Chairman, Blum Capital Partners, LP

John J. Castellani, President, Business Roundtable

William H. Clapp, President, Seattle International Foundation

John J. Danilovich, Former CEO,Millennium Challenge Corporation

Maria Eitel, President, Nike Foundation

Daniel J. Evans, Former U.S. Senator

Claude  Fontheim, Fontheim International, LLC; GlobalWorks Foundation; Business Council for Global Development

Henrietta Holsman Fore, Former Director, U.S. Foreign Assistance; Administrator, US Agency for International Development

Samuel P. Fried, Executive Vice President, Limited Brands

Laurie Garrett, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

John Githongo Kenyan Transparency & Accountability Campaigner

Cate Goethals, Academic Director, Global Business Forum, Foster School of Business, University of Washington

David Goldberg, CEO, Survey Monkey

Mark Green, Ambassador and Member of Congress (ret.)

William D. Green, Chairman & CEO, Accenture

Gerald Grinstein, CEO-Emeritus, Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Rajat Gupta, Senior Partner Emeritus, McKinsey & Company

Tony  Hall , Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Agencies in Rome

Lee H. Hamilton, President & Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Carla A. Hills, Former U.S. Trade Representative; Former Secretary of Housing & Urban Development

George Ingram, Vice President, Academy for Educational Development

Neville Isdell, Former Chairman & CEO, The Coca-Cola Company

Sally Jewell, President & CEO, Recreational Equipment, Inc.; Chair, Initiative for Global Development

Farooq  Kathwari, Chairman, CEO & President, Ethan Allen Interiors Inc.

Robert Kissane, President, Community Counselling Service LLC

Charles E. Kolb, President, Committee for Economic Development

Jim Kolbe, Former Congressman; Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

H.L. Kotkins, Jr., Chairman & CEO, Skyway Luggage Company

Katrin Kuhlmann, Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Jim Kunder, Senior Resident Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Carol Lancaster, Dean, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service

William C. Lane, Washington Director, Caterpillar

Mark Malloch Brown, Former Administrator, United Nations Development Programme

Harold W. McGraw, III, Chairman, President & CEO, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Peter McPherson, President, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

Robert A. Mosbacher, Jr., Former President & CEO, OPIC; Chairman, Mosbacher Energy Company

Jane Nelson, Senior Fellow & Director, CSR Initiative, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Director, Business Strategy, International Business Leaders Forum

Larry Nowels, Independent Consultant

Michael J. Phillips, Former Chairman & CEO, Russell Investments

William K. Reilly, Senior Advisor, TPG Capital, LP; Former EPA Administrator

Anna E. Roosevelt, Vice President, Global Corporate Citizenship, The Boeing Company

William D., Ruckelshaus, Former EPA Administrator

George F. Russell, Jr., Chairman Emeritus, Russell Investments

Raffaele K. Salinari, President, Terre des Hommes International Federation

Sheryl Sandberg, COO, The Facebook Inc.

Dean A. Scarborough, Chairman, President & CEO, Avery Dennison Corporation

John M. Shalikashvili, Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Gregg Sherrill, Chairman & CEO, Tenneco Inc.

Faryar Shirzad, Former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs

Charles Slaughter, Founder, TravelSmith; President, Living Goods

Sarah Jane Staats, Director of Policy Outreach, Center for Global Development

Richard S. Swanson, President & CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines

Noam Unger, Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution

Ann Van Dusen, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service

Dr. Nancy J. Walker, Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center, Atlantic Council

John Whitehead, Former Co-Chairman, Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Former Deputy Secretary of State

James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman, International Advisory Board, Citigroup Inc.; Former President, The World Bank

Thank you again for your support! We couldn’t have done this without you.

President Obama is releasing the US’s MDG strategy today…but where’s the bigger plan?

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Summit is coming up in September. World leaders will discuss how to end hunger, send kids to school, keep mothers and their babies healthy, stop HIV/AIDS from becoming a death sentence, and all kinds of other poverty-fighting goals.

It’s a tall order. So President Obama asked USAID to produce a plan for doing the US share to meet the MDGs. Today, the White House releases that MDG action plan.

A plan to fight the MDGs is a great stepping stone in fighting global poverty, but it’s not the whole story. If the US is committed to fighting global poverty, President Obama needs to deliver a global development strategy at the upcoming MDG Summit.

I’m happy to report that the MDG action plan mentions a new “development policy” coming out soon. Why is it so important that the US come up with a plan to fight poverty? Until the US has some kind of mission statement, all of these piecemeal reform efforts are like a ship without a compass. Why bother investing in “game changing innovations” if we don’t know what destination we’re trying to get to?  Which innovations? To do what? How do we know when we’ve succeeded?

The good news is the White House may already have its mission.  In a document leaked this spring, here’s what they had to say:

“Helping to create a world with more prosperous and democratic states, able to meet the needs of their people and to be our partners in addressing common threats, challenges and opportunities.”

I think that’s a pretty great mission. Why not make it official?

And while you’re at it, tell us how you intend to get there. On the campaign trail, you committed to “Elevate, streamline, and empower a 21st Century US development agency.” I can’t think of a better way to put global poverty front and center!

And finally, show us how the US can make a truly lasting impact, and put ourselves out of the aid business. Borrowing a line from your own playbook, in the leaked document this spring:

“The US will respond directly to country priorities, making new investments in line with established national strategies and country development plans.  Where our partners set in place systems that reflect high standards of transparency and accountability, the US will empower responsible governments to drive development and sustain outcomes by working through national institutions rather than around them.”

President Obama, thanks for the MDG action plan. Looking forward to seeing that global development strategy at the MDG Summit in September!

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 five 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.

And now . . .Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

Conservative religious leaders have long voiced their support for helping the world’s poorest:

I deeply believe that if we as evangelicals remain silent and do not speak up in defense of the poor, we lose our credibility and our right to witness about God’s love and Word. — Rick Warren

If I were a parent in a poor, debt-riddled nation, cradling my dying child in my arms, my heart would be broken and I would cry out for a solution. My prayer is that the leaders of the world will heed these cries and will work together to solve this critical problem. As a follower of Jesus, however, I believe this is not just a political or economic issue, it’s a moral and spiritual issue as well.

– Billy Graham

In the present world order, the African nations are among the most disadvantaged. Rich countries must become clearly aware of their duty to support the efforts of the countries struggling to rise from their poverty and misery… Because all men and women bear God’s image and are called to belong to the same family redeemed by Christ’s Blood . . .

– Pope John Paul II

Debates over foreign assistance – funding levels, delivery mechanisms, program structure, etc. – are too often dominated by development insiders.  These experts – government officials, aid contractors, etc. – are certainly experienced and informed, but their focus is naturally on their own particular portfolio, and when they do make larger points, they can become lost in a maze of bureaucratic jargon and process arguments.

As we talk about America’s relationship to the rest of the world, particularly the developing world, we need to remind ourselves why many of our most effective assistance tools were first launched.  It’s not because we wanted to create new “make-work” for bureaucrats or a new entitlement for our implementing partners. These initiatives were created for noble purposes — to help lift lives and build communities in challenged parts of the world. They were created because, as President Kennedy said,

“There is no escaping … our moral  obligations as a wise leader and a good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations . . . as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people. . . .“

They were created because, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said,

Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and furthermore, the American people wouldn’t accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we’re naïve and so on, but we’re not Europeans – we’re Americans – and we have different principles.

They were created because as, President George W. Bush said,

. . .[W]e’re committed to development because it’s in our moral interests. I strongly believe in the timeless truth, to whom much is given, much is required. We are a blessed nation, and I believe we have a duty to help those less fortunate around the world. We believe that power to save lives comes with the obligation to use it.

If, in fact, this sense of compassion and moral obligation is part of what underpins our foreign assistance – from disaster relief to helping tackle the AIDS pandemic – then this same sense should push us to make sure we do it as effectively as possible.  As individuals, each of us makes choices as to the charities we’re going to support with our hard earned money. As we do so, we support those that can make our dollars go the furthest . . .that help us do the most good with what we can give. That same sentiment should apply when policymakers examine our foreign assistance framework – we need to make choices as to how we can do the most good with the limited resources that we can dedicate.