President Barack Obama is scheduled to be in the Seattle area tomorrow, as part of a West Coast campaign fund-raising push.
Given this city’s largely liberal and Democratic bent, Obama is likely to be warmly welcomed and celebrated. But our local humanitarian and aid community may not be so welcoming and friendly — given Obama’s proposed budget cutbacks to U.S. foreign aid, disaster relief and global health.
Here’s one such perspective from Joy Portella of Mercy Corps in Seattle:
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Mercy Corps
Joy Portella
This week, President Obama submitted his 2013 budget request to Congress. This request included the international affairs budget, which among other things, provides aid for impoverished families around the world.
Foreign assistance amounts to less than 1 percent of the total budget. That may shock many Americans who think we spend 5 or 10 percent – or even more – on aid.
President Obama’s request for foreign assistance is a mixed bag. Overall, the President would like to increase the aid budget by 2 percent over what he proposed last year. On one level, that looks like a strong commitment to the world’s poor, but a closer look at the numbers reveals something different.
If the President’s proposed budget is accepted, the United States’ ability to help families grappling with poverty, famine or natural disaster would be seriously undermined – at the same time that needs are growing around the globe. Continue reading →
Remember when the CIA did that fake vaccination scheme in Pakistan, the one that many predicted (correctly) would undermine confidence in American health assistance and other aid programs?
Well, there’s another ongoing saga that illustrates the cost of mixing up foreign aid with foreign policy, especially when we use covert means to achieve foreign policy goals. You will be forgiven if you have so far missed this story, given the boring headlines this week:
Basically, here’s the story: Alan Gross, a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, was charged in 2009 with espionage or some such by the Cuban government and sentenced to 15 years in jail. I’m not sure why the squeamishness in the recent headlines, but it deserves attention.
This ongoing saga is important to Gross and his family, of course, but also because of the implications it could have for the ongoing discussion within the federal government about “re-inventing foreign aid.”
The Associated Press has published a great analysis of newly released reports of Gross’ activities in Cuba aimed at ‘democracy promotion’ among the island nation’s small Jewish community. That sounds pretty tame, until you read up on the details which include smuggling into the country electronic communications equipment aimed at circumventing Cuba’s control of web traffic.
This included Gross smuggling into Cuba a specialized kind of satellite telephone (SIM) card that is not available to the public and, according to the AP, is “provided most frequently to the Defense Department and the CIA.”
The AP: U.S. officials say he did nothing wrong and was just carrying out the normal mission of USAID.
Huh? This is the normal mission of USAID?
This is certainly normal for the CIA, or those other branches of government legitimately set up to undermine authoritarian regimes around the world. I’m all for undermining authoritarian regimes.
But is it wise, and in our long-term interest, to be enlisting USAID in this cause as well?
Should the agency that was set up primarily to bring food to the starving, medical supplies to the injured or otherwise engage in America’s humanitarian causes overseas also be doing covert political work against hostile foreign governments?
Is there a need to more clearly delineate foreign aid from foreign policy?
Busan is the second largest city in South Korea and one of the world’s biggest port cities.
If you knew that, maybe you already know about the big “high-level” meeting there this week featuring folks like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and thousands of other top officials from around the world.
But you probably didn’t. I suspect many Americans likely haven’t even heard of Busan, or much about the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness conference going on there through tomorrow.
This may stem from the fact that many, if not most, Americans fail to understand why civilized, developed nations do foreign aid and overseas development — let alone why top world leaders, activists and others would attend such a wonky sounding meeting in some far-flung Asian city.
My job is to help you understand. It can be difficult, I agree, in part because the language of foreign aid and development is, frankly, awful. Deadly. Dull. Yes it is. But what we’re talking about here is not. This is often about life and death, peace versus war, hope versus despair. How we get a better world.
So I’ve been following the discussions at this meeting, remotely, and largely via The Guardian’s excellent coverage. As Sec. Clinton said in Busan, we do foreign aid and development because it is in our national interest to do so:
“Countries with growing economies are less likely to send refugees streaming across their borders or traffic in arms, drugs or people.”
That’s the standard U.S. political sound-bite anyway: Foreign aid makes us safer.
True enough, but isn’t this a sad state of affairs — that this is the case American politicians think they have to make?
Given the push right now by some in Congress to cut foreign aid (which is only about 1 percent of the budget), it often seems like our leaders shy away from saying this is about helping the world’s poorest. Why is that such a tough case for our government to make? It’s not a tough case for British conservatives or most European leaders to make. I wonder ….
This is the moral imperative angle, which I would say actually has a lot of support in the greater Seattle area where a substantial humanitarian aid and development community is big and getting bigger.
At the Busan meeting, Oxfam is among a number of organizations trying to shame governments and donors to keep their promises on foreign aid. Here’s a great video Oxfam made to make its case for how best to improve foreign aid:
But there are other non-shaming arguments to be made as well in favor of aid and development, such as the economic one. Here’s one such, initially confusing, case that was made by Tony Blair, writing in the Washington Post, on how improving foreign aid can help put an end to foreign aid:
Fifty years ago, the scene in Busan, South Korea, would have been a familiar image of international aid: sacks of grain stacked precariously on a crumbling dockside. The backdrop would have been a country emerging from war and dependent on outside assistance to meet the most basic needs. But when national and development leaders gather in Busan this week to discuss the future of aid, they will see a very different place: the fifth-busiest commercial port in the world, transporting advanced technologies around the globe. This, writ small, is the Korean miracle — the transformation of a country from aid-dependent to aid donor.
This isn’t rocket science. It should be obvious that it is in our economic interest to help other countries improve their lot. Yet, again, for some reason, even this remains a hard sell in the U.S. Continue reading →
US foreign aid programs should be for poverty relief and should not be taken over by national security interests, abetted by delusions of nation-building.
Easterly said the foreign aid budget was significantly increased under President George W. Bush and enjoyed wide bipartisan support in Congress until recently. So what happened to turn foreign aid into Congress’ favorite punching bag in the budget battle these days?
The answer is that the US aid program was taken over by national security interests, abetted by delusions of nation-building. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) wound up in the most self-destructive position – the unsuccessful cover-up…. The resultant failures overshadowed notable successes in more traditional aid programmes like health. These disasters and the neglect of more feasible poverty relief failed to sustain the compassionate constituency evident earlier in the decade.
I’ve written about this issue several times before, when the Arab Spring came to Egypt and many of us learned how much of our “aid” to Egypt had been actually going for military equipment in support of the Mubarak dictatorship. Here was a story the next day in The Guardian noting the risk of mixing up defense and aid.
For comparison purposes, here’s a chart from GOOD comparing how much we spend on aid vs. the military.
Easterly says it’s clear most Americans want to help the poor overseas. He contends the only way we can rescue foreign aid is to disentangle it from our national security interests:
Compassionate American taxpayers continue to make private donations at a rate higher than any other nationality in the world. The bipartisan coalition that came together to increase aid in 2002 may be nearly extinct, but it could be resurrected by redirecting aid to where it has a decent chance of working. Aid will not get too many more chances.
Bill Gates, who according to Forbes is the fifth most powerful person in the world, today made his case for boosting foreign aid and development to the G20 meeting of the world’s richest countries, which is held in France this year
It’s a compelling case. Unfortunately, it may be Greek to the rest of the world’s powerful.
As The Guardian’s live G20 website indicates, the meltdown of Greece’s economy — and its potential adverse impact on the global economy — is going to suck the air out of any attempt to float any other issue at this posh meeting in Cannes.
To paraphrase: When the going gets tough for the rich, it’s tough luck for the poor.
So what did Gates say? A lot actually.
He proposed, and handed in, a specific Plan to Assist the World’s Poor, which included his support for the idea of imposing a small “Robin Hood tax” on the financial industry and other select transaction. He also wants to encourage private investments in what has typically been viewed as the purview of government or humanitarian organizations. Says Gates:
The private sector hasn’t always invested as much in development as it should because the market incentives haven’t always been clear, but there are ways to encourage involvement. In my report to the G-20, I’ll make half a dozen recommendations for mobilizing tens of billions of dollars annually from private sources. The African diaspora is sitting on $50 billion in savings that could fund development in their home countries if it were captured through diaspora bonds.
Here’s a video from the Gates Foundation in which Bill says what he’s trying to do:
As this story from Reuters notes, Gates is the first businessman ever to be invited to address the G20 meeting. Many humanitarian groups lauded Gates’ call for the richest countries to not neglect the poor and to remain true to past aid and development commitments.
In response to Gates’ participation at the G20, Oxfam‘s Luc Lampriere said:
Gates’ timely message is that there will be no lasting global economic recovery without tackling poverty. He brings much needed impetus and ambition to a Summit nearly paralyzed by Europe’s woes.
World Vision issued a release, praising Gates’ advocacy on behalf of the poor as well — but suggesting he tone down the ‘innovation’ pitch a bit and crack some heads on the chronic failure of the G20 to live up to its promises.
What we need most is for the G20 countries to spend the money they promised to spend. There is no doubt that innovation will improve our ability to meet global poverty reduction commitments, but innovative financing would make more sense if the G20 were already doing their part.
It’s natural to become a bit self-centered when times are tough and uncertain.
Yet times are tough all over (for most, the 99 percent?, of us anyway) — and a lot tougher and uncertain for those living in the poorer parts of the world.
Today is the kick-off of an event by Global Washington aimed at counteracting our natural tendency toward self-absorption (and even good old American isolationism) — by celebrating, and fostering, the growth of Washington state’s global development community.
The global state of mind in Washington state, says Global Washington executive director Bookda Gheisar, is needed now more than ever.
“I think most people understand generally that a healthy global economy is good for all of us,” said Gheisar. “But many people think we spend something like 20 to 25 percent of the federal budget on foreign aid and development when it is really less than one percent.”
The Seattle area has a long history in international commerce, involving items such as airplanes, timber, coffee or software. Because of that, people here may understand better that assisting the poor overseas benefits us, she said. Continue reading →
I’m not sure why the foreign aid and development case is so hard to make to the American people, but perhaps we need to start looking at it as an economic investment opportunity rather than as a humanitarian imperative.
That seems to be how China sees it. China, which arguably is not known for its leadership in humanitarian endeavors, is doing tons of foreign aid and development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why?
The foreign aid discussion in Washington, D.C., seems like another good example of how disconnected Congress is from the thoughts and opinions of most Americans.
According to this survey published by MarketWatch, 72 percent of Americans think providing foreign aid is in our national interest. Yeah, that’s pretty vague, I agree. But other such surveys have shown pretty much the same thing, that many Americans think we spend loads on foreign aid (it’s actually only about 1 percent) and yet still think it’s a good idea.
The proposals have raised the specter of deep cuts in food and medicine for Africa, in relief for disaster-affected places like Pakistan and Japan, in political and economic assistance for the new democracies of the Middle East, and even for the Peace Corps.
Why the disconnect? Maybe because politicians know that cuts in foreign aid only hurt those overseas, and so have less chance of hurting them politically here at home.
