The Obama Administration says it wants to re-invent foreign aid and one of its mantras is to increase “country ownership” of the programs it funds for improving health and welfare in poor countries.
Given this, it came as a shock to Dr. Stephen Gloyd and others at the UW’s Health Alliance International (HAI) when the government basically pulled the plug on a long-running AIDS health care project in Mozambique that is, or was anyway, widely regarded as a model of doing just that.
“It’s ironic given their goal of wanting to strengthen local governance,” said Gloyd, director at HAI.
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) recently denied HAI its request for continued funding of the project — a $100 million, 5-year grant. As a result of losing its bid for the grant, the non-profit organization affiliated with the UW Global Health Department had to lay-off nearly 900 health workers in Mozambique and cut its Seattle staffing by half, from more than 40 down to 22 people.
“It’s been wrenching,” said Gloyd, who is also associate chairman of the UW Global Health Department.
As the Seattle Times reported this week, the non-profit health services organization had expanded greatly over the past five years to assist with the global efforts aimed at improving access to HIV treatment in Africa. Gloyd said they fully expected to continue doing this work. Continue reading →
Egypt, now in political revolution, is one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, getting more than a billion dollars annually.
USAID
U.S. foreign assistance map
As this data from USAID’s excellent new Foreign Assistance Dashboard shows, nearly all of it has gone for “peace and security” — which is, of course, a euphemism for military spending.
Supporting Egypt’s outgoing (soon, yes) dictatorial president Hosni Mubarak has been the primary motive for that aid, partly because of Egypt’s relatively friendly stance as an Arab nation toward us and toward Israel. Continue reading →
Most Americans think we spend a huge amount of money on foreign aid and that this is an area where we can afford to cut back on as Congress looks for ways to reduce debt.
As this info-graphic from the U.S. Agency for International Development should demonstrate, we don’t and we probably can’t (afford to cut further overall, though there may be a call for cutting specific programs while boosting others).
Part of the reason for the public ignorance of foreign aid is the peculiar reluctance our politicians have to talking about it as central to our national security and long-term interests. President Obama’s State of the Union speech, devoid of much talk about the rest of the world, is just the latest example.
Take a look at USAID’s graphic if you want to get a quick look at the facts rather than the rhetoric:
USAID
US foreign aid
So where does the money go?
This is just a screen grab. Go to the USAID link (here, or cited above) to see the full graphic. It’s very informative and easy to scan.
Because of the hard economic times, or maybe it’s the holiday spirit, a number of folks are saying we need to cut U.S. foreign aid — as if it is some huge financial extravagance we can no longer afford.
The reality is, it’s not huge at all (see pie chart below) and not really an extravagance.
Nevertheless, on Fox News, Bradley Blakeman, a professor of politics at Georgetown University and former adviser to President George W. Bush calls for cuts to foreign aid, saying “Charity Begins at Home.” Continue reading →
Clinton and the Obama Administration could have called this proposed overhaul (and they actually do call it this, sometimes) the “Smart Power Initiative” or “Modernizing Diplomacy and Development” or just a “new strategy for foreign aid and diplomacy” … or maybe even “New Hearts and Minds.”
But no, Clinton’s wordsmiths at the State Department decided to dub it the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (mimicking military talk, I guess, after the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review).
For those in the know, it’s the QDDR and it’s the acronym du jour for the development community. The gist of it had been leaked earlier (not by Wikileaks, mind you, which did have something to say on how Clinton was transforming diplomacy and development in a different — not altogether positive — way), but Wednesday’s announcement provided the full monty.
There’s plenty of commentary and reaction out there to the QDDR, largely ranging from those celebrating the proposed changes that include beefing up staff and strengthening the role of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
One huge issue is whether Congress, where power in the House is about to shift from Democratic to Republican hands, will properly fund the initiatives in the QDDR. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton … sees the QDDR as a document that can justify funding for diplomacy and development next year, while also rebuilding the capacity of USAID and reforming the way the State Department does business both at home and abroad.
One of the more important points, to my mind, was made by Paul O’Brian of Oxfam America:
“The QDDR is an important step in reaffirming the efforts to modernize USAID and further elevate it as ‘the world’s premier development agency. But the document leaves open the question of how the United States will resolve situations where diplomacy and development will require different approaches and tradeoffs.”
There’s lots of media coverage about the politics behind the QDDR, the funding challenges and any number of specifics in the reform proposal. But I think one of the issues that deserves the hardest looks is this potential conflict between our government’s political goals and the goals of foreign aid/development.
I’ve written about this before, when some of those present at Wednesday’s unveiling of the QDDR were in Seattle to talk about a subset of this new vision that they called “Smart Global Health” policy.
An article on the QDDR by Interpress also mentions the problem of mixing up foreign aid, development and international politics:
InterAction, a network of U.S.-based NGOs focused on global poverty, echoed O’Brien’s concern, though, by pointing out that the State Department would have some oversight over foreign assistance and development strategies and that this could, again, lead to political objectives overriding development ones.
The QDDR’s call for beefing up the U.S. government’s meager investment in foreign aid and development, along with efforts aimed to improve efficiency and coordination across agencies, is welcome news to many working on multiple fronts against poverty, inequity and poor health around the world.
But more attention likely needs to be paid to defining the difference between diplomacy and development, foreign aid and foreign policy, before we move too rapidly toward merging them together under one roof. And let’s hope the QDDR gets replaced by something a little less wonky.
Part of this is due to leaked diplomatic documents in which it appears Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on their colleagues and United Nations officials.
Clinton has denied the charges, but Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange has specifically focused on these documents saying if they are borne out Clinton should resign. A number of media outlets have gone to great pains to examine the allegations, sometimes doing hair-splitting semantic defenses of Clinton and others noting the diplomats ignored Clinton anyway.
But what’s more important here is the question Madeleine Bunting of the Guardian asks: “Will Wikileaks mean Hillary Clinton turns her back on development?” The Obama Administration has been engaged in serious efforts aimed at improving and beefing up U.S. efforts in foreign development — an initiative largely welcomed by many humanitarian and development organizations. Bunting says:
“Not only is (Clinton’s) political career on the line, but the State Department faces an uncertain future in the turf battles over budget and influence in Washington. The collateral damage is the grand centrepiece of Clinton’s recasting of how the US asserts its influence in the world…. Clinton’s bold new strategy for what she called “civilian power, in which diplomacy and development were closely co-ordinated to achieve US interests and global security.
As noted earlier on this blog, some of the world’s leading humanitarian and private foreign assistance organizations have asked the U.S. Agency for International Development to stop requiring USAID flag logos on its donated materials.
Aid organizations say it can endanger their workers and it also compromises their need to remain political neutral.
USAID chief Rajiv Shah responded today with a statement that was published in the Huffington Post. Shah, a former Gates Foundation program manager, appears to be saying the logo policy will remain in effect.
It may be off the headlines now, but the pressure remains on USAID from many prominent NGOs like World Vision, Oxfam and Save the Children to end its requirement of putting the American flag on donated materials.
I wrote about this dispute last week and a USAID official told me talks aimed at resolving this disagreement are “intense.”
The Obama Administration says it wants to re-invent foreign aid and one of its mantras is to increase “country ownership” of the programs it funds for improving health and welfare in poor countries.
