Although the House has passed all 12 FY10 Appropriations bills, including the International Affairs Budget, the Senate has only considered 4 bills thus far.  Currently, the International Affairs Budget is on track to be funded at $51 billion, which is $1.7 billion or 3.2 percent below present spending and $2.9 billion or 5.4 percent below the President’s request.

The Senate is expected to consider the $48.7 billion FY10 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, the largest component of the International Affairs Budget, sometime in the next few weeks.  The exact timing for floor consideration is unclear, as there are several major policy issues including healthcare, climate change and financial regulation, which may impact the Senate’s schedule.  We expect that it will come up in the second or third week of September but expect a more definitive schedule to be set later this week.

Given the current fiscal year ends on September 30th, and with only 15 legislative days remaining, it is likely that Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the federal government open until it can complete the appropriations process. As in years past, a CR will allow the government to operate at present spending levels. The exact timing and duration of a CR will depend on how many bills remain outstanding in the Senate and how fast House and Senate negotiators can come to agreements on bills that have already passed both chambers.

As a potential vote on the State, Foreign Operations bill gets closer, keep an eye out for information from the USGLC on how you can take action to ensure passage at the full amount to support our civilian-led tools of development and diplomacy.

The other night I watched the film “The Deer Hunter.” Afterward, I remembered why it took me so many years to be able to watch Vietnam movies.

It all came tumbling back — the tragedy, the innocent victims, the waste. Too often in Washington we tend to see foreign policy as an abstraction, with little understanding of what we are committing our country to: the complications and consequences of endeavors. It is easy to get into war, not so easy to get out. Vietnam lasted more than 10 years; soon, we will slip into our ninth year in Afghanistan. We have been in Iraq for almost seven years.

When I came to the Senate in 1997, the world was being redefined by forces no single country controlled or understood. The implosion of the Soviet Union and a historic diffusion of economic and geopolitical power created new influences and established new global power centers — and new threats. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, shocked America into this reality. The Sept. 11 commission pointed out that the attacks were as much about failures of our intelligence and security systems as about the terrorists’ success.

The U.S. response, engaging in two wars, was a 20th-century reaction to 21st-century realities. These wars have cost more than 5,100 American lives; more than 35,000 have been wounded; a trillion dollars has been spent, with billions more departing our Treasury each month. We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.

No country today has the power to impose its will and values on other nations. As the new world order takes shape, America must lead by building coalitions of common interests, as we did after World War II. Then, international organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and GATT (now the World Trade Organization) — while flawed — established boundaries for human and government conduct and expectations that helped keep the world from drifting into World War III and generally made life better for most people worldwide during the second half of the 20th century.

Read the Full Text

One of the oldest ideas in economics is gains from specialization. Adam Smith talked about it 233 years ago. All of us are good at a small number of things and suck at most everything else. The economy as a whole produces more because we each specialize in what we do best and then trade with everyone else.

beyonce-performing-3.pngWe see Beyoncé specializing in music videos, which she trades to Bill Gates for his specialized production of software. We will get more of both music videos and software from Beyoncé and Gates than if each (without the possibility of trade) had been forced to supply their own needs for software and music videos.

Beyoncé would be forced to take time away from videos to try to figure out her own software, and Gates would have to divert time from software to learning how to sing and dance in a swimsuit.
bill-gates-picture-2.png

Economists are often congratulated for their impressive grasp of the obvious. Yet if this principle is so obvious, why is it routinely violated in the aid world? It’s gotten worse with the Millennium Development Goals. Each aid organization tries to meet all MDGs and each fails to specialize. Therefore some aid agencies are forced to supply things they are bad at – the equivalent of Gates’ music videos – for which there is no demand.

Read the Full Post

Washington, DC — The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition today released the following statement from Executive Director Liz Schrayer on the new Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy:

“The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition applauds President Obama for his Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy as another step toward making our civilian-led tools of development and diplomacy stronger and more effective.

“The USGLC called for a comprehensive global development strategy as part of our “Putting Smart Power to Work” report last spring, recommending the Administration take an across-the-board look at all U.S. development efforts as a necessary and important step toward establishing such a strategy.

“This Presidential Directive, along with President Obama’s strong FY10 International Affairs Budget request and the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), demonstrates the Administration’s continued commitment to a smart power foreign policy approach to address the global challenges of the 21st century.

“The USGLC stands ready to work with the National Security Council and the National Economic Council on this new Directive and with the State Department on the QDDR in creating a seamless process for a comprehensive global development strategy.”

###

The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (www.usglc.org) is a broad-based influential network of 400 businesses and NGOs; national security and foreign policy experts; and business, faith-based, academic and community leaders in all 50 states who support a smart power approach of elevating development and diplomacy alongside defense in order to build a better, safer world.

When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day, they will find an increasingly vocal and diverse, bipartisan movement pushing to make the non-military U.S. foreign assistance system more efficient and effective. Of our aid dollars today, less than half of one percent is given to poverty-focused development assistance. A more modern foreign aid system will strengthen our efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic growth for struggling people in developing countries.

The movement cannot be ignored. Supporters from the Obama administration, members of Congress, pastors, and concerned citizens have come together with a simple message: given the big foreign policy and economic challenges we face, we cannot afford piecemeal or patchwork changes. Neither can the world’s most vulnerable people. We need fundamental and comprehensive reform now.

The problems that have to be addressed are well documented. Our current foreign assistance system is a fragmented, duplicitous, and non-transparent network of programs. It is overseen by 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices.

The U.S. foreign assistance system traces its roots to the Marshall Plan, a U.S. support program that helped rebuild Europe from the devastation of World War II. Despite the success of the plan, public support had dwindled by the late 1950s. To remedy the situation, President John F. Kennedy pushed for the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The law decoupled civilian and military assistance, attempted to depoliticize development, and created, among other things, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

His rationale for the law has haunting similarities to the situation we now confront: “…the existing program [is] bureaucratically fragmented, awkward and slow, its administration…diffused over a haphazard and irrational structure covering at least four departments and several other agencies. Its weaknesses have begun to undermine confidence in our effort both here and abroad.”

Read the Full Text

When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day, they will find an increasingly vocal and diverse, bipartisan movement pushing to make the non-military U.S. foreign assistance system more efficient and effective. Of our aid dollars today, less than half of one percent is given to poverty-focused development assistance. A more modern foreign aid system will strengthen our efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic growth for struggling people in developing countries.

The movement cannot be ignored. Supporters from the Obama administration, members of Congress, pastors, and concerned citizens have come together with a simple message: given the big foreign policy and economic challenges we face, we cannot afford piecemeal or patchwork changes. Neither can the world’s most vulnerable people. We need fundamental and comprehensive reform now.

The problems that have to be addressed are well documented. Our current foreign assistance system is a fragmented, duplicitous, and non-transparent network of programs. It is overseen by 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices.

The U.S. foreign assistance system traces its roots to the Marshall Plan, a U.S. support program that helped rebuild Europe from the devastation of World War II. Despite the success of the plan, public support had dwindled by the late 1950s. To remedy the situation, President John F. Kennedy pushed for the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The law decoupled civilian and military assistance, attempted to depoliticize development, and created, among other things, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

His rationale for the law has haunting similarities to the situation we now confront: “…the existing program [is] bureaucratically fragmented, awkward and slow, its administration…diffused over a haphazard and irrational structure covering at least four departments and several other agencies. Its weaknesses have begun to undermine confidence in our effort both here and abroad.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently concluded her maiden trip to sub-Saharan Africa carrying in her words “a tough message lovingly delivered.” Simultaneously, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk visited Kenya, Ethiopia and Senegal also touting, in his words, “a tough love” message for Africans.

But U.S. policy in Africa is not about love. It’s about advancing America’s core interests: promoting economic growth and development, combating terrorism, and fostering well-governed, stable countries. Did Mrs. Clinton’s trip advance those interests? The record is mixed.

The secretary of state did well to show the American flag in the region’s most strategic countries. Kenya is the regional hub for commerce in East Africa, and it plays a key role in combating terrorism in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. South Africa and Nigeria together constitute more than 50% of sub-Saharan Africa’s economic output, and both countries are major providers of peacekeeping forces throughout Africa. Mrs. Clinton got it right that we must engage these countries to help shape the continent’s future in a fashion that advances our mutual interests.

She was also right to speak about women’s empowerment. Her stops in the Democratic Republic of Congo—especially the conflict zone of Goma where women are frequent victims of war-related rape—and Liberia, home of Africa’s first elected woman president, demonstrate her commitment to highlight and advance women’s issues globally.

Not so welcome is the false billing that Mrs. Clinton’s trip was the earliest by an American secretary of state. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice traveled there earlier in their terms—Mr. Powell in May 2001 and Ms. Rice in July 2005. Even more unwelcome is the Obama administration’s penchant for lecturing Africans rather than listening.

Here are four quick steps the administration can take to translate the rhetoric of love into policies that advance mutual U.S. and African interests:

Read the Full Text

The economic recovery of the United States depends in large part on the rest of the world. Ninety-five percent of all consumers live outside America’s borders, constituting huge potential markets for American goods and services. Ninety-seven percent of American exporters employ fewer than 500 employees, so the future of many small and medium-sized businesses relies on trade. One in six American manufacturing jobs is supported by trade, and agricultural exports support nearly a million more jobs. And, in a time of cutbacks and layoffs, American jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 18 percent more than the national average.

“We need trade to grow America’s economy,” confirms U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk. “When income levels rise in other countries because of trade, American goods find new markets,” he summarizes. One way to foster productive international trade is through effective U.S. foreign assistance that works to create stronger trade partners throughout the developing world. Such partners, in turn, are better equipped to attract the investments that can connect them to markets, lift them out of poverty, and place them on a path to sustainable economic growth.

While many think of American aid as short-term responses for humanitarian concerns, it is much more than that; U.S. development assistance funds are also invested to bolster the trade capacity of developing countries to better integrate them with the global economy, benefitting them and us. That is why the United States is meeting with sub-Saharan African countries this week in Kenya at the 8th AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) Forum to discuss ways to facilitate greater trade and investment. U.S. assistance supports technical training to help the poor develop trade strategies to access American markets, streamline their customs and national standards, and boost trade-related skills. American aid builds roads, ports, and bridges to literally connect the poor to global markets so they can compete and trade.

Read the Full Text

Over the course of her visits to seven African nations (Kenya, South Africa, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Nigeria and Cape Verde), she emphasized several themes including:

• The need for good governance– both as a precursor for trade and investment and a human rights expectation;
• The important role for public-private partnerships an innovative solutions;
• The need to invest in development (focused on agriculture and health);
• The increased role of trade and technology in advancing Africa; and
• Her commitment to advocating for women.

While no major initiative was announced, the Secretary’s trip laid the groundwork for more significant engagement in Africa.  The length and breadth of her trip are an example of the importance of development and diplomacy in assisting countries come out of poverty and in increasing markets for more trade and economic growth.

COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY RECAP

In Kenya, Sec. Clinton pushed for government accountability – referencing last year’s violent elections and warning that investors would shun nations with corrupt leadership and economies.  She also met up with Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and they spoke jointly about the plans they have to combat food security.  During the visit, Vilsack remarked, “We must help Africa produce enough food to feed its people and create economic opportunities for this continent.”

While in South Africa, she discussed the significant need for new strategies and resources and the department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), saying “we have made a commitment to having diplomacy and development be in equal standing with defense.”  She also pressed the government to help diffuse the political crisis with its neighbor, Zimbabwe, and she applauded efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The most emotional moment came during her visit with rape victims in Goma in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where sexual assault has been used as a weapon of war.  Clinton committed $17 million to provide medical care and humanitarian assistance to an estimated 10,000 women in that region.

Secretary Clinton’s visit to Angola reinforced the importance of U.S. ties to this oil-producing nation and was an opportunity to encourage free and fair elections.  This was similar to her message in Nigeria where she pledged help in dealing with violence in the Niger Delta while also pushing the government to stop corruption and improve their electoral process.

In Liberia, Clinton praised the work of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first elected female head of state, for her work in bringing Liberia from civil war to a burgeoning democracy.  She ended her trip in Cape Verde where she congratulated them as a model of a successful Millennium Challenge Corporation partner.

Remarkably, a reform effort is under way in Washington that has yet to devolve into a partisan shouting match. The reform involves our foreign-aid apparatus, which is in dire need of an overhaul. It matters because amid this tough economy, every taxpayer dollar is especially precious and because of the great good foreign aid can do.

The legislation that authorizes our overseas development programs is more than 45 years old, without updates or improvements in more than 20 years. At a time when our national-security and foreign-policy priorities have become increasingly dependent on effective development, our political leaders must act swiftly and put partisan politics aside in order to enact reforms that will make our foreign-aid programs more efficient, more effective and therefore more capable of supporting and advancing our national interests around the globe.

Despite some initial positive steps by the Obama administration and Congress, a critical constituency is missing from the discussion: congressional conservatives. As a proud fiscal hawk and a true believer in the power of U.S. foreign assistance to lift lives and enhance alliances, I urge conservatives to get more engaged and embrace the opportunity this debate presents.

I served in Congress from 1999 to 2007, when an unprecedented bipartisan coalition came together and increased U.S. foreign assistance aimed at easing the suffering of people in developing countries. Without the participation and leadership of conservatives in Congress and the George W. Bush administration, none of this would have been possible.

The vital role played by conservatives was perhaps best exemplified by the transformation of the late Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, who went from being Congress’ most strident anti-foreign-aid voice to a co-sponsor of a bill providing $200 million to help fight HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Read the Full Article