TEDxAmsterdam: Mark Kamau from TEDxAmsterdam on Vimeo.

This is such an inspirational story by Mark Kamau, a Kenyan who calls himself the “Slumdog Manager”. Born in the poverty of Kenya’s well-known slums, Kamau emerged as a web designer graduating from the NairoBits program. He attributes his success story to four principles:

He was:

• Respected
• Challenged
• Supported
• Given Responsibility

If we apply these same principles of dignity to “intelligent engagement” rather than the traditional concept of “aid”, we will be able to empower Africans to take control of their own destiny.

To promote the empowerment of Kenyan street youth, check out the amazing work being done by a former-street-kid-turned-entrepreneur, Wiclif Otieno and Kito International! Kito’s Maria Springer was just selected as an Unreasonable Fellow as well! Become a fan on Facebook and follow both @WiclifOtieno and @MariaSpringer on Twitter!

I’m a strong critic of our current system for US Foreign Assistance and its systemic inability to effect sustainable social change on a scale worthy of the amounts we invest. This documentary, “What Are We Doing Here?” travels to through the developing world to ask the tough questions about our foreign assistance programs. This is a great CNN interview that provides a good overview of the film. You can visit their website to purchase the documentary for $25.

An article in todays Business Daily newspaper caught my eye and has inspired me to begin my discussion on the role of China in Africa. This is a wildly important discussion and I promise there is more to come on this topic.

Anyways, this article suggests that the rise in US trade-related engagement with Africa is in direct response to China’s threatening stake-hold on the continent. I don’t entirely agree with the suggestion, but it raises a critical point: the US needs to take a serious look at the role of China in Africa and throughout the developing world, and then reevaluate our approach to these undervalued and underestimated developing regions of the world. Historically, the United States has taken a very ethnocentric and paternalistic stance when dealing with Africa — an approach that, from the receiving end, tends to be condescending and demoralizing. America’s long tradition of attaching conditionalities to all forms of foreign assistance (for better or for worse) further exacerbated nationalistic sentiments and resentment towards the US within the aid-receiving countries. So it was no surprise that when China invited 35 African Heads of State to Beijing in 2006, providing celebrations and red carpet treatment, to discuss China-Africa relations, Africans were thrilled to have a new partner in the world — one that treated them as equals.

Now there is a stark contrast between US and Chinese engagement with Africa. While the US does come off as paternalistic and restrictive (particularly with the large number of conditionalities attached to aid), it is trying to uphold certain standards of human rights and morality. Additionally, many conditions (particularly economic) on aid are intended to protect the investment and maximize its impact. But the US has, for the most part, dismissed Africa as a mutually beneficial trading partner. US engagement with Africa is out of a “moral imperative”.

China, on the other hand, has approached Africa as an “equal” and as an alternative to the US and the West. China’s investment in Africa has been less humanitarian and more economic. When an African country want to get a certain project complete an they are looking at two bids: one from the US government and one from the Chinese government, the Chinese offer a blank check with no political or economic conditions whatsoever. However the Chinese have a high propensity of making unfulfilled promises at the outset of a deal, importing their own labor to carry out a project, and mostly extracting natural resources. And the Chinese are ruthless business people, doing business with countries under the backdrop of genocide and dictatorship. They are adept to protecting corrupt leaders in exchange for access to local resources.

That being said, I don’t believe that America’s increase in trade-related engagement with Africa is a direct response to China’s growing stake over the continent — otherwise we would see a decline in conditions and political stipulations attached to trade policy like AGOA. Rather, I believe that this shift is a direct response to a rapidly changing global landscape whereby African markets are becoming more stable both politically and economically. Additionally, I see a dramatic shift coming in the future toward increased investment in Africa driven both by a moral imperative and an economic understanding. This, I believe, will grow as the younger generations begin to assume control of US policy and business.

For now, I’ll leave you with some video for the weekend! This is Riz Khan’s “China in Africa” series:
Part 1/2:

Part 2/2:

In Other News:

Standard Charter shocks rivals with 43 per cent profit growth (via Business Daily) – The banking sector in Kenya is one of the largest recipients of FDI, despite the fact that only about 10% of Kenyans potentially eligible for a bank account actually hold one. Despite the post-election violence in 2008, three out of four of Kenya’s major banks still experienced growth. It seems that still today the banking sector in Kenya continues to surprise!

Chinese and Indian Growth in Latin America: New Business Opportunities (via NextBillion.net) – This is a nice piece on the current and possibly future role of China in the Latin America / Caribbean (LAC) region. I disagree with the zero-sum suggestion in the second paragraph, but the rest of the article is great!

Here’s your Daily Brief for August 6th:

There has been a lot of buzz surrounding AGOA for the last week or so, and I’ve included a few articles in my daily briefs the last couple of days. I figured today I would dedicate the entire DB to AGOA and flush out some of the concerns and issues on all sides.

First of all, I’m very disappointed in the US Media for completely ignoring this story all together. I was watching NBC Nightly News the other night and Brian Williams cut to a reporter traveling with Hillary Clinton, they were in Nairobi, and all they talked about was North Korea! A cursory Google News query for “AGOA” yields nominal US reports. But some wildly important issues are being raised!

So, I hereby take it upon myself to be your guide through AGOA 2009:

Brief Background on AGOA

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was initially passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in May 2000. Four years later, President Bush signed the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004. AGOA expands on the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and gives eligible African Countries trade preferences for quota and duty-free entry into the US on certain goods.

But what would US Trade Policy be without political stipulations? AGOA allows the President to determine a country’s annual eligibility (of course, this responsibility lies more in the hands of the USTR). To date, there are about 41 countries eligible for AGOA preferences.

While AGOA acknowledged the need for eased integration of African economies into the core global economy, it has had some significant shortcomings. It is these shortcomings that have dominated the discussion among scholars and the African media the last couple of weeks.

The theme of this year’s AGOA Forum was “Realizing the Full Potential of AGOA Through Expansion of Trade and Investment”. It’s interesting this comes a year after the original legislation was set to expire (the 2004 Acceleration Act extended it through 2015). But given this theme, it makes these shortcomings essential to address and discuss.

AGOA Shortcomings

The first of the major shortcomings is the political stipulations mentioned above, whereby the US reserves the right to pick and choose eligible recipients. Bill Easterly wrote a great post yesterday on this (linked below), so I’ll keep my remarks short here. Whenever politics and economics come together, the outcome is rarely/never good. And when we’re speaking about developing nations, sometimes the stick/carrot game really hurts us more politically. (This could lead into an entire discussion on the role of China in Africa!)

The second major shortcoming is the US’ still-burdensome import standards, regulations, and policies. From Kenyan exporters to the US that I’ve spoken with, this is a big non-tariff barrier in itself. If we want AGOA to succeed we need to work on assisting African exporters in meeting US-Import Standards.

A third shortcoming is that of little capacity building and technical assistance. While a provision for this was written into the original legislation, it remains a significant issue. This is discussed further below in the “African Countries Call on US Reform” section.

The final shortcoming, and probably most important, is the disproportionate consistency of US-Africa trade under AGOA. While last year’s trade numbers reached $67.5 billion, about a 30% increase year-on-year, 97.2% of that went to oil producers in only six countries. This means that all other countries only brought in $1.9 billion total. And that number is predominantly textile and apparel exports. (Download US-African Trade Profile 2009)

US Calls on African Reform

Aside from calls for political reform throughout Africa (notably in Madagascar, Liberia, and Kenya), the US Trade Representative to Kenya Ron Kirk offered his suggestions for economic reform in an Op/Ed piece for the Business Daily newspaper.

He called for a diversification of trade in order to generate and sustain economic growth. Furthermore, he suggested African Countries improve their local business environments and foster entrepreneurial initiative.

Secretary Hillary Clinton notably announced, “Today, Africa counts for two percent of global trade. If Sub-Saharan Africa were to increase that share by only one percent, it would generate additional export revenues each year greater than the total amount of annual assistance that African currently receives.” Hopefully this signals a shift is State Department / USAID thinking away from the traditional aid model and more toward a business/trade approach to Africa. (Her full remarks are embedded below)

African Countries Look Inwards

African ministers have acknowledged the role they play internally in making AGOA work. They have called on regional economic blocs like the EAC, SADC, ECOWAS to lead the way in increasing global competitiveness.

African Countries Call on US Reform

President Kibaki called on the US to assist in removing obstacles to trade such as those mentioned above. “The US should help Africa build trade capacity because some of the set quality standards demand that we import specialized equipment, materials and parts from the developed world,” he said.

Other African ministers called on the US to enhance the goals of AGOA through the transfer of skills and technology to improve the quality of exports.

One request include the establishment of a low-cost credit facility for start-up businesses in Africa willing to participate in AGOA, coupled with US-provided technical training and assistance.

African entrepreneurs have requested that product inspection be done in the country of origin, helping lower costs and other technical barriers to trade.

Concluding Remarks

Overall, the discussion is an important one. Integrating Africa into the global economic core is an essential task, but a task of which responsibility does not solely lie on the shoulders of the United States. There is a lot to be done in African Countries with respect to capacity building that does not require US assistance. Additionally, there needs to be a discussion among business leaders, both American and African, to lead toward greater cooperation and increased access to mutually beneficial opportunities.

Here’s Secretary Clinton’s Keynote Remarks at the AGOA Forum in Kenya:

And Here is a Joint Press Conference with Kenya’s Foreign Minister:

And As a Little Treat, Here’s a Sneak Peak Into The Night’s Activities @ Carnivore:

Note: It’s not like the nights at Carnivore I remember!

Here’s the Bill Easterly article I mentioned above:

Hilary offers trade opportunities to Africa – except when we don’t feel like it (via Bill Easterly) – Bill Easterly expresses concern in this blog post over the USTR’s ability to revoke AGOA status from any country for “political” reasons like poor governance. He points to Madagascar, an exemplar country for the success AGOA has had in promoting its textile industry; but political unease in the country has led to the USTR threatening to revoke AGOA eligibility (effectively destroying the local textile industry comprising 6.5-8% of GDP and 50,000 jobs).

Updated:

Here’s some good articles on AGOA:

The New Global Reality: Africans Lead the Way at the AGOA Forum

Will Global Recession Damage US-Africa Trade Ties? (via Paul Collier and Rosa Whitaker)

Here’s your Daily Brief for August 5th:

Paul Farmer out for USAID? (via Foreign Policy) – It appears as if Paul Farmer, the man recently rumored to be appointed head of USAID, is no longer in the running. The culprit seems to be the daunting vetting process itself, including a form requiring the candidate to list every foreign national he/she has come into contact with of the past several years.

How is AID-reform supposed to take place if nobody can get in to reform it???

In the works: Major social enterprise rating and reporting systems – It looks like some big changes to the social capital markets world may be in the works. The first is the “Impact Reporting and Investment Standards” — an initiative toward creating a common language for assessing social and environmental impact. The second is the “Global Impact Investment Rating System”, a B-Lab-like system for rating global private equity and investment portfolios. I could see the latter being a huge success — leading to increased private investment in such funds/portfolios.

Interview with Marie Konaté, CEO of a leading producer of fortified infant cereal products in Côte d’Ivoire – Protein Kisèe-La is a company delivering cereal-based foods designed to fight malnutrition while promoting the production of local food crops.

Quote of the Day:

Clinton Re-Affirms US Commitment to Africa Partnership (via VOA) – “Today, Africa counts for two percent of global trade,” she said. “If Sub-Saharan Africa were to increase that share by only one percent, it would generate additional export revenues each year greater than the total amount of annual assistance that Africa currently receives.” – Hillary Clinton

What do you think about the Daily Brief? Let me know!

Here’s your Daily Brief for August 4th:

Investment Into Rwanda to Rise 10% in 2009 (via Reuters) – Hat tip to @whitakergroup for this gem: A more positive outlook than the NYT piece; This Reuters article reports a 10% increase in investment to Rwanda. The growth is attributed to an honest and disciplined government, though there is still red tape to be cut for investors.

Just When Africa’s Luck Was Changing (via NYT) – This article from the New York Times takes a look at the impact of the global credit crisis on investment in Africa. Just as major investment projects were on the rise throughout the continent, companies have had to scale back due to the current economic climate. What I like about this article is that it makes the argument FOR business in Africa. Quoted in the article is M Nathaniel Barnes, Liberia’s ambassador to the United States and the country’s former finance minister:

““Instead of talking to Usaid, I’d rather be talking to a company like Nike,” Mr. Barnes said. “Having a partner like that means jobs and economic growth, and you just don’t get that from aid.”

The article further illustrates examples of business investments throughout the African continent. This is something that is rare and much needed in the US Media – painting a more accurate picture of Africa and its numerous investment opportunities.

Trade a powerful development tool (via Business Daily Africa) – Ron Kirk, a US Trade Representative in Kenya, wrote this Op/Ed piece in the Business Daily Africa. He stresses the need for African countries to expand and diversify trade in order to achieve sustained economic growth. Additionally, he calls on African Countries to improve their own business environments by nurturing entrepreneurial initiative and simplifying/modernizing border procedures.

Diary of a Social Venture Start-up (via GOOD) – This is a series of blog posts over on the GOOD Magazine website that looks pretty intriguing

It got me thinking about all of the acronyms that we in the development field are forced to keep up with. I continually notice when I try to explain to people what I’m working on at any given time, it’s like I’m speaking an alien language. The development community, through its excessive use of acronyms, has created its own language — a language known only to those within that bubble. The exclusive nature of development acronyms creates a proverbial wall between development professionals and the rest of the world.

The question is, to what degree does this division (and isolation) pervade into the development community’s ability to effectively do its work around the world? 

Leave a comment and share your thoughts!

On my first day in Irving Rosenthal’s class, “Rethinking US Foreign Assistance”, I remember having this same discussion and I got some scowls when I declared it doesn’t matter how we justify aid in rhetoric so long as the money is appropriated and the projects are properly executed — it’s politics!

With this in mind, I thought I’d post my midterm paper for the class on the inseparability of US Foreign Aid and National Security (if you are wondering why I formatted my sections this way, we were given a list of questions to answer 3 — I tried to make it flow, though):

Executive Summary
The focus of this paper is to illustrate the inseparability of US foreign assistance and national security objectives. National security, in the case of this paper, incorporates physical, economic and political security, as all three are heavily reliant on global stability. The paper begins by examining the idealist and realist approaches to US foreign assistance programs by presenting the two frameworks, providing a historical perspective, and arguing that using either framework as a lens in appropriating foreign assistance can be damaging as the two are inseparable. The second section of the paper uses the Cold War as an example of how US foreign assistance was used as a foreign policy tool and show that the post-Cold War decline in foreign assistance proved to result in a new threat to national security interests. All of this culminates in the third section to very recent history in a post-9/11 world, where emphasis on US foreign assistance and its correlation to national security objectives is at an all-new high.

Idealist versus Realist Approach to US Foreign Aid
Idealism and Realism are the two fundamental paradigms through which all issues pertaining to international affairs can be viewed. Both derive from the notion of American exceptionalism, but differ in both their views of the world order and what the fundamental role of US foreign policy is within that world order. With respect to US foreign assistance programs, both paradigms offer rationale for why such programs are necessary.

The idealist approach argues that foreign assistance is a humanitarian act and that through our altruistic benevolence, we will be rewarded by a better world. Within the world order, it is important for the United States to lead by example, and use its tools of foreign policy and foreign assistance to create a more democratic and economically prosperous future for all.

Realism, however, typically centers on the idea that underlying national security interests or imperatives always drive foreign policy and foreign assistance actions. The realist framework would argue that by providing assistance to foreign countries, we leverage our influence over that respective government. Under this approach, the US would use its foreign assistance programs as a means to create stability or leverage control on natural resources vital to the economic operations of the United States. Under a strict realist approach, one would expect to see a close integration among State Department, Department of Defense, and US foreign assistance programs.

It is often heard echoing off the walls of the palaces of third world dictators or from the rope lines of anti-West activists that Western countries have no interest in lifting the global south out of poverty because we benefit from their being poor. There is no argument that could be further from the truth. Poverty alleviation and development initiatives have stark implications in terms of national security, economic prosperity, and worldwide political stability.

The history of US foreign assistance has been a theoretical and practical battle among those attempting to convince the nation that it is in our best interest to invest in countries and in people around the world. Foreign assistance began with a realist-motif with the “lend-lease” program to the Allied nations during WWII. After the war, the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan after the war to re-develop Europe falls between the realist and idealist definitions, as it was in our national security and economic security interest but was also in part a moral imperative. Aid flows then began to go to Turkey and Greece to counter Soviet influence. After WWII there was politically a hard push toward liberal institutionalism, the hope to establish an international order based on law and institutions and transcending power politics. But the Cold War pervaded this hope, as the West battled the Soviets for the hearts, minds, and ideological influence of all that lay in between.

President Kennedy supported US foreign assistance programs while waving the idealist mantra. He said during his 1961 inaugural address, “To those people…struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves…not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.” He created USAID and sought to separate military assistance and development assistance. But up unto the end of the Cold War, the realist paradigm for foreign assistance continued to hold in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. The continuance of those initiatives post-Cold War hinged largely on the idealist rationales. But if one looks at the case of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, we provided military assistance but failed to provide the necessary development assistance and today we find ourselves back in the country fighting a new brand of ideology – showing us that realism and idealism, while being two difference frameworks, are practically inseparable when it comes to moral imperative versus strategic interests.

Academics love to think in terms of these frameworks, but I find it greatly damaging. Both frameworks shed light on important reasons as to why US foreign assistance programs are important, but a strict interpretation of either realism or idealism shapes policy in a manner that is self-defeating. First and foremost, the American exceptionalism approach to foreign policy leads to conditional assistance whereby a country must adopt certain political and economic policies in order to receive assistance. Empirically, the imposed conditions have resulted from naïveté and lack of understanding for different cultural norms and contexts, and also a lack of understanding of the full American experience. Second of all, both frameworks tend to get muddled in short-term and long-term goals. A strict idealist approach attempts to take on a near-impossible task of helping every single person in every single country – effective aid programs should be strategically implemented and built to become self-sustaining so that we can then target the next country or region. A strict realist approach runs the risk of getting caught up in the short-term strategic interests of the United States and can often run the risk of forgetting that it is in our long-term strategic national security interests to alleviate poverty worldwide, provide education, and help create prosperous economies where hope and aspiration drive peoples lives rather than hopelessness and destitution.

Cold War and Post-Cold War Impact on US Aid
Over the course of the Cold War, US foreign assistance programs surged as competition with the USSR counterpart fought to win over the hearts and minds of vulnerable countries around the world as each adversary sought appropriate spheres of influence both politically and economically (in terms of resources). The largest and most successful initiative was, of course, the Marshall Plan – designed to ensure the war-damaged states of Europe did not fall into the attractive communist ideology due to their hopeless sentiments and economic instability at the time. This drive was prompted by the famous telegraph of George Kennan warning of the vulnerable nature of many countries and the need for “containment”.

Outside of the Marshall Plan, the character of US foreign assistance was inconsistent and largely driven by short-term foreign policy decisions in the State Department. Development initiatives during this time were focused on “battleground states”, supporting anti-communist dictators such as Mobutu in Zaire, Marcos in the Philippines, and Suharto in Indonesia regardless of their abysmal domestic policies. US foreign assistance administrators treated states that appeared to be emerging democracies inconsistently. Also, a strong correlation exists between US foreign assistance initiatives and the countries where the Soviets were investing. Through this, countries like Ethiopia where dictators were taking foreign assistance from both sides were hugely empowered. Many of these countries fell into chaotic states when foreign assistance dried up immediately after the end of the Cold War.

After the end of the Cold War, hopes ran high among development specialists of continued foreign assistance that would not be weighted or determined by geo-political interests. Unfortunately, the attacks of September 11, 2001 charged the realist (and neoconservative) base, turning turned US foreign aid back into a geopolitical tool.

Linkages Between US Foreign Aid Activities and US National Security Policy
As has been stated thus far, US foreign assistance has long been closely associated with national security policy. I have pointed out that all foreign assistance has national security implications seeing as our physical, economic, and ideological/political security are all reliant on global stability, which can only fully result from the full integration of the developing world from the periphery into the core where hope and aspirations thrive. In the last section, we saw how US foreign assistance can and has been used as a tool for executing national security and foreign policy objectives. We ended that section with the mention of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

After September 11th, the world came to realize the ideological threat that had emerged over the course of the last decade or so. A new Cold War emerged. The reasons were numerous. The actors were diverse. But one thing was clear: radicalized Islam was feeding off of the poverty, illiteracy, and sentiments of hopelessness in the region. Development assistance became a central focus of President Bush’s administration. The administration has accepted the 3D approach: defense, diplomacy, and development. Incorporated in the theory of transformational diplomacy the US targets specific countries in which a combination of the 3Ds should be most heavily emphasized. Development assistance has become more and more intertwined with both foreign and national security policy. Development assistance (including health, education, and agricultural assistance) is even now explicitly part of the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS).

Under the Bush administration, foreign assistance has increased markedly (53% overall, and threefold in Africa). He has continually emphasized the importance and the correlation of development assistance and national (and global) security. Under this administration, idealism and realism have merged. Whether the politicization and low popularity of the President has a negative impact on this progress (as Madeleine Albright warned of in “A Realistic Idealism”) will be seen in the coming years.

The year 2009 has ushered in a new executive administration in the United States, and with it a rejuvenation of all administrative bodies of government at the federal level. Such a rejuvenation is exactly what the US foreign assistance system needs. There are a lot of important questions to be answered about the future of how the US manages its foreign aid, among them:

• What role will the Department of Defense play in foreign assistance in the years to come? Particularly, how will AFRICOM evolve?
• Will we see greater centralization of foreign assistance programs (e.g. rolling MCC and PEPFAR into USAID)?
• What will happen to State/f? Will it be strengthened? Or will USAID regain its autonomy as the ultimate agency of foreign aid?
• And most importantly, what priority will the Obama Administration give to foreign assistance? Can we expect sweeping reforms? A cabinet-level position?

Granted, the President has a lot on his plate right now with the worldwide economic recession and his domestic development agenda. But his Kenyan roots, his JFK-esque idealism, and his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which has had many hearings on foreign assistance reform of which both then-Senator Obama and then-Senator Biden were privy to) all give a shimmer of “hope” that foreign assistance reform will not stray far from the top of the President’s agenda.

Based on the President’s actions to-date, as well as the people he has surrounded himself with and all of their rhetoric, we can surmise a few expected answers to the aforementioned questions.

The Role of DOD in Foreign Assistance

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been a long proponent of the separation of military and international development. Here are some quotes:

“The Department of Defense has taken on many of (the) burdens that might have been assumed by civilian agencies in the past. … [F]orced by circumstances, our brave men and women in uniform have stepped up to the task, with field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils – usually in a language they don’t speak. … But it is no replacement for the real thing – civilian involvement and expertise.”

-Robert Gates – Nov. 26, 2007 – Kansas State University

“My hope is that one consequence of my speaking out on this issue will create a more favorable climate here on the hill for approval of this increase in the capabilities of the Department of State.  Same way with the Agency for International Development.”

-Robert Gates – Feb. 6, 2008 – Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee

“And I think the more that we have seen military personnel pressed into service to carry out tasks that they recognize are better performed by civilian experts — even though our folks do a good job of it — they would be the first to admit that when the real experts come in, it’s a huge force multiplier.”

-Robert Gates – April 15, 2008 – Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee

With respect to AFRICOM, Secretary Gates has admitted there has been failure in the public image of the rollout effort, and that AFRICOM is something he treads lightly on.

“…I see it focused more on things like peacekeeping, on professionalizing the military, on improving their own indigenous capabilities, the relationships between the military and civilians in a democracy. There may be some areas of humanitarian assistance, whether it’s the equivalent of what we did after the tsunami or after the Pakistani earthquake or what we’re trying to do with Burma, there are going to be situations where the military is going to be the first in and have to deal with problems initially and where they then should be replaced by civilians with the expertise in dealing with the humanitarian disasters and so on where we are the ones that really only have the capability.”

-Comments by Secretary Gates at American Academy of Diplomacy on May 14, 2008

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made similar comments about transitioning DOD development assistance programs back to the State Department and USAID. She said during her mid-January confirmation hearing before the Senate Arms Committee, “When a young Army captain gets cash to go build a school, that’s foreign aid. That’s not war fighting.”

Based on this, as well as President Obama’s own calls for a stronger civilian “national security” force (eg. foreign service officers), we can expect that there will be a decisive shift of power from DOD to State with respect to foreign assistance.

The Organizational Hierarchy of Foreign Assistance: MCC, PEPFAR, USAID, State/f, et al

This is really the million (or in this case multi-billion) dollar question. There are many that argue that Secretary of State Clinton will not be willing to cede foreign assistance funding from the State Department’s budget. (FYI: USAID is currently under a division of the State Department called State/f). Secretary Clinton made a stop at USAID on January 23^rd 2009, stating in her remarks, “I believe in development, and I believe with all my heart that it truly is an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy, in the furtherance of America’s national security.” This hints toward the idea that USAID should be an equal partner at the table along with State and Defense, right? Well, as she continues her remarks, Sec. Clinton continues to allude to the subservient position of USAID under State. She briefly notes the callings for organizational reform, but does not provide anything in terms of what to expect. (UPDATE: In earlier remarks upon her arrival at the State Department, Clinton said, ”There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs.” Does this contradict what she told USAID? And does this mean that State will retain authority over USAID?)

There has been very little publically said about organizational reform among Administration officials since the election. For some insight, we can look to remarks and commitments made during the campaign. A “Fact Sheet” on Foreign Policy, Democratization, and Development from the Obama campaign site states:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have called for the creation of a civilian assistance corps, and they will reform the infrastructure that manages U.S. foreign assistance. Today, what we call “foreign aid” is spread across 25 government agencies, programs, and initiatives, with too little of our taxpayers’ resources getting to the problem and no single person within our government responsible for directing and managing what should be one of our most powerful foreign policy tools.

From this we can expect greater centralization of foreign assistance agencies/programs/initiatives with one “single person…responsible for directing and managing” the foreign aid apparatus.

The Center for US Global Engagement released a series of recommendations for the new President (as many think-tanks do) regarding first-step policy changes in foreign assistance. One includes the creation of an independent US development agency. Here is their recommendation:

Explore Creation of Independent U.S. Development Agency. The goal should be a capable, independent development agency that best consolidates programs, enhances policy and operational coherence, and increases the efficiency and effectiveness of our foreign assistance investments. Options include an independent, Cabinet-level agency, such as the UK Department for International Development; a new, independent non-Cabinet agency, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) or Ex-Im Bank; or a sub-Cabinet agency, along the lines of a modernized, empowered USAID.

This raises questions about the possibility of a new international aid agency, but I think a revamped and modernized (and empowered) USAID is the most likely of the options. On January 28^th 2009, President Obama appointed Alonzo Fulgham as “Acting Administrator” of USAID. The appointment raises some curious questions about what is to come. Why not nominate a full-on Administrator unless an organizational overhaul is in the air?

What Priority Will Foreign Assistance Get under Obama Administration?

There are interesting dynamics at play leaning in the favor of high priority foreign assistance programming, funding, and reform. First is the President’s family heritage in Nairobi, Kenya. His position and status today is entirely due to benevolence of US foreign assistance – in particular, President Kennedy’s airlift program that allowed the current President’s father to leave Kenya and be educated in the United States. President Kennedy is a hero of Obama’s and there are pictures of him in the Obama’s Chicago household. Furthermore, Obama spent part of his life living in Indonesia – a very poor country plagued with corruption and poverty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is surely to some degree influenced by the work of her husband’s Clinton Global Initiative. It will be interesting to see what role that plays out in the coming months and years.

Emphasis on foreign aid and foreign aid reform during the campaign was high, but since election night very little has been said. In fact, at the date of this publication there is nothing on the White House website about African policy or development policy aside from a (small) reiteration of campaign promises to double foreign aid, cutting extreme poverty and hunger around the world in half by 2015, and increasing US diplomatic presence around the world (oh and Mexico City Policy, of course).

There is much to see with respect to foreign assistance reform and reorganization in the coming years. There is very high potential for some drastic changes that could be for the betterment of how the US executes foreign aid and approaches international development. I do believe, though, that if these reforms are to take place, it must be within the next year. The President needs to arrange his “house” in order to execute his mission. If we wait too long, the earlier mentioned winds of “rejuvenation” will have passed and any organizational reform will be messy. “Hope for Change”.