Resource Type:

Report-Paper

Posted On: Dec 14, 2007

Posted By: Heather Hamilton

Description:

By Eric Schwartz, Connect US Executive Director

In the humanitarian and development assistance community, there is now broad agreement that the U.S. government system for providing overseas aid is broken. This week saw the release of the report of the HELP Commission, short for the Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe. The blue ribbon commission was established several years ago by Congress, and charged with reporting on how to improve U.S. foreign aid. Its findings come on the heels of a number of similar think tank reports in recent years dealing, in one way or another, with foreign aid reform.

So why all these reports, and what are they saying? These reappraisals really began in earnest after 9/11, with the growing belief that failed states matter to U.S. national security interests. The post-war reconstruction debacle in Iraq only accelerated this reevaluation. In general, the reports are making the case, first, that the United States is just not doing right by the world’s poor and, second, that our failures will create breeding grounds for instability, unrest and terrorism. While it’s hard to generalize, there does seem to be an evolving consensus on some key reforms that a new administration will have to make:

Promote consolidation and coherence: we’ve got dozens of aid agencies with often-conflicting objectives, and many are now calling for a new Cabinet Department for Development. The case they make is highly persuasive, and even those who do not support a Cabinet role – such as a majority of the HELP Commission members – urge a stronger and more integrated program for assistance.

Increase funding and flexibility for civilian aid agencies; rationalize the relationship between civilians and the Pentagon: the Defense Department is now estimated to account for 20% of US development assistance, and is developing a new doctrine for deep engagement in humanitarian operations. Many of the new foreign assistance reports bemoan the absence of corresponding increases in capacity among U.S. civilian agencies, as well as severe limitations on the flexibility of spending authority. And while welcoming military engagement where appropriate, they question whether the U.S. government wants the U.S. military to be the predominant face of U.S. engagement in many parts of the world.

Aid is not enough: reform trade and agricultural subsidies: the value of even the most effective development assistance policies can often pale in comparison to the billions of dollars in losses to the developing world that results from U.S. and developed country tariffs and agricultural subsidies. Any serious effort at foreign assistance reform must tackle these issues.

Other key themes: a number of assessments stress important new policy directions, such as building local capacity and ensuring that local communities drive development processes; engaging the private sector; and increased resources for disaster preparedness and conflict prevention, among many other issues.

So do these reports have all the answers? There is no doubt that these recent studies are on the right track. But after reading the HELP Commission report, I have to confess to some uneasiness about the limited consideration of the role of international institutions. To be sure, the report in several places mentions the importance of U.S. engagement with multilateral organizations. But I searched in vain for any serious discussion of the World Bank or the UN and their role in development -- despite the fact that these two institutions are responsible for well over $30 billion in development financing every year.

I found this troubling, as we don’t want to reinvent the wheel, miss chances to make critical progress through international organizations, or fail to learn lessons that others can teach. The HELP Commission report suggests a range of new bilateral U.S. policy initiatives, including one on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Do we know whether that is a better use of our resources than, for example, contributing to the SME work of the World Bank? Similarly, with more than 80,000 uniformed UN personnel in some 17 peace operations around the world, why – in its discussion of post-conflict capacity – did the HELP Commission ignore opportunities for enhancing U.S. assistance to and engagement with the very UN operations we are funding? As was graphically demonstrated by the comparisons between the U.S. response to Katrina and the UN’s response to the tsunami, international organizations are actually better prepared than the United States on certain issues relating to humanitarian assistance. So why not benefit by that experience as we fashion proposals for the way ahead?

It is certainly clear that others have much to teach us. In a report released this week by the respected NGO, DARA International, the United States ranked 16th out of 23 OECD countries in a survey of compliance with good development practices endorsed by the United States and other members of the OECD. There is an evolving international consensus on the ingredients of effective development assistance, but little evidence in current U.S. policies of a deep commitment to such principles. In this respect, the HELP Commission’s endorsement of multilateral good donor initiatives is encouraging.

Notwithstanding my caveat, this is a useful report, and the Commission’s recommendations will merit the careful attention of foreign policy advisers for both major candidates in the latter half of 2008. Most importantly, a presidential transition team must be ready with a proposal – and a legislative strategy that envisions close consultation with Congress – prior to January 20, 2009. Such preparation will be critical if the new administration is to seize the initiative effectively on these critical issues.