blog logo image

Posts Tagged ‘Africa’

American Foreign Policy and Africa with Senator Johnny Isakson

Friday, April 1st, 2011
Bookmark and Share

isaksonSenator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) delivered an engaging and broad-ranging speech on U.S. policy in Africa yesterday at John’s Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies.  Senator Isakson is the Senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, and he has traveled to the continent many times over the last several years.  Senator Isakson focused his remarks on three primary areas: 1. U.S. foreign assistance to Africa; 2. U.S. private investment in Africa; and 3. China’s presence in Africa.

Senator Isakson began his remarks by emphasizing that no continent will be more strategically important to the U.S. than Africa in the 21st Century.  Senator Isakson went on to praise Presidents Bush and Obama for their commitment to engaging Africa and to investing in development programs, such as PEPFAR and the MCC.  Senator Isakson focused on the MCC in particular, explaining that the MCC currently has 11 compacts in Africa and that these compacts are not only creating much needed infrastructure, but are also producing the types of political and economic reforms that are critical to long-term success.  Senator Isakson also offered his strong support for the work that U.S. NGOs are performing in Africa, and he cited MFAN Partner CARE USA in particular for the great work that they are doing through microfinance programs in Africa.

Senator Isakson also offered up some broader arguments for how the U.S. should fashion its foreign assistance.  Specifically, Senator Isakson said that U.S. foreign assistance programs must have a clear purpose and that they should do more to tackle corruption, to support democratization, and to introduce recipient countries to the principles of capitalism that will help develop sustainable economic growth over the long-term.  Senator Isakson kept returning to the issue of corruption throughout his remarks, and repeatedly made the point that we must protect our investments in Africa by developing greater accountability and transparency.

Senator Isakson also spoke about the important role that the U.S. private sector is playing in Africa.  He told the story of how Marathon Oil has invested millions in natural gas in Equatorial Guinea, helping the country have one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  The Senator also praised Coca Cola, headquartered in his home state of Georgia, for their $30 million investment in purification projects to become a water neutral company and to develop greater access to clean water in Africa.

The last topic that Senator Isakson covered was China’s growing role in Africa.  Senator Isakson was highly critical of the manner in which China’s engagement in Africa is focused on the extraction of resources and the deployment of Chinese workers for infrastructure projects, without any consideration for sustainable development solutions .  By contrast, Senator Isakson praised the U.S. government for the way that it works with its African partners to plan and execute development programs that serve the needs of the people and that are held accountable.

In the Q&A section that followed the Senator’s speech, he responded to a question on how the current budget environment will impact U.S. foreign assistance programs.  Senator Isakson argued that a cost-benefit analysis will have to be applied to U.S. foreign assistance programs, just like the rest of the Federal budget, but he is optimistic that development programs like PEPFAR and the MCC will continue to be funded, (though perhaps not at existing levels), because of the value they continue to demonstrate.  The Senator also responded to several questions on the current situation in Libya, the Ivory Coast, and Sudan.

In conclusion, Senator Isakon’s participation and his remarks at this morning’s event at SAIS clearly displayed his passion for U.S. policy towards Africa and the depth of knowledge he has developed in this area during his tenure in Congress.  Senator Isakson will undoubtedly be a lead voice in the U.S. Senate on Africa policy issues during the 112th Congress.

Bush: “America has a direct stake in the progress and hope of other nations”

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010
Bookmark and Share

George W BushTo acknowledge World AIDS Day, former President George W. Bush looks back on the legacy of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund in an op-ed for The Washington Post. He describes PEPFAR as a new model for foreign assistance programs – citing it as having adopted a more results-oriented approach than other aid programs. Bush also makes the connection between national security and development or economic growth; he argues that the stability of sub-Saharan Africa was an initial impetus for taking action. Bush concludes by reinforcing the moral argument for fighting AIDS worldwide. Though he is writing about a specific disease, he touches on several principles of effective aid, and makes the case for continued bipartisan action for foreign assistance programs that encourage “global health, political freedom, and economic progress.” See below for key excerpts:

“Many of the world’s problems – terrorist networks, criminal gangs, drug syndicates, pandemic diseases – are no more than a half-day plane ride from the United States. These challenges tend to take root in hopeless, poorly controlled areas. This does not mean that promoting health and development is a substitute for confronting immediate threats. It does mean that no national security strategy is complete in the long run without promoting global health, political freedom and economic progress.”

“In all of these efforts, my concern was results. I was frankly skeptical of some past foreign assistance programs. In this crisis, we needed not only more resources but also to use them differently. So we put in place a unified command structure; set clear, ambitious, measurable goals; insisted on accountability; and made sure that host governments took leadership and responsibility. The results came more quickly than many of us expected. Early in 2003, there were perhaps 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa on AIDS treatment. Today, thanks to America, other donor nations and the tireless work of Africans themselves, nearly 4 million are. Fragile nations have been stabilized, making progress possible in other areas of development.”

“I firmly believe it has served American interests to help prevent the collapse of portions of the African continent. But this effort has done something more: It has demonstrated American character and beliefs. America is a certain kind of country, dedicated to the inherent and equal dignity of human lives. It is this ideal – rooted in faith and our founding – that gives purpose to our power. When we have a chance to do the right thing, we take it.”

MFAN Co-Chairs: It’s Time to Finish the Job on Foreign Aid Reform

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010
Bookmark and Share

In a new op-ed for Devex, MFAN’s Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram make the case to keep up the momentum for foreign aid reform, underscoring that reform is a bipartisan issue with support from both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. The full op-ed is posted below. To comment on the piece, please email Rolf Rosenkranz at rolf.rosenkranz@devex.com or Jenni Rothenberg at jrothenberg@modernizingforeignassistance.org. Devex members can also sign in to post a comment by clicking here.

George Ingram1David Beckmann1

It’s Time to Finish the Job on Foreign Aid Reform

By the Rev. David Beckmann and George Ingram

With the leak of a summary of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review last week – and President Obama’s announcement of America’s first-ever government-wide global development policy in September – the Obama administration has moved another step closer to an overhaul of the U.S. approach to global development, something no administration has been able to accomplish in the last 50 years.

The fact that we have come this far shows there is a broad, bipartisan consensus in Washington on the need to make U.S. foreign aid more effective, particularly because it is so critical to ongoing national security efforts, but also because we need our development dollars to go further in a time of tight budgets. The administration and Congress now must work together to finish the job, and turn these bold proposals into lasting policies and structures.

(more…)

10 Reasons Conservatives Must Support Aid Reform

Monday, October 11th, 2010
Bookmark and Share

mark_green_profileIn a recent series of blog posts for MFAN’s ModernizeAid blog, former Congressman Mark Green (R-WI) of the Malaria No More Policy Center lays out the Conservative case for foreign assistance reform.  Rep. Green, who also served as Ambassador to Tanzania under President George W. Bush, gives 10 reasons Conservatives should support more effective U.S. foreign assistance.  Click on the link to read the full piece on each reason:

  • Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.
  • Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.
  • Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about.
  • Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.
  • Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.
  • Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.
  • Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.
  • Reason 8: Conservatives need to ensure that our foreign assistance system recognizes, protects and builds on the enormous contributions to development being made by other-than-government sources – especially faith-based institutions.
  • Reason 9: Making our foreign assistance system more effective can help bring home our men and women in uniform – and make future deployments less necessary/minimize the need for future deployments.
  • Reason 10: Since fighting the threat of terrorism is one of this generation’s greatest challenges, we need to sharpen those tools that can help prevent violent extremism from spreading and growing.

Below are some of the most interesting and compelling points from Amb. Green’s series:

American Foreign Assistance is Pro-business

Conservatives believe, in the words of Ronald Reagan, that, “The best possible social program is a job.”  Foreign assistance, done right, can help foster conditions that strengthen consumerism, transparency, democratization and markets. It helps entrepreneurs start businesses and governments to lower trade barriers, foster innovation, and create better environments for investment. Today’s developing countries are tomorrow’s trade partners.

Foreign Assistance Protects the Homeland

Healthy societies are often the best defense against extremism. In this way, foreign assistance efforts play a crucial role within our national security strategy. We cannot fight terrorism by military means alone. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have both called for greater support for development, diplomacy, health, and education. Foreign assistance can help prevent future Afghanistans and Somalias and keep our men and women in uniform out of harm’s way.

Aid is a Moral Obligation

Religious leaders such as Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Pope John Paul II have long voiced their support for helping the world’s poorest. Our country’s aid infrastructure was created to ensure that America remains a good neighbor in an inter-dependent and largely poor world.

President George W. Bush was one of our era’s most eloquent proponents for foreign assistance. As he said in the aftermath of 9/11: “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.” President Bush saw our prosperity as a call to action, and our power to save lives as an obligation to help lift up broken lives and empower struggling communities.  We provide economic assistance to those less fortunate because we know it is the right thing to do.

Conservatives Can Help Make Aid More Accountable and Efficient

Although there are compelling trade, national security, and moral arguments for deepening America’s commitment to foreign assistance, our aid infrastructure is in desperate need of reform.

Luckily, the Bush administration already got the ball rolling. New initiatives like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation are providing sustainable solutions to our most entrenched development challenges.

Moving forwards, conservatives should build on the success of these programs and work to make our entire aid system more transparent and accountable. Where redundancies exist, they should be eliminated.  Where efficiencies can be found, they should be implemented.  And where programs no longer meet our objectives, they should be ended. Sounds like a good job for Conservatives — taking sound principles of business administration and applying them to a bureaucracy in need of reform.

Conclusion

Across the world, perceptions of America are often clouded by misinformation. When young people across Africa learn that the U.S. is leading the fight against AIDS and Malaria even while we hurt economically at home, they are much more likely to trust the United States and seek closer bilateral security, trade and political relations. When entrepreneurs are given a helping hand in Turkey, or farmers are able to take advantage of a new technology, or women take out a microloan in Indonesia, we are sowing seeds for future economic and diplomatic partnerships.

Foreign assistance is not simply do-gooderism, although it certainly does considerable good. Foreign assistance projects open hearts and minds to America’s message of liberty, fairness, and free markets.  Now is the time for Conservatives to raise their voices in support of a pro-development, pro-reform foreign assistance policy.


MFAN Statement: Secretary Clinton’s CFR Speech Falls Short on Development and Aid Reform

Thursday, September 9th, 2010
Bookmark and Share

September 9, 2010 (WASHINGTON)This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram:

In an important foreign policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out the Obama Administration’s vision for a modern architecture for U.S. foreign policy, based largely on restoring U.S. global leadership.  Secretary Clinton called development a key feature of this approach, noting that the U.S. will make a concerted effort to develop the capacity of other countries to help lift themselves out of poverty, including by investing in women and girls and supporting countries, like Ghana, that can serve as bulwarks of regional stability.

Recognizing the critical role these efforts play in U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton again highlighted the Administration’s commitment to elevating development as a pillar of our approach to global engagement.  We appreciate this supportive and consistent rhetoric and applaud what the Administration has done to launch new programs like Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative.  However, the Administration has yet to move forward with broad reforms of our foreign aid system, which needs to be updated to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

In the Secretary’s 70-minute address, she covered many topics yet was able to devote just 5 minutes to development—illustrating how other responsibilities of the State Department often crowd out attention to development.  While she talked about restoring the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a world-class agency, it is not yet clear that USAID will be given the authority to lead U.S. development programs in the field.  Development assistance should be coordinated with the State Department, but development programs (helping poor farmers increase their food production, for example) require resolute focus—which USAID can provide better than State.

Secretary Clinton also stressed the importance of development in poor countries to our national security, but aid programs will not be successful unless they are unequivocally focused on development.  When the same dollars are supposed to provide help to poor people and, at the same time, serve other U.S. interests, poor people often get the short end of the stick.  Failure to address these critical issues and enact broad reform now would be a major missed opportunity and would hinder our ability to achieve sustainable results for people suffering from poverty, disease, and lack of opportunity in the developing world.