Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid

The House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing last week entitled "Human Rights and Democracy Assistance: Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid."

Witnesses were:

Ms. Jennifer L. Windsor
Executive Director
Freedom House

Thomas Carothers, J.D.
Vice President for Studies
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Elisa Massimino, J.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Human Rights First
[Press Release on the Hearing]

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner
President
International Republican Institute
(Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor)

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 separated military and non-military aid, unified existing aid efforts, and established USAID. The United States government is in the process of reviewing and rewriting the act to make foreign assistance more effective.

The United States foreign assistance program really began after World War II when the U.S. funded reconstruction projects in Europe and Asia. The aftermath of the war saw the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. World War II ended 65 years ago, and foreign assistance programs and organizations have had a bumpy ride ever since, as most U.S. aid programs focused on fighting the spread of communism. The 1980s saw the creation of the National Endowment of Democracy and its four core institutes: National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Center for International Private Enterprise, and Solidarity Center. NED and its core institutes focused on fighting communism in Eastern Europe and Latin America during the eighties. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, there was much confusion in the foreign policy world, as no one knew what the future held. Francis Fukuyama even went as far as to proclaim the "end of history." Foreign assistance declined in importance in the nineties. September 11, 2001 changed that.

One of the major problems with the way foreign assistance is awarded - and this point was brought up by all of the panelists involved in the hearing - is that foreign governments, rather than people, have too much input into where foreign assistance goes. For example, President Obama’s engagement of the Mubarak regime in Egypt has not only alienated civil society activists who had received substantial amounts of democracy funding under the previous administration, but has resulted in the crackdown on, arrest of, and even murder of many of these activists. Governments that have well-organized lobbies, like the Jordanian government, receive more foreign assistance than those that do not. In the case of Lebanon, the factionalized nature of its political system adversely affects the country’s ability to lobby for funding and has kept US policymakers in the dark about what the country actually needs, causing these policymakers to focus almost exclusively on Hizbollah and Israel in any discussion that deals with Lebanon instead of on issues that could make a difference in the lives of the Lebanese people.

That guy who was President of the United States for eight years at the beginning of this century made democracy promotion a major part of his foreign policy, and civil society organizations across the globe reaped the benefits of increased funding. Now, civil society activists like Saad Eddin Ibrahim are criticizing the Obama administration for reducing funds for democracy promotion programs and giving control over foreign assistance funding to despots like Pharaoh Mubarak, who just renewed the Emergency Law. Saad points to elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt and Mauritania that took place in 2005-2006 as evidence that democracy promotion programs work.

Despite the best efforts of individuals like Ziad Baroud and Ghassan Moukheiber and of civil society organizations like LADE, political reform in Lebanon has been virtually non-existent. Very few seats in the 2009 parliamentary elections or the 2010 municipal elections were truly contested campaigns. Since gaining independence from France in 1943, the Lebanese political system has been characterized by sectarian division and corruption despite many attempts at reform. Until the confessional system is abolished, and it does not appear that will happen any time soon, the political system will continue to be just a shadow of a genuine democracy.

This doesn't mean that funding for political reform programs in Lebanon should cease. However, the focus should be on grassroots programs like NDI's Citizen Lebanon, which will help grow a new generation of active citizens who understand that real democracy is based on merit and competition, not wasta and corruption.

Grassroots programs, not large funding packages to governments, are the way to genuine reform. It remains to be seen how any rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act will change the way aid is dished out and how effective it will be. One thing is certain, though: without the input of actual civil society activists who are the beneficiaries of such assistance, foreign assistance programs will continue to have little sustainable impact.


Read Project on Middle East Democracy's notes on the hearing.

The Beacon of Legislation

The Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) here in Washington "is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to examining how genuine democracies can develop in the Middle East and how the U.S. can best support that process. Through dialogue, research, and advocacy, [they] work to strengthen the constituency for U.S. policies that peacefully support democratic reform in the Middle East." You can read their blog here.

Each week, POMED produces a brief but really well-done newsletter of the week's happenings regarding democracy in the Middle East. Called "The Weekly Wire," the newsletter comes to those of us who have signed up for their mailing list. The Wire informs us of legislative actions taken by Congress as well as briefs about each country in the region. This week included some information about two interesting Congressional activities:

On Tuesday (12/8), H.R.2278, calling for the "President to transmit to Congress a report on anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East," was passed under suspension of the rules in a vote of 395-3 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) in May, focuses on Middle Eastern media outlets, including al-Manar, al-Aqsa, al-Zawra, that broadcast calls of violence against Americans and the United States and calls for a report in six months that lists anti-American media outlets and satellite companies that provide these channels. The bill also proposes that the U.S. should: designate satellite providers that knowingly contract with such entities as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists," evaluate levels of foreign assistance with reference to state-sponsorship of anti-American incitement to violence, and "urge all governments and private investors who own shares in satellite companies or otherwise influence decisions about satellite transmissions to oppose transmissions of [such] telecasts."

On Thursday (12/10), the House passed H.R.3228, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, in a 221-202 vote. On Saturday (12/12), the Senate voted 60-35 on a cloture motion to end debate and bring the bill up for a vote. The bill was then passed by the Senate in a special session yesterday and sent to the President. Full details of the Conference Report for the bill are available on the website of the House Rules Committee, including the full text of Division F of the bill, the portion of the bill making appropriations for State and Foreign Operations, as well as the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanies it. The bill includes a controversial provision that permits $50 million of the $250 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) allocated for Egypt to be put into "an endowment to further the shared interests of the United States and Egypt." Such an endowment has been advocated for several years by the Egyptian government, and is widely viewed as an attempt to reduce the potential leverage by Congress afforded by U.S. economic aid to Egypt. Other levels of funding in the bill include $65 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), which is a 30% increase over funding in recent years, but $5 million less than included in the House version of the State and Foreign Operations bill passed in July. For reference and comparison, see POMED's report on the budget and appropriations process from July, and keep an eye out for a brief report on the final version of the bill.

I'm one of those dorks who watches C-Span to see Congress in action, and while not as entertaining as a UK parliamentary session, they've been getting pretty good, what with all the props like babies and leis and all sorts of nonsensical nuttery. It's like a reality television show for the Informed, and it has the advantage of being real!

You'll probably notice that the first piece of legislation has implications for Lebanon with Al-Manar possibly being affected and all. Thoughts?

On another note, we are diligently working to ensure that Lebanese NGOs are able to take advantage of the MEPI funding. If your NGO has a good program idea related to the development and capacity building of civil society, pitch them to us. You can email me.

I encourage you to sign up for POMED's Weekly Wire.

54YT3AA29N6B

Evan's Corner: Summary of Wednesday's House Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing

United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs
Building Capacity to Protect U.S. National Security: The Fiscal Year 2010 International Affairs Budget

Chairman Howard Berman (D-California) opened the hearing by explaining the purpose of the International Affairs Budget. The budget should promote defense, diplomacy, and development. Chairmen Berman noted that in recent years, defense has been given much broader support and funding than diplomacy and development. The new budget represents a reassertion of commitment to diplomacy and development and this will occur in the form of increased funding for USAID and the State Department. Foreign assistance will be doubled by 2015. In a preemptory justification of the increases in the budget, Chairmen Berman explained that preventing failed states is always more cost effective than dealing with them after they fail.

Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew followed Berman’s opening remarks, explaining the increases in the budget. The 2010 fiscal year International Affairs Budget is 53.9 billion dollars. This is a 9% increase from 2009. Lew explained that the Obama administration wishes to prioritize funding for efforts that will help other governments remain “stable and secure.” The budget proposes a 45% increase to USAID programs. There are currently 1000 Foreign Service Officers. This should be doubled by 2012. USAID should also pursue comprehensive civilian programs, coordinated with the military in conflict areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. USAID is committed to increasing human capacity in developing nations. Lew also mentioned that the budget strategically focuses on nations with potential for conflict and instability.

Congressman Engel (D-New York) expressed concern that aid money in Gaza might reach Hamas. Deputy Secretary Lew explained that all urgency assistance money is subject to a review process. This process attempts to assure that money goes to the right people.

Congressman Connolly (D-Virginia) addressed the issue of military versus civilian projects. The congressman posited that the military in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for civilian projects they were neither trained nor equipped to handle. The congressman noted that a significant portion of military spending is going towards these projects, and this money is entirely separate from the International Affairs Budget. Deputy Secretary Lew argued that the military is extremely flexible, and this flexibility is one of its strengths. Military assistance in civil projects is a good thing.

Congressman Boozman (R-Arizona) was surprised that millions of dollars had been cut from refugee relocation funds. However, Deputy Secretary Lew explained that this was simply because the State Department anticipates decreased refugee-creating conflicts in the coming year. This is largely because of the increased refugee numbers in 2009, as a result of the conflict in Gaza.

Congressman Wexler (D-Florida) applauded the State Department for its programs training Palestinian security forces in Jordan. Wexler considered that these young men will soon be the leaders of an elite class in Palestinian society, and will owe their careers to the United States. Deputy Secretary Lew agreed, stating that these programs were specifically designed to foster a powerful moderating force within Palestinian society.

Congresswoman Watson (D-California) stated her belief that the merger of USAID and the State Department was a failure. Watson pointed out that the prerogatives and missions of the two organizations were fundamentally different. Deputy Secretary Lew disagreed. Lew said he did not want to “diminish” the administrator of USAID, but he saw enormous need for coordination between the State Department and USAID under the leadership of the Secretary of State. Lew also said that a problem such as poverty could be seen both as a human rights and national security issue.

Finally, congresswoman Lee (D-Texas) asked how to battle the strangle hold large corporations have on contracts with USAID. Deputy Secretary Lew replied that all USAID contracts are being reassessed. Lew explained that in the past, the State Department and USAID have lacked the human capacity necessary to enact their own policy. The increases in the International Affairs budget seek to increase this human capacity, and the influence of contracted organizations should naturally become less pronounced.

Transcript of hearing

By Evan Barrett