The Law of the Sea Treaty, in its twenty-fifth year pending approval by Congress, is at least good for a case study in interconnectedness. Since the treaty came into effect for other countries in 1982, sea ice in the arctic has decreased by 20%, setting off a mad rush for the resources (oil, gas, diamonds, nickel) that were, until recently, inaccessible. Other countries bordering the Arctic are staking claims to these resources based on their rights as defined by the Law of the Sea Treaty. But the U.S. -- the treaty's lone hold-out -- has no basis to make claims. We are in the ironic position of being unable to secure one of the few benefits of climate change because we've refused to sign a treaty that is in our own national interest.

Perhaps climate change in the Arctic will push the Senate to do what the Pentagon, the administration and Greenpeace could not: ratify the treaty.

Posted by David Devlin-Foltz at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a tip of the hat (with a tip of the hat to Stephen Colbert's "tip o' the hat/ wag o' the finger") to the newish Campaign for International Justice blog. We especially like the blog's attention to offering specific actions that readers can take, and the upbeat overall tone about the possibility of progress towards international justice. As someone who traveled extensively in the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in more peaceful days, the blog's account of a former child soldier there hits hard and could have been an unrelieved downer. Instead, we come away with solid information, an affirmation of human dignity, and the possibility of showing our own solidarity.

The blog's tone is particularly rare -- and valuable -- among advocates addressing these gut-wrenchingly difficult abuses. That's why we at GII/Continuous Progress Strategic Services are impressed by the name, tone and approach of the emerging Action Group to End Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery. You will be hearing much more from the Action Group as it gears up its website and other communications channels. Truth in advertising note: we are assisting Humanity United and The Sheridan Group with the Action Group's planning and evaluation process. But hey: we like to work with people whose work we like!

Posted by David Devlin-Foltz at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This blog is meant to highlight observations "where global issues, advocacy and messaging meet." That can be a dangerous intersection -- or at least an uncomfortable one -- when an issue position that the GII has messaged and advocated for gets called into question. Thanks to Mauro De Lorenzo's work at the American Enterprise Institute, I had the opportunity this past Friday to hear some challenging perspectives on African development issues. De Lorenzo's interests in development leapfrog the current Washington wonk debate about structural reforms to official development assistance (ODA). He focuses instead on facilitating development through means of which ODA is a small part: investment financing; agriculture subsidy reform (oops, too late); trade agreements. One recurrent theme: how to sweep away impediments to large-scale investments by emerging African, Western and Southern investors. (To some in this room, China's free-spending ways in Africa looked like just the thing to jump-start market-led growth; this blog has featured De Lorenzo's views on the subject before.)

We'll feature De Lorenzo's own summary once he and his team go public with it, but one recurring theme was especially striking: electric power as a constraint on investment and economic growth. Is creating a more predictable and welcoming environment for private investment the right way to fire up the grid? This account from the New York Times makes it sound a bit more complicated than that. But maybe I'll see the light after a couple more meetings.

Posted by David Devlin-Foltz at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We've been running something of a mini-series on China as a key figure in the intricate tapestry of globalization. China makes such an enormous quantity of the world's goods that consumers -- particularly Americans -- are forcing its leaders to think more carefully about a cultivating a brand. A few weeks ago I noted that assurances of product safety will only take China so far up the economic ladder. If it wants to start competing on more than price, it will have to cultivate some of the finer things as well.

Today the New York Times ran a story on China's brand, titled "China Moves to Change Its Damaged Global Image." Chinese leaders are doing a lot, even by consumer safety advocates' standards, to assure the world that its goods are safe:

Last week, Beijing unveiled new controls aimed at fighting counterfeit drugs and substandard exports. High-ranking officials and regulators vowed to strengthen China’s food safety system, tighten controls over chemical use by large seafood and meat producers, and create a system that holds producers more accountable for selling unsafe products.

These are needful steps in any economic coming-of-age story. But this latest step in China's growth will only sustain its image for so long before deeper pressures cause consumers to ask what it even means to "regulate" something in China:

“The issue is not whether Chinese businesses are regulated; they are,” says Yasheng Huang, an associate professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The issue is that the regulators themselves are unable to be impartial in the enforcement of the laws. Those laws are meaningless in a system that does not even pretend to have judicial independence, media freedom and legislative oversight.”

Huang makes an interesting point about the underpinnings of policies as ho-hum as regulatory effectiveness: even these hinge on democratic norms. It will be fascinating to watch China's leadership navigate calls for accountability from producers while trying to maintain its own unaccountable hold on power.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Upon news that the House passed another bloated farm bill on Friday that subsidizes U.S. farmers (mostly of the deceased, non-farming and corporate varieties) at the expense of poor people around the world, it seems like the U.S. and EU might never get their act together.

Agriculture is probably the industry closest to the hearts of both Americans and Europeans. Farm policies that damage prospects for development in poor countries may be the last to go -- a shame, since most of the developing world (particularly the poorest) still make their living in the agricultural sector.

But Germany is showing the way in another sector that has undergone a similar history with deep roots in the culture: coal. The Washington Post reports that by 2018, hard coal production in Germany will cease. That's a big deal for a country that built its economic success -- several times over -- on energy from its own coal. Since World War II, coal has become an economic burden rather than a blessing for Germany, just as agriculture is becoming for the the U.S. and EU:

For decades, German lawmakers have propped up the industry, unwilling to risk massive layoffs and reluctant to eliminate a reliable energy source as gas and oil supplies become scarcer.

But after spending more than $200 billion in subsidies since the 1960s, the federal government this year decided that the practice had become unaffordable. The 2018 sunset for the hard-coal industry was set.

Coal is more fungible than food, for certain. No large country will ever do away entirely with its own food production. But at least this case seems to show that there's hope that sensible policy-making will eventually catch up with bad policies.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know it seems like this happened a long time ago, but it was only about six weeks ago that an oil find was made off the coast of Ghana.

Since then I've been thinking on and off about what can be done when something like this happens. The people in the know about Africa, development and the relationship between the discovery of something like this and the relative poverty of the people in the country all rolled their eyes about Ghana's good fortune. Like Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea before it, the oil would mean the rich in the country would cash in, looting the new source of wealth and keeping any funds from flowing to those most in need.

I was doing some World Bank reading, including Sebastian Mallaby's "The World's Banker" about Wolfenson and John Cassidy's New Yorker piece, "The Next Crusade." And it struck me: why isn't there some capacity, from the Bank or the International Monetary Fund or some other agency, to sweep into action when a country discovers its long-sought oil reserves. They would go and freely offer advice, help build systems to make sure the money went somewhere, to manage debt, fulfill obligations to poor, provide for defense and build national credibility. (Some of this came from the somewhat botched effort by Wolfowitz to link Chad's World Bank aid package to the government's proper use of the oil revenue.) The team could work alongside existing ministries, and heeding the team's advice could be linked (more smoothly, I should think) to debt forgiveness that the country would still like to receive.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have personally been a little on the fence about the Indian nuclear deal as it has evolved over time, but I'm inclined to look upon the latest incarnation less charitably.

Why? Because of the double standard. In the world, the United States is permitted more latitude with double standards than other nations, mainly because we hold a lot of the cards. Our national wealth and the way our government can control access to that wealth makes people want to deal with us. We can usually get our way, regardless of the obvious duplicity in some arrangements.

But we're dealing in a different arena right now. India (and China as well) is seen by most as a rising second-world country. They have more customers, more productivity and a dynamic consumer culture we want to engage, understand, and sell things to. So, on the surface it might make sense that they get to take advantage of the double-standards this time.

However, the cost is too great. This administration and others have drawn a line when it comes to developing a civilian nuclear capacity alongside a weapons program. This is the key problem:

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the initial deal and said he would try to defeat the new arrangement, said Thursday, “If you make an exception for India, we will be preaching from a barstool to the rest of the world.”

Though India would be prohibited from using the fuel it purchases from the United States for nuclear weapons, the ability to reprocess the fuel means India’s other supplies would be freed up to expand its arsenal.

“It creates a double standard,” Mr. Markey said. “One set of rules for countries we like, another for countries we don’t.”

Robert J. Einhorn, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that in “the first phase of negotiations with India, the administration made concessions that put the country on par with countries that have signed” the Nonproliferation Treaty. (Israel and Pakistan are the only other countries that have refused to sign it, and North Korea quit the treaty four years ago.)

“Now we’ve gone beyond that, and given India something that we don’t give to Russia and China.”

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Economists and sociologists spend a lot of time trying to ascertain how globalization "really" affects the poor around the world. Are their incomes rising or falling? Do they have more opportunities or fewer? How are they keeping up with better educated, higher earners? Is the gap closing?

The annual Pew Global Attitudes Project is an interesting diversion from that line of questioning. Instead of asking questions about people, it just asks people. The result is a useful subjective measure of how satisfied people around the world are with their lives and how they feel about their own respective futures.

The role that momentum -- positive and negative -- plays as a determinant in people's answers is striking. Common sense would tell you that comparatively rich citizens of the developed world might be a little glum about slowdown in the growth of new prospects, but overall, still pretty happy with their lot in life. And perhaps improving conditions in poor countries might sound a distant note of optimism, but the difficult reality of daily life would seem to overwhelm that prospect.

Not so. The Pew project's recent findings, "A Rising Tide Lifts Mood in the Developing World," reminds us that the direction and speed of the tide has the biggest role in overall satisfaction with life. The level of the tide itself is less important (at least, this is true on the large scale).

Newspapers have mined nuggets from Pew's many findings to tell the stories that emerge from the data. The Financial Times picked up on Pew's topline finding: a sharp decline in support for suicide bombing in Muslim countries. The Times points to truly remarkable changes in Lebanon, among other countries:

Of the 16 majority Muslim countries included in the survey, 15 have shown waning enthusiasm for terrorism in general and suicide terrorism in particular, it says. The most striking declines are in Lebanon, where in 2007 34 per cent of people say suicide bombings are justified compared with 74 per cent in 2002.

Grand Pew pollster Andrew Kohut weighs in on the dynamics behind this shift in opinion:

What is striking about these numbers is that support for terrorism has fallen by most in those countries that have experienced significant levels of domestic terrorism in the last few years – Pakistan and Lebanon being obvious examples.

The New York Times found a different thread, teaming up with Pew to investigate the positive attitudes that Africans have about their futures:

Despite a thicket of troubles, from deadly illnesses like AIDS and malaria to corrupt politicians and deep-seated poverty, a plurality of Africans say they are better off today than they were five years ago and are optimistic about their future and that of the next generation.

As anyone who studies (or lives in) Africa will attest, there are no simple answers to be had, and the picture changes from country to country. Overall 7 in 10 Africans are satisfied with their governments, and "a plurality of respondents said that their financial situation had improved in the last five years, with the exception of Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Uganda." But at the same time, respondents are deeply skeptical of their leadership: "More resource wealth has not necessarily led to broad prosperity. Of the respondents in Nigeria, 82 percent said average people were not benefiting from the country’s oil wealth."

Overall, I found the Pew project's findings to be a refreshing conversation with respondents in a variety of situations. After all, this whole development enterprise is most fundamentally about helping people lead more satisfying lives. It's well worth hearing what they have to say.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Joel Brinkley's Sunday piece in the San Francisco Chronicle is devastating. (Via.) It makes the idea that America will have success promoting our vision for the final 18 months of the Bush presidency more than laughable.

I remember the heady days for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

About 2 1/2 years ago, when she was new in office, I accompanied her on her first trip around the world, with stops in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan and China. Crowds gathered to see her limousine drive past; people whistled, waved and cheered. Interviewers routinely asked her whether she was planning to run for president. One TV reporter in India told her she was "arguably the most powerful woman in the world." She chuckled but did not exactly agree -- or disagree.

How things change.

A few months ago, she decided to write an opinion piece about Lebanon. She enlisted John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems as a co-author, and they wrote about public/private partnerships and how they might be of use in rebuilding Lebanon after last summer's war. No one would publish it.

Think about that. Every one of the major newspapers approached refused to publish an essay by the secretary of state. Price Floyd, who was the State Department's director of media affairs until recently, recalls that it was sent to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and perhaps other papers before the department finally tried a foreign publication, the Financial Times of London, which also turned it down.

As a last-ditch strategy, the State Department briefly considered translating the article into Arabic and trying a Lebanese paper. But finally they just gave up. "I kept hearing the same thing: 'There's no news in this.' " Floyd said. The piece, he said, was littered with glowing references to President Bush's wise leadership. "It read like a campaign document."

So I grieve for the incredibly weakened state of Foggy Bottom. Not even reaching the question of whether I agree with this administration or want to see it's diplomatic goals reached, it's incredibly distressing that what should be the principle tool for international outreach is so weakened.

The damage, sadly, was almost entirely self-inflicted. And the place where the administration's influence is most needed (and where the administration has decided to focus that influence) is the very source of that damage, the Middle East. All this is made worse by the real possibility that very bad things will happen because we aren't in a position to use any tool in the foreign policy arsenal besides force. We have no diplomatic persuasion left in the Middle East. That credibility is up in smoke.

(Image of cover of Expreso from Oswaldo used via Creative Commons license.)

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Unless you're an "inside-the-beltway dweller," chances are slim that you remember Joseph Nye's book, "Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics," from 2003. But Nye's idea of soft power -- "the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals" -- is indeed persuasive.

Nye's articulation of what makes America powerful has undergone criticism ("Are you saying we should be soft on terrorists?") and subsequent re-framing since -- as eminent World Public Opinion pollster Steve Kull points out -- Americans only trust a leader who can go toe-to-toe with bad guys and not blink. Thus, it seems that "soft power" has given way to "smart power" -- the new watch-word amongst advocates for a more balanced, less militarized approach to U.S. foreign policy. The original term has cultural implications that one might argue are lost in the latter formulation, which sounds a bit technocratic, implying less that America's strength lies in the inherent attractiveness of its culture and ideals than that its clever leaders should actively be doing clever things to enhance American power abroad.

In any case, the U.S. could demonstrably use a large dose of either. Political realities being what they are (no presidential candidate is about to go trumpeting the word "soft" as a talking point), there is much to be said for focusing on America's smarts rather than its brawn. The Center for U.S. Global Engagement hit on that idea as a rallying point for its Impact 08 campaign, a place for business leaders, NGOs, policy-makers and government officials to come together in an effort to better the quality of U.S. foreign policy by focusing the 2008 presidential campaigns on the idea of "smart power."

In the words of the campaign:

Today’s U.S. investments in diplomacy and development are insufficient to promote global stability, expand the benefits of the global economy, and guarantee American security. Our increasingly interconnected world requires strong U.S. leadership to strengthen democratic governance, harness economic potential, alleviate global poverty and improve human conditions. American investments in these goals will reaffirm America’s tradition of moral leadership, reduce our vulnerability to threats from destabilizing forces and improve America’s image abroad. To achieve these objectives, the U.S. must use smart power – elevating diplomacy and development assistance while integrating them with our economic policies, defense and intelligence activities.

A tent as big as Impact 08 speaks with a loud voice but risks agreeing on little in the way of concrete proposals. Thankfully, the campaign convened a crack working group that not only formulated a commendable strategy and vision but also delved into options for action. The result is a solid foundation of ideas that presidential candidates can use to flesh out a vision for better U.S. global engagement.

Today's Impact 08 kickoff event was a high profile affair. It was interesting to hear each of the speakers -- including former cabinet officials (Madeleine Albright, Tom Ridge, Frank Carlucci) and a retired general (Barry McCaffrey) -- articulate a vision of American "smart power." Carlucci recalled U.S. housing and medical programs he oversaw in Portugal in the 1970's that helped to pull the country back from civil war. Albright rallied moderates -- "Moderation does not signal a lack of resolve: we need militant moderates!" -- to a faithful pursuit of America's ideals. Among her more memorable lines: "We can't rescue America's ideals from misuse and skepticism by giving up on them. Democracy is the exercise of freedom, even if we don't agree with its use. Democracy is a form of government, not a ticket to a heavenly paradise where everyone agrees with us." Ridge echoed that though America may be seen as an adversary, "the idea of America" still makes people queue up at U.S. consulates all over the world to come here.

Most of the speakers expressed the need to reconcile "the idea of America" with its image and its policies abroad. Campaign director Liz Schrayer promised in her closing remarks that the Center's website will cover closely what presidential candidates say about U.S. engagement abroad as their campaigns develop and as Impact 08 takes its smart power message on the road in primary states.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On the run today, so a couple quick hits are all I'll have time for:

• Via PSD Blog, we learn that the Global Development Network's 2007 Global Development Awards competition is open. Check out past winners to see the caliber of the competition.
  
• More on the Bush administration's fading interest in any country not named Iraq: The New York Times reports that President Bush "spoken more frequently with [Iraq Prime Minister] Mr. Maliki than just about any other foreign leader besides those of Britain and Germany." The story goes on to explain that Bush has implored Maliki to be a leader for all of Iraq, not merely Shiites. It seems odd for a president with approval ratings at historic lows to give advice to other leaders.
  
• Katya Andresen says this is the best email she's ever received. I was personally inspired by a message I received this week from the One Campaign about the farm bill, putting the focus not as much on poor farmers around the world but small, independent family-farmers here in the states. I've copied it below. What do you think?

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Via Marshall Jevons at the Bayesian Heresy, I was turned on to a passage of James Fallows' sprawling China Makes, the World Takes article in the latest Atlantic Monthly. Jevons pulls out a portion of the story which makes you stop and think about all the things we get from China, and where that money goes. Here's a hint: it's a good thing (for the Chinese) that we consume their manufactured goods in such massive quantities:

In case the point isn't clear: Chinese workers making $1,000 a year have been helping American designers, marketers, engineers, and retailers making $1,000 a week (and up) earn even more. Plus, they have helped shareholders of U.S.-based companies.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Time was that it was possible to do something creative, exciting and revolutionary on the American airwaves. The first televised presidential debates were 47 years ago, and that was groundbreaking. John F. Kennedy debated Richard Nixon in 1960 and single-handedly created the Kennedy mystique as a visual product, obliterating Nixon in the process. (Though Nixon got his revenge.) Nobody knew what to expect in 1960. Americans were on the edge of their seats.

Four years later, Americans were mourning Kennedy and turned to something earth-shattering from television once again. The Beatles came to the states and everyone stayed home to watch their debut on the Ed Sullivan Show. Fine. Not everyone, but close to 40% of the U.S. population stayed home to watch.

We don't get much groundbreaking material on the television these days. I guess that's why I'm not surprised to see mostly disappointment from young observers who had witnessed the hype and found last night's YouTube/CNN Democratic Candidates debate lacking.

The question I have is "What did you expect?"

I don't mean to be testy, but let me put everyone at ease: Almost nothing unpredictable, ground-breaking, even edgy or surprising will ever be associated with this presidential campaign. Don't look for the revolutionary embrace of new media. (Cokie Roberts on NPR kept referring to it as "the new media" like "the new math.") New media is a wonderful tool, but it's just one tool and it's not for everyone. CNN's fumbled use of the technology, the fact that web videos are small to begin with and small things don't look good on TV, and the natural political instinct of any candidate to use a question as an opportunity to do anything but answer the question basically guarantee that this exercise wouldn't be revolutionary.

America's voters are certainly not the YouTube generation. In the 2004 election, the lowest rate of registration was people aged 18-24. The lowest turnout rate? 18-24 again. Who picks our leaders? That would be the 70% of folks 45 and older who turn out to vote. I won't lament that this wasn't a revolutionary piece of television or part of the presidential campaign. I'm not naive enough to think that would be the case. But I will lament that ham-fisted exercises like this one won't do anything to bring voter turnout up in the targeted age groups. In fact, it might drive people away.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last year at a GII-sponsored Effective Aid, Effective Advocacy meeting, a senior State Department official stated bluntly that, "Within five years the U.S. government will have a civilian response capability. The only question is whether it will be located at the Department of Defense or at [the State Department]." Sure enough, one year later, as State's Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization struggles to secure funding and clout, the Pentagon is charging ahead to build and deploy this sort of capability.

Stewart Patrick at the Center for Global Development has been following the Pentagon's preventive role in Africa closely. Of course, this is the Pentagon we're talking about, so a term like "preventive" won't do; rather, the Department of Defense is engaged in "Phase Zero" operations, particularly in Africa. Patrick explains what DoD means by this:

The Defense Department (DoD) spends countless hours drafting plans for potential wars. Each plan outlines specific missions and military requirements for discrete phases of war, from the run-up to hostilities (Phase 1), to the onset of military action (Phase 2), to major combat (Phase 3), to "post-conflict" stabilization (Phase 4), and then to the shift to civilian control (Phase 5).

More recently, the Pentagon got the idea that greater military attention to pre-conflict situations-preventive action-could pay huge dividends, by making it unnecessary to use U.S. troops around the world.

That’s where Phase Zero comes in. It implies that America's far-flung Regional Combatant Commands have a new military mission-eliminating the roots of instability and terrorism in the world's most dysfunctional countries.

This is a new sort of operation for the military. The first test subject will be Africa, where the Pentagon's Africa Command (AFRICOM) will begin an interagency process in 2008 to shape "activities designed to ameliorate troubling trends before they reach a crisis, rather than traditional operations involving the use of force... Although the commander will be a four-star general, one of his two deputies will be a senior U.S. foreign service officer, and the command will include many personnel from U.S. civilian agencies."

Interagency collaboration is well and good, but the same tensions that characterize the friction-filled reform process that has brought USAID and the State Department together (with State as the politically-motivated powerhouse) will define this effort. But this time, DoD will be the heavy-hitter, and Patrick fears that military planning will overtake diplomatic efforts:

The danger in this scheme is that it puts the Pentagon in the driver's seat and threatens to militarize U.S. engagement with Africa. Interagency coordination is one thing, but assigning leadership for this integration to the Pentagon is a risky proposition -- as a recent Washington Post article makes clear.

What the Pentagon is calling "Phase Zero" sounds suspiciously like what some of us still quaintly refer to as "diplomacy" and "development assistance." Given the Pentagon's massive resources compared to civilian agencies, any "shaping" activities that emerge from AFRICOM are likely to reflect U.S. military priorities and give short shrift to broader political and developmental considerations.

The sheer size of the Pentagon's budget and Patrick's fear of the "gravitational pull" it has on civilian leadership of U.S. foreign policy is one sort of concern. Would other agencies do the preventive work better (particularly from the perspective of people in failing states) if they had the funding?

Last week David Ignatius voiced another more fundamental objection: "There's a strong element of neo-imperialism here, the idea that someone's got to make these failed states work, and the U.S. has a responsibility to do so."

How much can the U.S. realistically expect to accomplish as the lead actor? Something tells me that DoD doesn't specialize in respectful partnerships with the developing world...

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The consensus in this article is that the Bush Administration's decision to emphasize diplomacy in the Middle East is "almost overdue" in the words of former Afghanistan envoy James Dobbins. This is almost incontrovertible, but I'll try anyhow. As Josh noted last week, just as we can't really afford to only practice our diplomacy when it suits us, we also can't afford to only practice it where it suits us. It is folly to decide that a half-decade of neglect of the countries in the Middle East can be remedied by an intense diplomatic push as the Bush presidency lurches toward its conclusion, countries in the greater orbit like Pakistan and Afghanistan begin to go off the rails and entities in the center like Palestine and Iraq descend deeper into chaos.

The world's only remaining superpower doesn't get to peddle diplomacy on a squeaky-wheel basis. Snubbing Africa with its potentially growing Islamic presence and deep poverty is a mistake anytime. Turning our back on South Asia, with the most populous Muslim nation, is never a good move.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Post carried a distressing story about global development Sunday -- an unfortunate tale of woe re-hashing the birth of Randall Tobias' new approach to spending aid dollars. Hill, Aid Groups: One Opaque System Replaced Another pretty much says it all:

The result is a clearer picture of where U.S. assistance is going, but also a backlash from Congress and aid groups that contend that one opaque system has replaced another, with a small group of people deciding how aid dollars are divvied up, what countries they reach and who controls them.

Rice's foreign aid approach "sadly bears the hallmarks of our failed early assistance efforts in Iraq, where ideology and political connections trumped professionalism," charged Pam Pearson, a foreign service officer who had worked for Tobias, in a cable she sent to top State Department officials last fall.

The fight over U.S. foreign aid has been largely hidden from the public, but it is likely to emerge Tuesday, when the Senate holds confirmation hearings for Henrietta H. Fore, the undersecretary of state for management and the nominee to replace Tobias as the deputy secretary of state for foreign assistance.

For the better part of a year, development professionals and watchers have said that any kind of progress on aid reform is impossible with the current administration. Even before Tobias resigned in disgrace after admitting to paying for massages from members of an accused call girl ring, the hope for 'fixing' aid seemed dim. As we've noted elsewhere, the noble idea of the MCC appears to be in danger of slipping into maintenance mode as the congressional appropriation for the project was slashed, mostly on the back of middling performance by the MCC.

The conclusion many could draw is that reforming aid isn't possible. Last year, when the GII hosted a candid conversation with one of Tobias' closest advisers Dirk Dijkerman, it was clear that the effort to overhaul aid -- although it apparently turned out badly -- was grueling and not very rewarding. USAID missions in the field, NGOs at home and people inside the Department of State and at USAID were all impossible to please, with good reason.

Some would say that Secretary Rice's impulse to substantially change AID was an attempt perhaps to cash in on a post-9/11 momentum account that had already been overspent by hubris. That's quite possible.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post's yearlong investigation of the farm lobby, dubbed "Harvesting Cash," is muckraking journalism at its best. Advocates for the developing world's poor have lambasted the subsidies that the U.S. government pays to American farmers for some time. The problem is that economists and advocates can (and do) argue about the inefficiency and unfairness of these subsidies until they are blue in the face; the idea that inefficiencies or no, we should tighten our belts and support generations of American farmers is such a powerful one that the arguments make little difference.

The Post takes a long look underneath the macroeconomic arguments against -- and the farm lobby arguments for -- agricultural subsidies and finds... simple corruption. You may have heard that most ag subsidies end up making their way to huge ag corporations rather than the plucky family farmers we carry around in our heads. Or that these subsidies have actually hastened the demise of said family farmer. But the bar keeps getting lower: First, we learned that the government has paid out more than $1.3 billion to people who don't actually farm. And today, the Post reports that taxpayers have paid almost as much to farmers who have been deceased for years.

One wonders what level of absurdity our agricultural policy will have to attain before the American voter demands some big changes.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Caroline Heine at Philanthromedia brings us news of a new report from the Case Foundation entitled Citizens at the Center. The report signals an important new tack in the discussion of citizen involvement in civil society. As Heine writes:

For those of us who live and work in the non-profit sector everyday, the idea of citizen-centered efforts presents a major challenge to the institutions that we have ordained to be the fountains of community knowledge, the “deciders” of what is in the best interest of our communities, and certainly the holders of the purse strings.

Many Americans have turned away from politics and political institutions for the same reasons they have turned away from other civic institutions -- a sense that what they do matters little when it comes to the civic life and health of their communities or the country. Shifting to an approach that puts citizens at the center can be a powerful way to help ordinary people take action on the problems that are most important to them, and in the ways they choose.

"I don't think people are thinking of themselves as citizens that much anymore, and I think it's got more to do with the failure of institutions, political parties, officer-holders do to treat people like they're citizens. So I think it is more consumer - they're treated, you know, more as consumers. Even the politics has become transactional. It's, you, know, 'I'll give you a tax cut for your vote,' 'Well, we'll give you free health care for your vote,' and it's all transactional. There is no call to citizenship for the common good.

"But I think people hunger for that. My own view is that I run into people, and in my work, I get a sense that there is a deep hunger for a call to the common good and a deep hunger to be treated as a citizen, to be a citizen, but there's no place to perform your citizenship, and that's where I think a lot of the institutions are failing."

I agree with Caroline Heine that this kind of voice from a foundation is refreshing and speaks to the idea a lot of us have that the best-laid plans of funders and advocates are fine, but they still create barriers to entry that keep ordinary Americans out of the process. This report says it's time to give those folks a chance to push for community change -- and more -- from the community level.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Zalmay Khalilzad, ambassador to Iraq from 2005 until April and current ambassador to the United Nations, traces a role for the UN to help stabilize Iraq in today's New York Times. Khalilzad isn't saying anything revolutionary when he argues that the UN has a comparative advantage in convening power and legitimacy that would go a long way toward mitigating sharp divisions in Iraqi society. It's simply refreshing to hear a representative of the administration articulate that.

The day-to-day situation in Iraq is so complex and solutions must be so finely tuned that it's difficult to say whether the specific agenda that Khalilzad lays out for the UN is a good or realistic one. But as the official who represented U.S. interests in Iraq directly as ambassador, now with a close view to the UN, he seems to be in a good position to speak sense.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nicholas Kristof doesn't often engage in the popular New York Times columnist sport of administration-bashing. More often, he's praising Bush for taking some worthwhile steps while calling for firmer, more energetic leadership from the president. But today Kristof goes after Vice President Cheney in a big way, styling him as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's twin, a sort of mirror image of Cheney in Islamist garb.

On the question of intent and motive, we can only hazard a guess at how right or wrong Kristof is to compare the two (I suspect polling samples on this one might skew to party lines). NY Times columnist David Brooks provided a contrasting view of intentions the other day when he made a cogent argument that the neoconservative vision for Iraq represented the purest of American ideals. Be that as it may, we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Even on tactics and tone, I hesitate to compare Cheney's militant rhetoric with Ahmadinejad's full-blown publicly-proclaimed lunacy about driving an entire people-group into the sea. But I had to grant Kristof's point to some degree when I read that Iranians have readily taken to comparing the two:

“Iranians refer to their new political radicals as ‘neoconservatives,’ with multiple layers of deliberate irony,” notes Gary Sick, an Iran specialist at Columbia University, adding: “The hotheads around President Ahmadinejad’s office and the U.S. foreign policy radicals who cluster around Vice President Cheney’s office, listen to each other, cite each others’ statements and goad each other to new excesses on either side.”

Irony indeed. I'm reminded of a recent performance I saw of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, a macabre lesson on how difficult it is to maintain honor rather than stooping to the level of the enemy in the face evident evil. On a more practical note (keeping in mind that my college literature professor would surely be troubled by any implication that Shakespeare is impractical), I'll refer the reader to US in the World for ideas on how a future vice president might answer the questions that trouble our current VP. Questions like, "What do you propose we do when countries break international rules?" and "We have no choice but to prevent through military preemption."

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Timothy Garton Ash, writing in the LA Times, says that although "Iraq is over," it hasn't really even begun. His argument is that the impact of the Iraq war -- a war the American public has decided it is finished with -- will be long-lasting and resonant for American foreign policy, our interests in the Middle East and our reputation in the world.

Before sliding into a predictable (and completely correct, in my opinion, the cognitive dissonance of Bill Kristol not withstanding) indictment of the war and what will follow, Garton Ash makes some interesting statements about the public opinion that informs his underlying argument.

First, he finds the number that puts fear into hearts of 21 incumbent Republican senators facing voters next fall: "Iraq is over insofar as the American public has decided that most U.S. troops should leave. In a Gallup poll earlier this month, 71% favored "removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1 of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts.""

He goes on to add this:

The American people's verdict is remarkably sharp on other aspects of the Iraq debacle. In a poll for CNN, 54% said the United States' action in Iraq was not morally justified. In one for CBS, 51% endorsed the assessment — shared by most of the experts — that U.S. involvement in Iraq was creating more, not fewer, terrorists hostile to the United States. If once Americans were blind, they now can see. For all its plenitude of faith, this is a reality-based nation.

Taken together, it's a fascinating assessment of the complexities of geopolitics in this critical and vexing part of the world. It is also a long list of things most Americans simply don't care about. They aren't mean-spirited or malicious or anything of the sort. They just aren't keen observers of the contours of America's foreign policy. The public didn't have a huge interest in the geopolitical and foreign policy ramifications of this war when the administration began the march to war, and they haven't increased that interest.

They are interested in the fate and fortunes of men and women fighting in Iraq. They are sensitive, I think, to the strengthening of al Qaeda as that translates to danger here. But policy makers, politicians and others should probably take a moment to savor Garton Ash's op-ed. To read it -- and really spend the time -- is for regular Americans to stare into the unblinking horror of a foreign policy's twisted wreckage. To them, our leaders were never supposed to get us into this position. As Garton-Ash notes, US policy for military interventions has been "no more Vietnams" for so long, it appears the public took for granted that our leaders were still following that policy.

In a nutshell, this is the problem faced by many non-profit organizations hoping to connect with or energize Americans about foreign policy. When you don't have a heavily invested community that self-motivates its involvement, explaining the challenging landscape of global issues is an unwelcome task. Policy of the sort we've had for the last half-dozen years doesn't make it any easier.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's always a wild ride when an issue moves from stodgy, wonky Washington to the freewheeling, zany realm of college campuses. I remember being deeply moved when Bono and Co. visited my campus a few years back during DATA's first push on AIDS. That visit got Wheaton College's creative juices going, and a couple of passionate student leaders have maintained involvement in the issue ever since.

The same process is underway as malaria gains notoriety on campuses around the country. Scott Paul, writing on The Washington Note, catalogs a wonderful variety of campus-specific malaria campaigns. My favorites are USC's Bed Net Fashion Show, in which designers will incorporate nets into their outfits to raise funds for more of the same, put to a more practical purpose in Africa; and Harvard's campaign of visual demonstration, "Net 'em and Bug 'em: Volunteers in mosquito costumes will walk around campus "biting" people, while others in net suits are visibly immune."

Creative and commendable as these efforts are, they are sure to face skepticism, as evidenced by the comments that popped up following Paul's post. Scrolling down, we find first a "guns versus butter" argument -- if only we didn't spend so much in Iraq, we could really make a difference. A few comments down we find a plea to take care of the needy here at home before we worry about the needy abroad. Both are understandable but unhelpful; you can read thoughtful answers in the online version of US in the World.

It bears mention that malaria is just the tip of the iceberg for a number of organizations doing work to educate and engage students on global issues. Last week Tarek profiled Campaign Idol, a social action workshop geared to high school students interested in learning to do great advocacy. The contest produced some impressive content: the winning advocacy campaign, SASSY! (Support A Self-Sustaining Somalia, Yes!), took home the grand prize (view their PowerPoint presentation here). Americans for Informed Democracy also deserves credit for its own innovative malaria campaign, Veto the Squito. For more on high schoolers doing great things in the advocacy arena, see NetAid's annual Global Citizen Corps Summit, coming up soon in New York.

Oh to be young again.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Paul Waldman writing at The American Prospect writes an insightful, concise post about how presidential candidates have used the right kind of campaign narrative to connect with voters. Perhaps Waldman oversimplifies the correlation between the narrative and winning elections, but we'll forgive this flaw and look at his core message about messaging:

Successful presidential candidate stories have three parts. Part one of the story describes the state of the country and its government, clearly defining what is wrong. Part two describes the place the candidate wants to take us, the better day being promised. Part three explains why the candidate is the one and only person who can deliver us from where we are to that better day.

Waldman appears to be launching on a series looking at the campaign narrative. I plan to keep reading.

Posted by Tarek Rizk at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On a more serious public diplomacy-related note, the USC Center for Public Diplomacy pointed in its latest newsletter to several articles that profile Karen Hughes' difficult job to improve America's image abroad.

The Washington Times article, "Foreign ministration," is refreshingly light on commentary and heavy on quotes and stories. It does a good job of tracing the arc of Hughes' tenure at the State Department and her effort to make American diplomacy more intelligible to foreign publics, not just diplomats. And it sets up the core question, quoting Pew Center public opinion guru Andrew Kohut: "Public diplomacy in this particular situation can make changes at the margins, but to move the needle you have to have policies or conditions change. Big changes in public opinion are not consequences of misunderstanding, but of big events."

Hughes knows this, particularly after the ill-fated Middle East "listening tour" with which she inaugurated her time at State. She wanted to talk about being a mother. The women with which she spoke wanted to talk about Palestine and Iraq. Of course, Hughes could do little else but listen in such situations. She can't change policy. Indeed, as the Times notes, "No one expects the U.S. to change its policies simply to assuage public anger abroad." You can't run a foreign policy that way.

So Hughes understandably focuses on building personal connections and common values: "I agree that there is concern about policy. But that doesn't mean that we can't forge common interests and values, or that we shouldn't invite people to come and see what America is like." President Bush echoed this with his recently-announced envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "an inter-governmental umbrella group of 57 Muslim states, 'to listen to and learn from' Muslim countries and 'share with them America’s views and values'."

This is all well and good; Americans really do share lots of values with the rest of the world. But what does it mean to share values? Hopefully there's an element of respect involved which translates into action. Common values don't dictate that we must please those publics abroad, but common values should make us think carefully when they voice a serious grievance. Even as recently as President Bush's announcement on Monday of a renewed effort at peace in Palestine, signs indicate that the administration has not been listening, even a little.

America is the deadbeat boyfriend who ignores his girl, then buys her flowers to make it up to her. That total inflexibility when it comes to the things that really matter (in Muslim countries that would be Palestine) undermines Hughes logical argument that the world may not trust our words, but it respects our "diplomacy of deeds:" health, education and economic opportunity projects throughout the world.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday I quoted David Ignatius saying that U.S. public diplomacy consists of finding new ways to tell the world what the the U.S. government wants to say. But this morning I learned, on FP Passport, that we're not so much speaking with our diplomats as we are serenading the world with our military bands.

David J. Kilcullen, a senior advisor to General David Petraeus in Iraq, observes that "there are subs