The funny thing about globalization is that while pressure from without, "global culture" if you will, exerts pressure on local customs, those local tidbits have an easier time making themselves known around the world. So it is with two stories in the New York Times this week about local culture mixing and changing into something not traditional and by no means mainstream. Take the story about gender-swapping (not the personal liberation kind, the familial duty kind) Albanian women, for whom sexual equality and modernity have rendered an old practice obsolete:

For centuries, in the closed-off and conservative society of rural northern Albania, swapping genders was considered a practical solution for a family with a shortage of men. Her father was killed in a blood feud, and there was no male heir. By custom, Ms. Keqi, now 78, took a vow of lifetime virginity. She lived as a man, the new patriarch, with all the swagger and trappings of male authority -- including the obligation to avenge her father's death.

Or take the story about the Roots Festival, an indie-rock tribute (no pun intended) held every year in Shillong, India. The place has begun to "own" its distinct type of rock culture. The music that comes out of Shillong is not derivative of Western rock, nor is it Indian folk with a twist. The musicians there have created something new.

Some argue that the area's indigenous Khasi traditions are deeply rooted in song and rhyme. Some credit the 19th-century Christian missionaries who came from Britain and the United States, introduced the English language, hymns and gospel music and in turn made the heart ripe for rock. Some say the northeast, remote and in many pockets, gripped by anti-Indian separatist movements, has not been as saturated by Hindi film music as the rest of India. Others speak of that ephemeral quality of rock 'n' roll, able to seep into young, restless bones anywhere.

Both of these stories interest me because they don't present a binary either/or, accept/reject choice to cultures that become more modern. Creative minds are difficult to pin down. Something for those in the development field to ponder.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In general, this blog applauds creative coalition building. So when the climate change people started wooing the security hawks, convincing them that the United States is "addicted to oil," that was eye-catching and, dare I say it, "silo busting." Climate advocates got the feeling that the "serious security" crowd was starting to place their issue alongside traditional security concerns. But alas, as the Economist points out in an incisive look at this particular coalition effort, serious differences are undermining unity of purpose when it comes to practical policy solutions.

What are these insuperable differences?

• Biofuels: "Witness the fuss about corn- and wheat-based ethanol, which are great for farmers, but of dubious benefit to the environment and of serious detriment to the poor, who find themselves paying more for their food. As these drawbacks have become apparent, the political consensus in Europe and America in favour of ever-bigger biofuel mandates has evaporated."
• Coal: "The divide is even wider in the case of coal, the foulest of fuels as far as greens are concerned, but one of the fairest in the eyes of energy-security types. America and Europe both have lots of it. There are few cheaper ways to make electricity than burning it. And firms like Shell even know how to turn it into petrol (albeit quite expensively). For those who wonder where our next barrel of oil is coming from, coal is a tempting substitute. But it is undeniably filthy. Burning coal produces twice the greenhouse-gas emissions that natural gas does for the same energy output. Converting coal into fuel is just as bad. The process requires lots of energy, and so produces a far dirtier fuel than petrol, assuming that the energy involved comes from a fossil source. The Sierra Club, an environmental pressure group, calculates that an ultra-efficient hybrid vehicle run on fuel derived from coal is as polluting as a Hummer, an iconic American gas-guzzler."
• Domestic oil: "Democrats and Republicans are now locked in a battle over whether to open various pristine bits of coastline to oil exploration in a bid to increase domestic production--definitely not an area where concerns about energy security and the environment coincide. Even in Europe, where there is much greater consensus about the perils of climate change, several governments have cut fuel taxes in a bid to placate angry voters. That won't make the planet any cooler."

So is this coalition doomed to expire? That depends on how much each side is willing to yield -- and on whether some strong alternatives that both can pursue wholeheartedly emerge in contrast to these areas of disagreement. But, concludes the Economist, "There is no magic wand that will make tackling global warming politically painless--not even frequent use of the word independence."

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If the field of public policy advocacy -- planning, measurement, reporting -- occupied a place at the top of the issue food chain, like, say, defense, we would no doubt have entire banks of RAND-like brains forecasting what is coming over the horizon for the brave new world that global issues advocates will inhabit. But as things stand, we'll have to settle for Wired Magazine, TED, etc.

In fact, it's remarkable how closely Wired's cover story this month, "The End of Science: The Petabyte Age: Because More Isn't Just More -- More Is Different," which maps the trends that are changing the the scientific, public policy, legal and business worlds, also gets at the new expectations that advocates for better policies and practices on a range of global issues face as they conduct and measure their work. Funders and policymakers want a veritable mountain of supporting data, and rigorous analysis.

Cross cutting global issues require issue experts and advocates to know how their issue plays into the overall picture. What are the business implications of climate change or human trafficking? What legal structures are needed? What sort of research is needed? Global issues advocates live in a less and less segmented world--not only geographically, but in terms of sector involvement as well. Not only do businesspeople fund a lot of the philanthropy behind our work, we're also expected to rope them in as stakeholders. And as science, business and policy move toward data-driven analysis, nonprofits working on global issues will feel the pressure to produce numbers, data.

Do you do peacebuilding work? Take, for instance this piece, "Tracking the News: A Smarter Way to Predict Riots and Wars." This is news aggregation as a new way to supplement qualitative expert analysis for the purpose of predicting violence and civil strife around the world. It won't solve conflict, certainly. There is still much need for good qualitiative research, relationship-building and public mobilization, but many funders and policymakers will want you peacebuilders to show serious data gathering and analysis as part of your own work on solutions. And if you're doing that important qualitative work, be prepared for your funder to ask you to get precise about its outputs and outcomes.

Let's be clear about one thing though: stories are the lifeblood of our work. There are some ways in which advocates will have to evolve their approach to the problems they work on, just to be able to relate to their funders and partners in other sectors. But there are important differences. See last week's post on what sorts of rigorous methods constitute good measures and which put advocates on "the wrong side of science."

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency had to decide and make public its decision on whether greenhouse gases should be treated as pollutants that constitute a danger to public health or the environment? Well, the EPA decided in December that greenhouse gases are pollutants, and as such, they must be controlled. Being a member of the executive branch of the U.S. government, the EPA sent its finding to the White House -- which, as reported in the New York Times today, refused to open the email.

I'm not sure there's much left to say about the scientific or policy merits of the White House position. There are some local-versus-federal issues at play here relating to whether the EPA allows states to set their own guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions. But those arise from, if anything, the severity of the climate change risk and the need to act quickly on the federal and international levels.

To my mind, this is more a tale of the wacky world of perceived "executive privilege" (this is the legal term the White House gave in explanation for its behavior) with which the Bush administration has undercut the morale and effectiveness of its own agencies. It's one thing to contest the EPA's decision; it's another to refuse to open its email. That sort of behavior reeks of the "head in the sand" bit that liberals love to trot out on any number of issues that the administration has left to the next president. And, I must say, the White House is doing a remarkable job of living up to the phrase.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recalling a certain memorable speech that would've, could've, should've kicked off a new era of presidential leadership on energy policy, Thomas Friedman looks at President Bush's recent actions and makes a suitably sassy diagnosis in today's New York Times:

It's as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: "C'mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we'll all go straight. I'll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude."

Here, says Friedman, is what our president should be saying:

Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we're going to break our addiction: We're going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy -- particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we're also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.

Political suicide? Perhaps. But with all the talk of Bush trying to burnish his legacy in the final months, what has he got to lose? What sort of dire political consequences could possibly await President Bush if he were to flout the new Republican line on offshore drilling and increased oil production? He is, to a large extent, beyond political fallout. When a president's approval hovers in the 20's, the politics have fallen out already. In such a situation, one is afforded an opportunity few presidents have: to do something that has nothing to do with politics.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This blog purports to speak to the space (location: nebulous, admittedly) "where global issues, advocacy and messaging meet." A critical part of this mix is language, no question. I take a special interest in the way that Obama supporters and pundits (bear in mind that their candidate aims to reframe political discourse) are inventing terminology around Barack Obama--specifically around his fun-sounding name.

Slate.com has made a daily feature, Obamamania!, out of this wellspring of wordplay ("Barack Ness Monster," "Post-Baracalyptic"). Today's Obamaism:

Obamalaise (oh-BAH-ma-LEYZ) n. The emotional hangover resulting from repeatedly watching "Yes We Can" montages.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently saw "In the Shadow of the Moon," a surprisingly moving documentary by Ron Howard that tells the story of the Apollo missions and their moon landings through the words of the astronauts who undertook those historic missions. The first trip to the moon was the first occasion, of course, that people around the world saw their own planet in perspective: "hanging small, bright and borderless," in the words of one of the Apollo crew. We've blogged plenty about the transformative power of this image.

But the moon (and the image of the earth that it elicits) remains an elusive destination since NASA's Apollo program fulfilled JFK's ambitious pledge to put a man there before the calendar struck 1970. The Cold War political one-upsmanship and novelty that motivated the first lunar missions has passed; we need new incentives.

Enter Google, chronic innovator:

Google's Lunar X Prize will put $20 million into the hands of the first privately funded team that can land a rover on the moon, have it travel on the surface for 500 meters or more, send back data, photos and video, and do it all by December 31, 2012.

It's a paltry sum that won't offset the cost of developing and executing a private sector lunar landing, but it's distinctly Kennedy-esque, challenging private teams to do something momentus within a discrete time-frame essentially for bragging rights.

Google understands something about advocacy: a big idea is hard to resist.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why, after all the money, tough rhetoric and skilled negotiators that the U.S. has applied to the conflict in Darfur, aren't we getting anywhere? This thing has been on slow boil for years. I've been trying to keep up with the clash of interests as they metastasize again and again into new and dangerous versions of conflict, but the political landscape in Darfur is truly byzantine.

The Washington Post's piece today, "A Wide-Open Battle For Power in Darfur," helped me to re-envision that landscape. The four or five rebel factions that were in play during the peace talks two years ago have splintered into several dozen competing factions, largely because the stakes--money, materiel, power--are higher now that Darfur is on the world map and incorporated into the budgets of well-off governents under pressure to do something to help the region.

To put it bluntly, this new level of complexity is of our own making. The unintended consequences of international attention can be bizarre. Remember the nefarious Janjaweed, the Arab raiders pillaging by proxy for the Sudanese government? Some of them have switched sides, or at least ended their implicit partnership with Khartoum:

The Sudanese government has little need for military action, as Darfur is at war with itself.

Arab tribes are fighting one another over land, cows and other spoils of war. Disillusioned Janjaweed militiamen, abandoned by the government, have joined rebels and government soldiers in the business of looting, carjacking and petty shakedowns.

"Everybody is guilty," said Col. Augustine Agundu, chairman of the peacekeeping mission's cease-fire commission, who reserved special wrath for the rebels. "Emancipation, ending discrimination, that was their drive at the beginning, whereas today they don't know what they want."

The peacekeeping mission is in the middle of it all, saddled with the high expectations of advocacy groups that simply want the conflict to end.

The international community, such as it is, still has a "responsibility to protect." But what does that mean? Advocates need to get together with program implementers and negotiators and think through the incentives for all parties pretty carefully. We've demanded change, and change is what we have, but Darfur still befuddles.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sure, it's all well and good when we bleeding hearts at the Global Interdependence Initiative proclaim the dawn of a bright future for democracy and self-sustenance in Africa. But when the Wall Street Journal gets in on our racket, you know there's got to be something to all of this. In point of fact, the WSJ does an unusually good job of covering Africa, being constitutionally disinclined to go in for bleeding heart coverage, but rather inclined to ask of Africa the question the WSJ asks the rest of the world: "can/should our readers do business here?"

The answer to that question is "increasingly," as the Journal reports today. Reporter Sarah Childress details the slow but steady gains that Africa is making, both on the governance and economic sides:

The democratic gains across sub-Saharan Africa come amid the fastest economic growth the region has seen in three decades. Foreign investment is flooding in on the back of soaring prices for the oil, metals and minerals that are plentiful across the continent. The boom, coupled with the region's democratic progress, offers some hope that after a period of post-colonial turmoil, sub-Saharan Africa may be slowly emerging into a more peaceful and prosperous era.

In many countries, democracy is already robust. Ghana, sub-Saharan Africa's first independent nation, is now a thriving democracy and one of Africa's most stable countries. Tanzania, Mauritius, Senegal and Mozambique also have burgeoning, multiparty systems.

Late last year, South Africa's two-term President Thabo Mbeki was voted out of the ruling party's top seat. In April, Botswana's president handed over power to an interim leader ahead of elections next year.

Childress doesn't shy away from the brutal, uninviting reality that persists in parts of the continent. But which is the "true Africa?" That, at least, seems more debatable now than at any time in the past. From the grassroots to the grasstops, African countries--even the most troubled ones like Zimbabwe, are developing institutions to keep strongman leaders in check and protect progress so far:

In a growing number of countries, including Zimbabwe, grass-roots democracy groups are working to keep their leaders in check. The Africa Progress Panel, an international assessment body chaired by former United Nations chief Kofi Annan, released a report this week crediting nongovernmental organizations and other civil-society groups with increasingly holding governments accountable.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The People's Daily--official voice of the Chinese Communist Party--is dutifully trying to make sense of American politics for its Chinese readers. And while no one can argue that the Party is guilty of interference with internal affairs abroad, we may have a serious case of what psychologists call "transference" on our hands.

What happens when you run American politics through the state-controlled media machine in China? You wind up with a serious red pill, blue pill situation. The Washington Post reports on an op-ed explaining Barack Obama's success in the People's Daily.

"Obama won precisely because he did not emphasize his racial characteristics," the writer said. "He even made a clean break with radical black people. Therefore it can be said Obama won because of his skin color and not because of his skin color. His skin color made him different but his U.S. background made him the same.

"Obama is a graduate from a first-class university," the editorial continued. "He is a symbol of assimilation rather than a representative of different races coming together. Obama did not break the superiority complex of white people. On the contrary, his appearance strengthened the superiority complex of white people."

What a mass of layered contradictions and treacherous posturing is assembled here. There is more than enough room for a trenchant critique of the political barriers yet to be surmounted by aspiring minorities in the United States--they are real and varied--but it's fascinating to see the Party knock white bias (it is a "complex") in America while concurrently working furiously to assure readers that it still exists in its original, untainted form. The implication that Obama cannot really represent black Americans is akin to the scourge that our inner-city teachers face: you have a black student achieving high scores, on track to a tier-one school and professional career? Stop acting white! Shouldn't that student bitterly decry and opt out of the established systems of power, which, after all, are dominated by whites?

But, of course, that is the whole point with Barack Obama. He's not acting white, nor is he rejecting whites. He's comfortably black. Let's move on please. And Americans like that.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

China is changing its approach to foreign affairs toward the less nefarious, says a new report from the International Crisis Group that's meant to allay fear of China's negative influence on world affairs and markets. The country is by shades more and more enlightened, says ICG, shifting from belligerent, mercantilist policies on oil reserves, energy security, foreign investment and even, in some cases, its standard non-interventionist take on crises abroad. China is coming to realize that, as it takes on new responsibilities and importance on the world stage, its national interests are starting to align with (gasp!) those of the international community.

Of course, the country still arrests its people for going to the wrong church or posting a "reactionist" blog entry. But still, progress comes in many forms.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's a story in today's Washington Post that dovetails with David's experience moderating a dialogue among Muslim-American leaders and Congressional staff last week.

David heard from local Muslim leaders in a policy context. Today's piece in the Post tells the story of the Falls Church Dar al Hijrah mosque that has cast off its longtime reputation of being by, for and about the Muslim faithful by opening itself up in myriad ways:

These days, the mosque bustles with visitors chattering in Spanish and Vietnamese as well as Persian and Urdu. Immigrants from a dozen countries gather there each Thursday, many with toddlers and baby strollers, to pick up donated chicken, bread, fruit and vegetables.

On weekends, the doors are thrown open for community blood drives or mental health fairs. At night, mosque officials often attend meetings at nearby churches, synagogues or social agencies, including a monthly brainstorming session called Culmore Partners.

These interactions with the community do not focus on religious issues, writes author Pamela Constable. But they have a lot to do, oddly enough, with public policy:

It was the threat of a crackdown on illegal immigrants that first brought Dar al Hijrah into close contact with advocacy groups. A meeting was called in Culmore to discuss how to help families in cases of raids or arrests, and mosque officials offered their premises.

There you have it: Muslims advocating for immigration reforms on behalf of Hispanic laborers as a way to address Americans' misperceptions about terrorism. That's why we're called the Global Interdependence Initiative.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had the privilege recently of moderating a dialog among leaders of Muslim-American communities and Congressional staff members. Not a dialog "between" them, mind you; this bunch was too diverse to define as a simple dyad. Most of us hangers-round-the-edges of Capitol Hill know that staff members are, just by themselves, a varied bunch: diverse politically, of course, but also along many other dimensions.

But despite myself, I was impressed by the diversity of our Muslim-American participants as well. It should have been no surprise: the data about Muslim diversity in the U.S. is well documented by the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life, among other sources.

And yet: when one imam spoke for the first time, I was struck by his accent -- straight out of Brooklyn. An African-American convert to Islam, he noted that entering into interfaith dialog was easy enough for him: he just had to go home for a meal with his mother and uncles. And adding to the litany of complaints already voiced about excessive, intrusive, and sometimes nonsensical questioning at US airports, he said: "I have a double whammy; I'm either driving while black, or flying while Muslim. I can't catch a break."

A basic sense of justice for our fellow citizens, and a decent respect for the opinion of, well, humankind, demands that the next administration must make it clear that our fight is with terrorists, not with Muslims. Our friends at the Brookings Institution take this a step further: our fight is with terrorists, not "jihadists." Their reasoning: jihad in its usual sense is a noble struggle; why would we want to honor our adversaries in this way?

Candidate Obama struggles to beat back rumors that he is Muslim because, ummmmm, he's not; and because, well, it hurts him politically to be thought Muslim. Meanwhile, he is wildly popular in many countries of the Middle East where he is (also) believed to be Muslim. Let us also long for the day when an American Presidential candidate who drives while black AND flies while Muslim will be as well received in this country as Senator Obama is today in the streets of Cairo.

Posted by David Devlin-Foltz at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent conference hosted by the Stanford Social Innovation Review and FSG Social Impact Advisors, titled "Good Measures: New Approaches to Evaluation," showcased evolving thinking about how to evaluate social impact. As usual, a lot of it centers on service delivery (as it should; end needs, ultimately, need to be met), but there are interesting tidbits to be gleaned on measuring advocacy impact.

Take a look at "Session 4: Evaluation for Learning: Creating Cultures of Inquiry," for instance. Moderator Alana Connor's (pictured) presentation, titled "The Wrong End of Science" bemoans the fact that grantees are "drowning in data; they increasingly have to prove that their programs 'make a difference'--i.e., they have to conduct summative evaluations." These tend to judge, yea or nay, whether the program "worked," rather than providing formative feedback to improve while the effort is underway. Sound familiar?

But Connor goes on to make a further comparison that I've not heard before. She argues than instead of focusing on the "back end of science," with its prerequisite for double-blind, control group fortified, random assignment methods, those of us looking to measure social impact should pay attention to the "front end of science." That means taking into account "accumulated evidence, logical analysis, and principled experimentation for yourself."

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you haven't already, read Michael Cavna's Washington Post piece, "Comedians of Clout," a thoughtful exploration of the way comedians influence public debate about politics. His conclusion, after soliciting opinions from a slew of comedians, writers and academics, on whether "satirists affect our perceptions of the candidates: Yes, They Can. Yes, They Can." See? Cavna proves his own point, further solidifying your image of Barack Obama, right here and now.

Here are some excerpts from the comedians themselves:

Do political comics do anything besides make us titter and guffaw?

"I definitely think so," says [Bill] Maher by phone, while taking a break from finishing his satirical film "Religulous." "If someone does something twice, it becomes a reputation. Hillary becomes a congenital liar [after] all the comedians jump" -- a reference to the candidate's false claim of coming under sniper attack in Bosnia. "If they're all making the same joke, that's the danger. Then there's a solidifying effect and it becomes a truth."

---
I've never felt any of us had significant influence," says the Pulitzer-winning creator of "Doonesbury" (which returns Monday after a hiatus). "For something to be funny, the audience has to be in a position to sense the truth of it. It has to be primed. Satire can crystallize what's already in the air, but it can't really put it there."

---
Russell L. Peterson, an American studies professor at the University of Iowa, believes comics who refute satire's power are purposefully insincere. "But they have a good reason for being disingenuous," adds the author of "Strange Bedfellows: How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democracy Into a Joke." "Their comic license depends on them denying that."

Cavna did an impressive canvas of the landscape of political comedy for this piece. It's worthwhile simply as a survey of the Colberts, Stewarts and Mahers--what role do they see themselves playing? To my mind, we have only to look at the market for political news to see who holds sway. Where are young eyeballs going? What is the hottest talk show ticket in town for political candidates and operatives? Comedy will always require substance if it's going to be funny, but new media allow comedy to insert itself into that substance in ways never imagined (or tolerated) in the past. And that combination sticks.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our libertarian friends take nothing at face value and make a practice of peeking skeptically under campaign rhetoric that fits the mold and plays to expectations. For example, what could be more logical than when, in a speech Tuesday, "Obama said, 'Our president sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs.'" This is Obama, playing his role as Democratic contender versus Bush, dutiful Republican foil; all is well in the world.

Except this is complete nonsense. Even Obama supporters (I count myself one) should be chagrined at such disregard for the facts. Cato scholar Chris Edwards straightens this out:

Obama is wrong on every point in this remark. Here are the facts from the federal budget looking at Bush's first 7 years in office (FY2001 to FY2008):

• Department of Health and Human Services spending up 67 percent in 7 years of Bush.
• Department of Education spending up 92 percent in 7 years of Bush.
• Department of Energy spending up 42 percent in 7 years of Bush.
• Federal capital investment outlays up 35 percent for nondefense and 131 percent for defense in 7 years of Bush.
• Federal corporate tax revenues up a stunning 128 percent in 7 years of Bush.

All these figures are available to the Obama campaign in the Federal Budget--Historical Tables. There is no reason for Obama and his advisors to make up nonsense statements about supposed spending cuts, when there are plenty actual failed economic policies that Bush could be criticized for.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Meaninful foreign aid reform has this holy grailish quality to it. In Washington, when there's a conversation about any aspect of development assistance underway, more often than not a frustrated speaker or discussant will exclaim that, "fundamentally, U.S. foreign assistance is broken." But the fix -- and there are no shortage of ideas about how to fix foreign aid -- seems always beyond the political horizon.

This blog notes often the importance of readying an advocacy effort to seize the all-important window of political opportunity when it presents itself. I've been keeping track of aid reform discussions for almost five years now, and I can't think of one obvious window of opportunity. Sure, we had our moment of breath-holding when Randall Tobias rolled out the undeniably catchy "F process" with its goal to consolidate State and USAID. That effort enjoyed attention from the president, but it suffered from zero public will, minimal political will (particularly as Tobias stonewalled/ignored Congressional involvement throughout the process) and a whole lot of neat little boxes that organize themselves nicely until those charged with carrying out U.S. aid programs try to work out what they actually mean in the real world.

But a large-scale fix may at last be in the works. Not only have advocates for an aid system overhaul lately shown signs of resisting jargon and crafting savvy, understandable messages about why we need to fix the system, but a very wide range of actors recently united behind a detailed description of what needs to be fixed and how to go about it. Yesterday the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, comprised of many think tank and practitioner notables, released its proposal, titled "New Day, New Way: U.S. Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century."

Clearly there was a lot of good leg-work behind the proposal, not only in finding a common position between many wonks and organizations that take distinct stands on issues related to foreign aid (how often do the Hoover Institution and Oxfam America hold hands and speak as one?), but also in eliciting significant Congressional support from relevant committee figures, including Howard Berman (chairman of House Foreign Affairs), Nita Lowey (head of House Foreign Ops appropriations subcommittee) and Chuck Hagel (member of Senate Foreign Relations).

Even the report title evokes hope that it's possible to solve our problematic aid structures and, by extension, address poverty in a more effective way. This is more than another weary stab at what things should look like by a bunch of academics or beauracrats; the pieces -- and a sense of agreement among the major players -- are there to actually rewrite the aged Foreign Assistance Act. And a new president could conceivably do it.

The challenge, as ever, will be to press for depoliticized aid, as this proposal does, while standing behind the proposal's other key driver: aid is not touchy feely any more; it's about national security, an important foreign policy tool in dealing with "serious" topics like terrorism. Of course, nothing is so politicized as the struggle against terrorism, and there is no guarantee that a consolidated, efficient cabinet-level foreign aid agency that earns its respect as a serious component of national security and foreign policy would prioritize long-term development over short-term political considerations. After all, the U.S. gave away plenty of strategic foreign aid in the form of ESF funds during the Cold War, but no one's kidding themselves (anymore) that this counts as a real effort at poverty reduction or long-run development. I have not read the report at any length, so there may be good thinking that addresses such concerns. But I suspect it will always be difficult to make the case for aid that is both dedicated first and foremost to the poor yet also a legitimate national security tool.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Matthew Yglesias is convinced ("The Accidental Foreign Policy") that when Barack Obama offered to meet with foreign despots "without precondition" in a debate last summer, this was more than an embarrassing gaffe (though indeed, it may have been a gaffe). Witting or no, the fact that Obama sticks to his guns on this point is no footnote; in staking out this ground, Obama, writes Yglesias, managed to shake his campaign out of "the bland competence-and-execution argument of mainstream [Democratic] party thinking."

For the better part of a generation, top Democratic politicians have followed, with astonishing uniformity, the same set of unwritten rules in their approach to foreign affairs: match GOP "toughness"; tack to the right on major foreign-policy principles; and, above all, avoid taking positions that could be criticized as weak. So at the YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked whether he would be willing to meet "without precondition ... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea," the right answer, conventionally speaking, was a qualified "no." But Obama answered in the affirmative. Initially, even sympathetic observers like The Nation's David Corn called this statement a "flub" at best. Hillary Clinton, the quintessence of Democratic establishment thinking, had answered that she would use "high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way," before holding direct meetings with heads of state.

Few observers believed that Obama genuinely intended to break new ground with his response--his campaign had never articulated any such policy before, and seemed ill-prepared to defend it on the spot. The Clinton campaign dutifully pressed the attack the next day, calling Obama's statement "irresponsible and frankly naive." But then a funny thing happened. Obama's team did not try to qualify (or, in political parlance, "clarify") his remark, and no one said he misspoke. Instead, the campaign fought back, with memos to reporters and with a speech by the candidate himself, aimed squarely at the sort of "conventional wisdom" that had, in the words of his then-foreign-policy adviser, Samantha Power, "led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy."

It was only mid-summer, ages before the Iowa caucuses in campaign time, so it was a good moment to experiment. And it worked: polling suggested that Americans were largely on board with Obama's position. Soon, on the stump, he was regularly referring to his willingness to meet with foreign leaders, unlike other top presidential candidates.

Whether or not a candidate would entertain a different style of diplomacy, it was always this last point -- American public opinion -- that kept Democrats from exploring foreign policy approaches that the public would, immediately (it was presumed), ferret out as weak-kneed appeasement. But on the contrary, by asking questions other Democrats dared not ask, Obama has found "wellsprings of support," notes Yglesias.

... the crux of his approach is a certain fearlessness in asking questions, a refusal to dismiss any option as simply taboo. Why not talk to the leaders of Iran and Syria? If we want other countries to follow the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, why shouldn't we be willing to live up to our own treaty commitments? If al-Qaeda is primarily in central Asia, how come America's military and intelligence resources aren't?

There is a delicate, perhaps even ineffable, dance that good leaders must navigate: they must listen to consituents, but they must also know when (and how) to pull constituents along toward unpopular positions. At least among Democrats, Obama seems to be leading successfully in a new direction. That much change, at least, I can believe in.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"NATO allies squabble over many things, but on one they all agree: if Afghanistan is ever to be secure, prosperous, and cohesive, it must first be paved." Philip Smucker, writing for The Atlantic Monthly, explores whether better highways can save Afghanistan. I would not gravitate by instinct to the subject of roadbuilding for an intriguing and adventure-filled story on the future of Afghanistan. But here we are:

Road building is by far Afghanistan's largest public-works program today, and as such it is to some extent an end in itself. One U.S. military engineer, Army Commander Larry LeGree, boasts that--with his extensive budget--he can outspend the Taliban and al-Qaeda at every bend in the road. If, for example, al-Qaeda-backed insurgents are getting $5 a day, he'll pay a road worker $5.50. He says he is banking on the belief that many insurgents will--for the right price--opt out of the fight in favor of roadwork.

The completion of the Ring Road (scheduled for 2010), along with key bridges and border-crossing points, is expected to raise the nation's official trade from $4.7 billion in 2005 to some $12 billion in 2016. Already, the 300-mile ride south from Kabul to Kandahar on this route, which used to take 14 hours, can be completed in five, or fewer if you are in a hurry, which is invariably the case. Fresh asphalt hasn't kept the Taliban and assorted brigands from setting up mobile "gantlets" along the highway, where they sometimes extort, rob, kidnap, or behead passersby. Still, these security threats seem to be only a limited deterrent for Afghan truck drivers, who are renowned across South Asia for their stamina and courage.

Will better roads really make a big difference to Afghanistan's future? The Taliban certainly seem to think so: the group's forces have made a concerted effort to stop construction. Insurgents regularly target road crews in their camps and as they work. Indeed, LeGree's wage math leaves out an important variable: al-Qaeda not only pays insurgents a day rate, but also--according to U.S. platoon leaders--offers incentives for killing U.S. soldiers and Afghan road workers, dozens of whom have been slaughtered in eastern Afghanistan alone. The need for fortified camps and armed guards makes the cost of road construction in Afghanistan 30 to 50 percent higher than elsewhere in South Asia.

Don't let anyone tell you that economic development has nothing to do with the power base, or lack thereof, enjoyed by militant extremists. It's remarkable how much significance a project like Afghanistan's ring road takes on in the present context. The war on terror, or whatever we're calling it these days, is inextricable from this sort of civilian-led work.

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

GOOD Magazine wants readers just like any other, but it wants them not just to read. The magazine finds ways for its readers to contribute a lot more than letters to the editor. GOOD Projects pose problems, actual social problems, that it asks readers to help solve. With its latest project, GOOD opened the problem to be solved up to readers.

The problem that readers proposed focused on the fact that old, energy inefficient appliances are cheaper up front -- but dirtier and more expensive in the long run. How to help emerging economies with hordes of cash-strapped appliance-hungry consumers who can't afford an Energy Star refrigerator? A reader from the Dominican Republic proposed a twist on an installment/lease-back plan. It's great stuff, not least because GOOD uses its platform to enlist people toward solving big, intimidating problems while showing other readers their capacity to do the same.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alright, it's more like this video, which strikes me as a regular George Clooney next to the standard methods of delivering pleas for a new foreign assistance framework (weighty white papers laced with USG acroynms, or at least dry op-eds with much talk of machinations at USAID, State, and the Pentagon), is sexy compared to the competition. But I'm really pleased that someone, particularly the smart, credible people at the Center for Global Devlopment, are willing to reach out to Americans by broadly asking a single question in YouTube format: "How can a Foreign Assistance Act from 1961 still be relevant today? It can't." And leave it at that. Because, that, in and of itself, is a pretty glaring problem.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I must say I'm impressed and quite taken aback by former UK prime minister Tony Blair's recent announcement, reported in the New York Times, that he will launch his own foundation dedicated to religious dialogue and action.

I'm impressed because not only are high-profile leaders like Blair, particularly those in the UK/European context, pressured to keep quiet if they bring religious views to bear on their offices, but it seems like the sorting process itself strongly favors the un- or at least nominally religious. I have no idea what sort of theological chops Blair brings to the table, but the very fact that a sharp, significant British PM (who didn't drone on about how he was God's chosen one while in office or running for office) would choose to dedicate his time and considerable influence to the significance that religion plays in the modern world is... countercultural, for lack of a better term. It's shocking.

I'm taken aback because Blair was so quiet about his own religious convictions. As detailed in the Times story, "While in office, Mr. Blair was reticent about religion. His spokesman once interrupted an interview with the words: 'We don't do God.'" What's more, Blair doesn't seem to be tackling the issue with antiseptic gloves, wondering if we can all just tone it down a bit. There's a big difference between a call to mute beliefs -- make them private and inactive -- and championing the living out of religious beliefs that lead to some concrete actions (conflict resolution and poverty alleviation for Blair) and not others (violence).

Mr. Blair recently converted to Catholicism, from Anglicanism, but dates his religious awakening to his student days at Oxford. While in office in secular England, he was quiet about his deep religiosity. Mr. Blair's charity, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, is the most high-profile effort in a recent proliferation of organizations dedicated to inter-religious understanding.

In part, the trend is a reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Religious leaders began looking for ways to build interfaith ties and to elevate the voices of religious moderates at a time when extremists seemed to be monopolizing the microphones.

Now there are interfaith dinner parties, book clubs and university dorms. Among the latest initiatives, Karen Armstrong, a prominent British scholar of comparative religions, wants to convene a council of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders to draft a "Charter of Compassion" of shared moral principles.

I look forward to hearing more about the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Props to Blair for striking out on a bold, seldom-trod course.

Posted by Josh Weissburg at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)