Mark Green has posted another in his ten piece series on why conservatives should support Modernizing Foreign Assistance.  It is reposted below from the Modernizing Foreign Assistance blog. 

I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause.  Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.

To summarize, here are my first seven reasons:

Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.

Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about. 

Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.

Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.

Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.

And now . . . Reason #8: Conservatives need to ensure that our foreign assistance system recognizes, protects and builds on the enormous contributions to development being made by other-than-government sources – especially faith-based institutions.

I’m always frustrated by the data some analysts use to measure American contributions to development.  In a capitalist system like ours, government to government aid is but a fraction of the support that Americans are providing to those in need.

For one thing, many of the donor comparisons ignore the irreplaceable economic opportunities that American businesses provide through trade and investment.  I wonder how many jobs Coca-Cola has brought to Africa? Or Ford? Or Johnson & Johnson?  And there’s simply no dispute that a good paying job is superior to any traditional program or government handout.

Conservatives need to care about foreign assistance reform so they can make sure the system explicitly recognizes these “opportunity contributions” and looks for ways to build on them.   Modest assistance initiatives aimed at teaching basic lessons on entrepreneurship, increasing workforce readiness, or otherwise helping create pro-business conditions can hasten these programs towards their oft-stated purpose: ending the need for them to continue.

Of course, other-than-government development assistance goes well beyond commercial activities. A large part of American support flows through non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), faith-based and secular, that provide assistance each and every day, all over the world, in troubled lands and to despairing peoples. In some cases, the NGOs are contractors or implementing partners of governmental actors. To make government funds more effective, these NGOs harness their on-the-ground experience and unmatchable relationships. Faith-based organizations, in particular, often have the hard-earned trust of the people our programs seek to help.  Some are large organizations like World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, but many, many more are not.

Conservatives need to help shape foreign assistance reform to protect and, in some cases, enhance the role of NGOs.  After all, Conservatives have a long tradition of supporting the work of civil society in poverty relief. In 2001, we led the charge to support President George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiative.”  At the heart of that plan was the idea that faith-based organizations should have the opportunity to participate in government contracts or grants providing services for those in need.  While there shouldn’t be any preference or set aside for such organizations, and careful steps should be taken to ensure that tax dollars aren’t used for proselytizing, their work shouldn’t be hindered or discriminated against merely because of their faith character.

Of course, the role of NGOs in development goes well beyond that of a mere contractor or implementing partner.  Many NGOs lift lives and build communities by using their own resources. Some of those resources are contributed by businesses or foundations, but even more comes from individual Americans in a range of ways — from the collection plate to the bake sale, from the walk-a-thon to online donations and televised appeals. In many ways, the great untold story of American global leadership is the extraordinary generosity of ordinary Americans  . . .countless individuals all across our land who give of their time, treasure and talent for people they’ve never met, in places they’ve never been, and in many cases couldn’t find on a map . . .all because Americans care.

In some ways, other-than-government assistance is the most important because it so clearly conveys the values and sentiments of the American people.  Presidents and partisans come and go, and history shows that no government-to-government relationship is without its bumps and strains. But the work of many NGOs reinforces a bond between peoples – donors and recipients – that’s lasting and special.

Conservatives should care about the foreign assistance reform process that’s emerging at Foggy Bottom and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to make sure that our NGOs have a voice.  Whether it be protecting the opportunity of NGOs, both faith-based and secular, to contract with development agencies in the provision of assistance or making sure that agencies recognize and leverage the support NGOs provide, Conservatives can use the reform process to ensure that other–than–government assistance remains an essential expression of American compassion around the world.

Mark Green has penned another post for the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network on the importance of foreign assistance reform.  Read it below.

I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause.  Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.

To summarize, here are my first six reasons:

Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.

Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about. 

Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.

Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.

Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

And now . . . Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.

Conservatives believe, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “The best possible social program is a job.”  In that same spirit, in the international realm, we believe the best possible development program is trade – because it creates jobs and reinforces the values of entrepreneurship.  Again in President Reagan’s words, “I recognize … the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”

While Americans sometimes complain that foreign assistance is merely a “giveaway” (a view to which I do NOT subscribe), robust trade is mutually beneficial – it boosts OUR job creators and entrepreneurs as well as allowing them to compete in an increasingly challenging commercial world.  This potential benefit has never been more important: developing countries are the fastest growing markets for American goods and services. They already account for 40% of our export markets.

Conservatives, of course, aren’t the only ones who recognize the value of growing trade.  President Barack Obama recently said in a policy address, “We are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates. . . . Those who once would oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.”

What too many policymakers don’t realize is the potential for American foreign assistance to accelerate our trade opportunities inthe developing world.  On the other hand, successful business leaders do – and it’s a principle reason so many support our foreign assistance programs. Foreign assistance, done right, can help foster conditions that strengthen consumerism, democratization and markets.  It can, for example, help to seed microfinance programs in the developing world that help farmers and entrepreneurs to grow and expand.  It can help provide technical assistance to transportation authorities to make it easier to ship goods in and out of countries. It can support democratization programs that enhance stability – a prerequisite for long term investment.

As Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development under President George W. Bush puts it, “There is no real example of a country leaving the ranks of the poorest countries and becoming a middle income country without an export-based strategy. . . . However, you can’t do it in the absence of aid. Trade is essential, but it’s not aid or trade. It’s trade and aid.”

So why is trade an argument for foreign assistance reform? As with so many other aspects of foreign assistance reform, it comes down to the need for better coordination and communication amongst the myriad agencies, departments and offices involved in these programs.  Unless those sectors which administer assistance are closely coordinating with those involved in our trade initiatives, we can end up with policies that undermine the effectiveness of both. For example, in its 2006 report, “The Business Case for Foreign Aid Reform,” the Initiative for Global Development revealed that the U.S. government had given“$120 million in aid to two extremely poor countries, Bangladesh and Cambodia, while at the same time collecting $853 million from them in import duties – as much as was collected from France and the United Kingdom combined.”  As David Beckmann of Bread for the World, put it, “So we are taking away with one hand, and we give with the other.”

In short, Conservatives should support foreign assistance reform because (a) we believe in the power of robust American trade to improve the economic fortunes of both ourselves and our trading partners, (b) the developing world is an increasingly important part of our trade potential, and (c) our foreign assistance programs significantly affect how trade functions in many parts of the world. When foreign assistance and trade policy operate at cross purposes, everyone seems to lose ground. But when assistance and trade work together, entrepreneurs on both sides of the equation win.

On August 16, 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the Johns Hopkins Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies on “The Global Health Initiative:  The Next Phase of American Leadership in Health Around the World.” Secretary Clinton provided a framework for how the Obama Administration is approaching global health issues, focusing particularly on sub-Saharan Africa.

Secretary Clinton opened by making the case that progress on global health is critical to America’s national interests and is a fundamental part of U.S. foreign policy. The emphasis was on preventative measures and capacity building so that there is less of a need for international emergency response.

The Global Health Initiative (GHI) – for which President Obama requested $63 billion – seeks to increase funding in key areas while advocating a new approach informed by smarter thinking that will sustain and strengthen the U.S. Government’s international health programs.

The fundamental purpose of the GHI is to address the greatest global health problems “by tying individual health programs together in an integrated, coordinated, sustainable system of care, with the countries themselves in the lead.” The goal is to leverage the investments made in flagship programs such as PEPFAR and PMI – and more broadly on maternal and child health, family planning and tropical diseases – to expand the programmatic reach of global health initiatives by “improving the overall environment in which health services are delivered.”

This highlights a central tenet of the GHI approach:  to help countries develop their own health capacity and build strong local systems for healthcare and deep local ownership. Secretary Clinton emphasized that in order to build strong local health systems it is essential to integrate the response (linking U.S. Agencies and their respective programming at a country level). Accordingly, aid recipient countries need to invest in their own health systems (providing funding if possible, but through commitment and human capital at least). She warned nations not to divert health funding to other areas with the expectation that the U.S. and/or international organizations will fill the gaps.

In an attempt to break away from the partisan gridlock over international assistance, Secretary Clinton argued that global health and development is not a Democratic or Republican issue. She commended the Bush Administration’s efforts in creating PEPFAR and PMI, while specifically praising Mark Dybul’s work with PEPAR and Admiral Tim Ziemer’s leadership at PMI. She also commended the work of partner organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carter Center and the Clinton Foundation to improve global health.

Secretary Clinton built out the speech with poignant anecdotes of the positive impacts from global health programming. One particularly relevant example was of seeing children in Angola sleep under bed nets and then wake up ready for school without being infected by malaria. This tied to Secretary Clinton’s statement that PMI support will increase with “the goal of reducing the malaria burden by 50 percent for 450 million people.” Not only will this save millions of lives, but it will also ensure that the U.S. Government continues to be the leader of global health. She noted that the U.S. provides 60% of global funding for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention and also helps prevent and treat 50 million people with malaria every year; over the last four years the U.S. has treated 59 million people for neglected tropical diseases. She said, “No nation in history has done more to improve global health.”

A video of Secretary Clinton’s speech is available here:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/16/HP/R/37034/Secretary+of+State+Outlines+%2463B+Global+Health+Initiative.aspx

A transcript is available here:

http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/August/20100816180014su0.7444574.html?CP.rss=true

On August 1, 2010, ONE and Malaria No More graduated its first class of Malaria Griots. 

One of these Griots was Amanda Duley.  Amanda is a post-doctoral fellow and lives in Hamilton, Minnesota.

For her final assignment, Amanda hosted several people at her house and presented a malaria video as well as collected donations towards malaria causes.  Before graduating, Amanda has already championed the malaria cause in her community.

With leaders like Amanda, we can build momentum here in the United States for defeating the disease of malaria around the world.

The Obama Administration has released its plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.  The Administration has recognized the crucial nature of the MDGs and the developmental, strategic and economic importance each of that these goals mean.

The Administration has also recognized the tremendous progress to date, but points to the vast amount of work left to be done.  “Enormous progress has been made so far toward meeting the MDGs, and we must recognize, celebrate, and support these achievements. Above all, credit belongs to the citizens and governments of countries that have prioritized development and invested in their people. These achievements are also testimony to the power of successful development partnerships.

But much more remains to be done. If we are to meet the ambitious objectives we have set, historic leaps in human development will be needed. For this reason, we must be even more determined, strategic, and focused on results as we chart the path to 2015.”

The Administration focuses on four key areas; Leveraging innovation, Sustainability, tracking outcomes and practicing mutual accountability. 

The Malaria Policy Center applauds the Administration’s focus on the MDGs and looks forward to seeing the results we can produce in the future.

Mark Green has published another blog in his series on foreign assistance reform.  It is reposted below. 

I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause.  Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.

To summarize, here are my first five reasons:

Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.  

Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about.   

Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.

Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.

And now . . .Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

Conservative religious leaders have long voiced their support for helping the world’s poorest:

I deeply believe that if we as evangelicals remain silent and do not speak up in defense of the poor, we lose our credibility and our right to witness about God’s love and Word. — Rick Warren

If I were a parent in a poor, debt-riddled nation, cradling my dying child in my arms, my heart would be broken and I would cry out for a solution. My prayer is that the leaders of the world will heed these cries and will work together to solve this critical problem. As a follower of Jesus, however, I believe this is not just a political or economic issue, it’s a moral and spiritual issue as well.

– Billy Graham

In the present world order, the African nations are among the most disadvantaged. Rich countries must become clearly aware of their duty to support the efforts of the countries struggling to rise from their poverty and misery… Because all men and women bear God’s image and are called to belong to the same family redeemed by Christ’s Blood . . .

– Pope John Paul II

Debates over foreign assistance – funding levels, delivery mechanisms, program structure, etc. – are too often dominated by development insiders.  These experts – government officials, aid contractors, etc. – are certainly experienced and informed, but their focus is naturally on their own particular portfolio, and when they do make larger points, they can become lost in a maze of bureaucratic jargon and process arguments.

As we talk about America’s relationship to the rest of the world, particularly the developing world, we need to remind ourselves why many of our most effective assistance tools were first launched.  It’s not because we wanted to create new “make-work” for bureaucrats or a new entitlement for our implementing partners. These initiatives were created for noble purposes — to help lift lives and build communities in challenged parts of the world. They were created because, as President Kennedy said,

“There is no escaping … our moral  obligations as a wise leader and a good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations . . . as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people. . . .“

They were created because, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said,

Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and furthermore, the American people wouldn’t accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we’re naïve and so on, but we’re not Europeans – we’re Americans – and we have different principles.

They were created because as, President George W. Bush said,

. . .[W]e’re committed to development because it’s in our moral interests. I strongly believe in the timeless truth, to whom much is given, much is required. We are a blessed nation, and I believe we have a duty to help those less fortunate around the world. We believe that power to save lives comes with the obligation to use it.

If, in fact, this sense of compassion and moral obligation is part of what underpins our foreign assistance – from disaster relief to helping tackle the AIDS pandemic – then this same sense should push us to make sure we do it as effectively as possible.  As individuals, each of us makes choices as to the charities we’re going to support with our hard earned money. As we do so, we support those that can make our dollars go the furthest . . .that help us do the most good with what we can give. That same sentiment should apply when policymakers examine our foreign assistance framework – we need to make choices as to how we can do the most good with the limited resources that we can dedicate.

One hundred House members joined Rep. Barbara Lee in sending a request to President Obama to endorse a three year commitment of at least $6 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This act would be accordant to the bipartisan Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 and help realize the goals of the President’s Global Health Initiative.

“The Global Fund is on the leading edge of the best practices of effective foreign aid. New results from June have announced that support from the Global Fund has allowed the provision of anti-retroviral treatment for 2.8 million HIV/AIDS people, testing and treated 7 million people for tuberculosis, and the distribution of 122 million bed nets to prevent malaria.”

“There’s a lot of concern in the international community that we are not providing the necessary funds to meet our promised to combat disease,” said Lee at the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna. “This letter sends a strong message to the President that we are ready to stand with him and make a strong commitment to the global fight by providing $6 billion for the Global Fund over the next three years.”

The Approriations Subcommittee on Defense held a mark up yesterday.  Out of this markup, more money was allocated for malaria research.

$3.4 million was earmarked for the Development of Drugs for Malaria and Leishmaniasis, as requested by Representative Childers. 

This is an increase of $280,000 from last year’s earmark which was requested by Rep. Childers and Senator Cochran. $2.5 million was earmarked for the National Malaria Diagnostic Reference Lab, requested by Rep. Holden.

The Malaria Policy Center appreciates Rep. Childers leadership and support for malaria research and urge Congress to keep this money intact throught he budget process.

Michigan State University is heading a $9.1 million anti-malaria campaign in Malawi, where almost 5 million of the country’s 14.9 million people had malaria in 2008. The federal research project is financed by the National Institutes of Health in an attempt to control and stop the spread of malaria in Malawi.

“The goal is to start a self-sustained research entity that can implement and test tactics against the mosquito-borne parasite that kills 1 million people world wide each year.” Michigan State began their work on malaria in Malawi in 1985. Internal medicine Professor Terrie Taylor is leading the project. Taylor spends six months each year treating malaria patients at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi, the majority of whom are children.

The PMI’s activities in Ethiopia involve educating the community for successful malaria interventions, integrating PMI resources to maxmize impact and sustainability of health programs, making malaria diagnosis accurate, and studying the susceptibility of mosquitoes to insecticides to guide malaria interventions.

The PMI supports Fayyaa Integrated Development Association (FIDA), a nongovernmental organization working on training and involving community members on issues of malaria prevention and control. Mrs. Rawuda, for example, is the mother of three children in the Oromia region of Ethiopia and is one of nearly 95,600 people who have been trained through FIDA educational programs and community conversations on use of bed nets, early diagnosis, and malaria treatment. Since 2005, more than 20 million insecticide-treated nets have been distributed but the initiative was compromised by low net usage, a problem which these educational campaigns attempt to tackle. In particular, thousands of long-lasting insecticide treated nets were handed out by a U.S. Army Civil Affairs team. They are distributing 35,000 nets to a population in one district of Ethiopia of about 93,000 people, which represents approximately 2 nets per household. FIDA also works to increase acceptance in communities of indoor residual spraying. “Even though I had a bed net at home, I and my children were not using it because I did not believe that sleeping under the net would protect us from being infected by malaria,” explains Mrs. Rawuda. “Now that I have learned about the use of nets, my children and I started to use it correctly and consistently.”

PMI’s collaboration with FIDA is one example of how the organization works with partners to integrate resources and activities in order to maximize the impact of its investment in malaria. PMI has also collaborated with the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) programs and increased its contribution to USAID-supported maternal and child health programs to include malaria case management, supervision, and epidemic outbreak detection and response at the community level. In Ethiopia, the PMI partnered with the local government to develop disease risk maps through surveys of school children with malaria. “Leveraging other resources to fully integrate malaria interventions into the overall delivery of health services is crucial to maximize impact and ensure long-term sustainability of those interventions in Ethiopia,” says Thomas Stall, USAID/Ethiopia Mission Director.

Additionally, in many sub-Saharan African countries patients with fevers are often treated for malaria even if the disease hasn’t been confirmed by clinical examination – either by examining a blood sample under a microscope or by using a rapid diagnostic test (RDT). In Ethiopia, of the 2.5 million clinical malaria cases reported in 2007 only 38% were actually tested for malaria parasites. These trends not only lead to inefficient management of treatment resources but can also pose a risk that parasites will develop resistance to anti-malarials through their overuse. To strengthen malaria laboratory diagnosis in Ethiopia, PMI procured 820,000 RDTs, 57 microscopes, 40 centrifuges and other laboratory equipment for health facilities in Oromia Regional State. This will help ensure that malaria cases are confirmed and that the two parasite species causing malaria in Ethiopia, P. falciparum and P. vivax, are differentiated, important because they require different medications. PMI is also helping to strengthen diagnostic capacity through extensive training and establishment of quality assurance and quality control systems.

Finally, throughout 2009 PMI supported entomological monitoring activities at 11 sites in Oromia in order to determine and characterize the dominant mosquito species in the area, as well as to test mosquitoes’ susceptibility to three classes of insecticides, including organochlorine insecticides such as DDT, pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides, and carbamate insecticides. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) of homes in Ethiopia has been one of the primary tools to prevent malaria transmission for over 40 years. “The findings are crucial to ensure that future IRS operations remain effective and will have the desired impact on malaria transmission,” states Alemayehu Getachew, focal person for PMI’s IRS implementing partner.

PMI combined activities in Ethiopia provide an example of how education and integrated and ongoing research and development at all levels of malaria interventions can have immense effects and ensure that these initiatives remain effective.