Report Urges Foreign Aid Strategy That Bridges Security, Altruism

The Bush administration must develop an overall strategy for U.S. foreign aid programs that reconciles the conflicts between humanitarian and national security objectives, according to a new report prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the direction of ranking minority member Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).

"The president should design a national foreign assistance strategy that explains both the national security requirement and the humanitarian imperative that drive our government's investments in foreign aid," the report says. It also says the effort "should be designed to put to rest lingering and out-of-date distrust between security advocates and those who focus on humanitarian concerns."

As the foreign aid budget has grown from $14.9 billion in 2001 to a record request of $24.5 billion this year, the Pentagon's share of bilateral aid has grown from 7 percent of that total to about 22 percent. In Honduras, for example, the Defense Department's foreign aid program is nearly as large as that of the State Department, the report says. It also noted that Congress repeatedly has reduced President Bush's foreign aid requests, and that "insufficient funding for foreign assistance in the civilian agency budgets reinforces a migration of foreign aid authorities and functions to the Department of Defense."

The report also criticizes the State Department, arguing that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's establishment last year of a director of foreign assistance to centralize decision-making has resulted in a "lack of transparency" for aid staff in the field, and "weeks of extra paperwork, differing priorities between post and headquarters as well as inconsistent demands."

After visiting U.S. officials in 24 countries, the committee staff reported that agreement between Washington and the field "is at a low ebb" when it comes to assistance programs, while "policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches appear demanding, deaf, and sometimes schizophrenic" to employees overseas.

One problem is that Washington's "new enthusiasms, from democracy promotion to HIV/AIDS prevention, erupt regularly even though, from the field perspective, they have long been a priority," the report said. It points out, for example, that while the Bush administration's Millennium Challenge program of 2004 directed new funds into countries such as Mongolia and Honduras, it was at the cost of reductions in core programs already underway there.

Underlying many of the complaints is the report's view that the U.S. Agency for International Development has become "the neglected stepchild in D.C. but in the field it . . . plays either the designated hitter or the indispensable utility infielder for almost all foreign assistance launched from the post." Once independent but now part of the State Department, the agency should be reestablished as separate from the director of foreign assistance, the report said. The USAID administrator alone should be responsible the agency's budget and programs, the report said.

That would leave the director of foreign assistance to provide "strategic direction to all foreign assistance," according to the report, which suggests that the director should have the rank of deputy secretary of state. That person's responsibilities should include "oversight of all government agencies' foreign aid programs so the inconsistencies" can be taken to Rice or the White House.

While the top Pentagon aid programs focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Department also offers aid in other arenas, the report states. For example, Pentagon anti-drug assistance, originally authorized for Peru and Colombia, has expanded to 14 countries. Combatant Commander Initiative Funds, originally limited to small public works programs in Iraq, can now be used worldwide.

The report warns that although much of the Defense Department programs are done "ostensibly with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, even greater embassy scrutiny is needed to ensure that the foreign aid is coordinated at post." It points out that it found one Pentagon program in a Middle East/North African country that focuses on counterterrorism and military training from U.S. soldiers "demonstrated little sensitivity to the anti-American sentiment in the country and the level of radicalization among the local populace."