|
The Future of U.S. Foreign Aid
With J. Brian Atwood
Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2001; 11 a.m. EST
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) has called for the abolition of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency primarily responsible for administering U.S. assistance overseas. Former USAID chief J. Brian Atwood will be online Wednesday, Jan. 31, at 11 a.m. EST to discuss the future of U.S. foreign aid.
Atwood served for six years as administrator of USAID and led Kosovo relief efforts in the Balkans for the Clinton administration. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations under President Carter and served briefly as Undersecretary of State for Management under President Clinton. Atwood was president of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs from 1986 to 1993 and was dean of Professional Studies the Foreign Service Institute. Since 1999, Atwood has been Executive Vice President of Citizens Energy Corporation and Director of Citizens International.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Welcome to washingtonpost.com's discussion with Brian Atwood. Mr. Atwood, do believe that U.S. foreign aid, and specifically the Agency for Internationa Development, has oulived it's effectiveness? Are fundamental changes to the system of overseas assistance necessary?
J. Brian Atwood: AID has not outlived its usefullness, thoughit will have to be more innovative in this era of globalization. USAID is the repository of the best development assistance talent in the world. It needed reforming when I came in, in 1993, to reduce the organizational layers and the red tape and give the good people of AID more freedom to be creative. The problems of today relate more to severe budget cutting and personnel cutbacks then to excessive bureaucracy. I hope the new Administration will succeed where I failed: to get the Republican Congress to increase the AID budget.
Detroit, MI:
Dear Mr. Atwood,
What is the real effect of President Bush's decision with abortions and USAID? Weren't organizations which provided abortions excluded from USAID long ago? Does the Bush ban extend to NGOs which provide family planning - contraceptives, birth spacing, women's health issues, breast feeding, food security?
J. Brian Atwood: The AID Family Planning Program has never used tax-payers resources to perform abortions. This would be against the law. In fact, by preventing unwanted pregnancies, this program has prevented millions of abortions. I regret that President Bush has attempted to play to his pro-life-constituency by making this announcement. What his dicision will do, will be to place a gag rule on organizations who advocate a pro-choice position in other countries. This violates the Freedom of Speech principle.
McLean, Virginia:
Dear Brian -
What role do you see for the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID's Global Center for Democracy and Governance going forward?
- Chris Siddall
Booz Allen & Hamilton
J. Brian Atwood: Both organizations have contributed a great deal to democratization efforts around the world. There will be a continuing need for their assistance as democracy promotion is strongly supported by the Bush Administration.
Washington, DC (13.5 Penna Ave.):
Sir,
What reactions do you have to:
1. Helms' latest shot across the Agency's bow
2. The 3 part WashPost piece on USAID, which in my mind, does not cast the Agency's work inthe best light, even if the problems arise from Congressional microprogramming and implementing partners having their own agendas.
What is your understanding of Secretary Powell's vision for USAID and foreign (development)assistance?
Thank you.
J. Brian Atwood: It seems to me that the Senator is recommending an international welfare plan to be administered by U.S. charitable organizations. That’s okay for people who live in poor countries with bad governments, but most poor people don’t. Most poor people want help so they can help themselves, not charity. The new Administration will need USAID to deal with global threats like infectious disease, to prevent conflict and to offer vital assistance in post conflict transitions and to convince our allies that they should continue to invest in international development cooperation.
I have not seen the third segment of the Post series, but it strikes me that it is too easy and too tempting to portray any bureaucracy in the worst light. I think we should focus on the big picture. The combined impact of foreign aid over the past 50 years has changed the world for the better. Initially, Europe was reconstructed then millions were saved from famine in the Green Revolution. Infant mortality has been cut in half and millions of children now survive curable childhood illness. Illiteracy has been reduced by one-third and clean water is available to twice as many people. Family planning has reduced population, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. And sustained economic development has occurred in many parts of Asia and Latin America. That is quite a record.
Oakton, Virginia:
Carol Lancaster, in a Foreign Affairs article, recommended passing American aid through the World Bank, thus diluting our ability to manage US funds to US interests. Additionally, many in the development community believe the bank has become internally dysfunctional. Conversations with numerous Bank staff quickly boil over into frustration and anger especially directed at Bank leadership. While Lancaster's concept has a certain superficial appeal, do you think there is any real merit in it?
J. Brian Atwood: I disagree with my friend Carol. The United States must have a development agency of its own. Only this way can we continue to lead the development community and influence the approaches and goals of the multi-lateral organizations and other donor countries. As for the bank, Jim Wolfensohn has done a superb job, but his Board and his bureaucracy spends too much time attempting to thwart his good intentions.
Takoma Park, MD:
Mr. Atwood - what is your (or USAID's) position toward the protestors in Davos and the World Social Forum taking place in Port Alegre this week?
Angela Stach
J. Brian Atwood: The protestors often attack the wrong institutions and I disagree with their opposition to free trade. But, they are right when they express concern about the impact of globalization on poor countries and they are right in their concern over they environment. I don't approve of all of their methods, but they have clearly begun to influence our leaders.
Fairfax VA:
Given the current political situaion regarding foreign aid and USAID (by this I mean Bush's focus on a domestic agenda and a general conservative backlash towards foreign aid), what do you feel would be the political ramifications of increasing development assistance to a region such as the Greater Horn of Africa, both within the congress and for presidential policymaking abilities?
J. Brian Atwood: It is unclear to me which direction the Bush Administration will take on Foreign Aid, but I believe they will come to see its usefulness in dealing with situations such as exists in the Horn of Africa. I believe that aid can be used more effectively in conflict prevention strategies.
Washington DC:
Should US foreign assistance be part of diplomacy, or should it simply be a humanitarian effort done by the private sector?
J. Brian Atwood: We need to encourage the private sector to contribute to humanitarian relief efforts, but only the government can coordinate effective relief. Foreign Aid has never been considered charity and it should continue to represent an effort by the United States to help others help themselves. In this sense and to promote both our national interests and values, it should be an integral part of our diplomacy.
Potomac, MD:
When you accepted your assignment as USAID Administrator, there was much talk about scrapping the agency and starting from scratch. The enormous sums of money spent "re-engineering" USAID resulted in the same people with the same ideas attempting to apply the same ineffective solutions uttering different words.
In retrospect, would you encourage your successor to finally take the bold step and scrap the Foreign Assistance apparatus...and the stale cast of characters that permeate it...and start over from scratch? Your thoughts, please...
J. Brian Atwood: I disagree that our reform efforts were ineffective. If we hadn't changed AID's method of operating to emphasize a strategic and results oriented approach, we would have never survived the attacks against the Agency after the 1994 election. The new Administrator might have more success than me in urging Congress to re-write the barnicle-ridden foreign assistance act. That would eliminate many long standing and irrelevent provisions and many earmarks that encumber the Agency.
Fairfax, VA:
Mr. Atwood,
A recent Post article outlined how much of "foreign assistance" is actually a feedback loop to U.S non-profit companies, airlines, and U.S business. How do you reconcile the moral mission of foreign assistance to people who are more needy with foreign assistance as a form of business development right here?
J. Brian Atwood: Unfortunately, Congress wants the Agency to continue spending over 70% of its resources in "buying America". I don't believe that will change and, with some exceptions, I don't believe it has seriously effected our programs. One of the reasons AID overseas is still regarded as the most creative aid agencies, is because we tap into a very rich vein of talent in the United States.
San Diego, CA:
Mr. Atwood --
Can you comment on the USAID Cuba Program? Does helping to develop civil society in a country that does not allow for an independent opposition necessarily infringe upon the sovereignty of Cuba or violate international laws of aggression? How does financing nascent NGOs in Miami, Fla really help to raise the standard of living in Cuba?
J. Brian Atwood: AID has helped some organizations to offer assistance to human rights victims in Cuba and it has provided some materials on democracy. It has also written an excellent strategy paper on post-Castro Cuba which draws from the experience of Eastern Europe. These are positive contributions, but there is little else that can be done when dealing with a closed society.
Winchester, Virginia:
Mr. Atwood:
I congratulate you on an exceptional job at USAID. I have been involved one way or another with USAID since my childhood from my dad working with USAID to my own school scholarships. I come from one of the poorest nations on earth with a per capita income of less than $300 yet my native land only receives $2/person/year in USAID funds. Compare that with the 17th richest naiton on earth with a GDP over $100 Billion/year, Israel, receiving over 30% of all our foreign aid. How can we morally jusitfy that (we all know of Israel's support in Congress) when we give literally pennies/person in Africa and Latin America. Isn't it time you, Sir, and others spoke out on our need to help the poor, those afflicted with AIDS, with no water or sanitation, poor immunization rates, high infant mortality? Please do not skip this question as it impacts my native and adopted countries well being. Thank you
J. Brian Atwood: Aid to Israel and Egypt was designed to consolidate peace and it has been successful. We are beginning to reduce the amounts going to those two countries and shifting resources to more needy parts of the world. Still, I make no excuses for the small amount of assistance going to the poorest countries. The United States is last amoung the industrialized states in providing aid as a percentage of our per capita GDP. The quality of our aid is good as I believe you and your family have experienced, but there is no excuse for not providing more assistance.
Arlington, VA:
Mr. Atwood,
Do you think that "foreign aid" would be better delivered through direct aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, Britain's Oxfam, and American Mercy Corps, where there is accountability about the amount of it getting on the ground to recipients as opposed to being fed back into the U.S economy? Do you think such aid would appeal more to U.S citizens or are they all cynical about sharing their wealth with poorer nations?
J. Brian Atwood: AID does provide much of its assistance through these types of organizations. Humanitarian aid for natural and man-made disasters is always more popular with the American people because when the tradegy is visible, people want to respond. I have always found that when I appeal to audiences to support aid that can prevent tradegy, that is also strongly supported. We need to continue to help the people to learn to fish by themselves so that they will not need to be fed.
Alexandria, VA:
Dear Mr. Atwood:
I was honored to work on a number of USAID-funded projects from 1995 to 1997, and was very interested when you left USAID for what I remember to be a private-sector development organization. It sounded like a very interesting venture; could you tell us what became of it and what projects you are working on now?
J. Brian Atwood: I am President of Citizens International a development services enterprise that specializes in creating public-private partnerships in developing countries to bring more resources to development and to accelerate the delivery of aid from the donor agencies. We are working now in Nigeria and have created the New Nigeria Foundation, a platform for public-private collaboration to enhance Nigeria’s development prospects.
Alexandria, Virginia:
In your first response, you stated: "AID has not outlived its usefullness, thoughit will have to be more innovative in this era of globalization." What type of innovations are necessary and how might they be implemented?
J. Brian Atwood: The innovations I would promote relate to helping countries become more competitive in the global economy. I am impressed by Hernando DeSoto's work on the informal economies and his studies that show poor countries as having an excessive amount of "dead capital", in other words, capital assets that remain unrecorded and incapable of producing wealth. I also believe that we have failed to tap the tremendous potential of information technology to leap-frog the stages of the development process.
Arlington, VA:
Do you see the current political environment vis-a-vis foreign aid as being more inward looking than say 5 or 10 years ago? And are the statements of Sen Helms and his ilk just part of the usually round of nativist outbursts, particularly helpful with PAC fundraising, and not representative of a major shift in US outlook?
J. Brian Atwood: I remain optimistic that the realities of the globalizaiton era we are in will convince the Bush Administration and the American people that we need more of the right kind of aid. We are incresingly threatened by infectious disease, the side effects of climate change, and the growing instability present in the developng world. In the year 2015, four out of five people on this earth will live in the developing world. We have a choice today: will those people become the wards of the internation community - - or worse, terrorists - - or will they become consumers and entrepreneurs?
Oakton, VA:
You said in an earlier response that foreign aid is about helping others help themselves. How can you view foreign aid as 'diplomacy' if that is your mission? Surely that is a contradiction.
Diplomatic foreign aid (synonymous with promoting U.S interests) means that all aid is offered with the tacit understanding that it is actually, helping the donor, the U.S.
J. Brian Atwood: Our diplomacy has always been about promoting both our interest and our values. I believe our values have always included helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
Washington DC:
What is your opinion with regards to the new focus on measuring performance across governement agencies (i.e., GPRA, etc)? Specifically, does this help USAID make its case as a more relevant and effective force in development/foreign affairs?
J. Brian Atwood: Government agencies should be required to measure their own performance. USAID was recently sighted for producing the best annual performance report in government. We struggled mightily to find ways to measure the impact of development programs. This is not easy when you consider that the actions and motivations of your partners in the host countries is at least as important as the work of the donor agency.
Vienna Va.:
Do you think USAID has been effective in its Conflict Prevention programs?
J. Brian Atwood: People at AID need to do a better job of looking at their programs in the context of the potential for conflict in the recipient countries. If a country decends into civil strife, all of the aid investments can be lost. AID people sometimes believe that this focus politisizes their work. They have to get over that.
Washington, D.C.:
The Helms proposal suggests a much greater reliance on nongovernment organizations in implementing the foreign assistance program. How do you view the NGOs? What are they good at and what are their limitations?
J. Brian Atwood: This is the last one we have time for...
Like anything else, there are good NGO's and less good NGO's. Most are well motivated and will add their own resources and creativity to the resources USAID provides. That makes NGO's good partners. Still, however, if an NGO makes a mistake, it will be AID that gets the criticism. Most NGO's would like to take the money, but not the oversight. I tried to create a partnership between AID and the NGO community and we had some success. However, we will never reach nirvana because any government agency has to take ultimate responsibility for its use of tax payers money.
Thanks. These were great questions. Let's do it again sometime.
washingtonpost.com:
washingtonpost.com would like to thank Brian Atwood and all who participated in today's discussion. To read recent Post coverage of U.S. foreign aid and related issues, visit our special report.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
