Worthington Letter To Rich Green

Dear Rich, You asked for my views on how to think through US activities in developing countries which do not rank high when measured in terms of US national security interests. As I thought through how to respond, I was struck by how well Secretary of State Rice herself makes the case. For example, she said the following in remarks to InterAction on April 18: We are now led to the following conclusion: In the 21st century, defined as it is thus far by an unprecedented and increasing interdependence, human development is both a moral end in itself and also a central pillar of our national security. … Today, the idea that foreign assistance is a vital tool of our international statecraft meets with broad and growing support, not only from members of the NGO community like yourselves but also from pundits and policy experts, from civilian and military leaders alike, and from politicians on both sides of the aisle. … … we as a nation must be prepared to commit even more of our resources to development. Indeed, I am prepared to argue in my remaining year and a half as Secretary of State that the United States with its development dollars is doing what America should for a moral cause, but it is also doing what America must for its own security and well-being. And in doing so, I hope that we can sustain a consensus behind increasing resources for development in the way that President Bush has done in his six years in office. But that's going to demand a lot of all of us. I think you know that there is a great deal of competition for the tax dollar. We have to make the argument, we have to sustain the argument, we have to gain allies if we expect to continue to increase development assistance as we need to and as we must. InterAction’s members cheer such a statement. Our community believes that participatory, locally-driven development, focused on the needs of people is an essential ingredient to reach the laudable goals set out by Secretary Rice. Further, after decades of experience, it is clear to our members that development is a long-term, complex, multi-sectoral, interlinked set of processes. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to adequately grasp such a dynamic from the distance of Washington. We also have learned that appropriate numbers of well-trained, empowered staff in-country is a sine qua non to designing and implementing the kinds of programs that will, as stated in the goal for foreign assistance set out by the Secretary, “respond to the needs of … citizens (and) reduce widespread poverty.” I support needs-based analyses which use yardsticks such as those of the Millennium Development Goals and other tools to measure the degree of poverty and deprivation in particular countries. I also agree with Secretary Rice that “as long as civil conflicts can beget global crises, as long as preventable diseases destroy the social fabric of entire countries and entire continents, as long as half the human race lives on less than two dollars a day, the developing world will neither be just nor will it be stable.” It is important to stress that her statement implies effective engagement by the United States across the range of countries that have dire needs, regardless of their significance in today’s ranking of national security priorities. Such effective engagement appropriately reflects our nation’s values and contributes to meeting security needs. New problems and threats can arise in unexpected places at unknown times in societies where conditions are so desperate. It is infinitely preferable to respond to such threats in advance through proactive development interventions than to wait and then to have to resort to the much more expensive and difficult types of actions required when poor governance leads to the emergence of dangerous “ungoverned spaces,” or, worse, when states fail or collapse. That is what I take her to mean when she says “I would argue that the moral and security arguments for development are converging into a new national consensus.” That said, I do not support analyses that merely examine whether the US should provide one million dollars more or less to a given country for a given fiscal year. Such ways of thinking do not respond to the specific development challenges in particular places at particular times. Instead, country strategies must be designed by people based in the country with an understanding of local realities, US priorities and goals, as well as the policies and plans of other donors and others who are working to promote (or to hinder) development. This view is at odds with some approaches put in place under the “F” process.

Another problem is that PEPFAR and Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) funding appear to be in competition with other core poverty programs. This violates the original understanding that the two programs’ funds were to be in addition to core development assistance. In Latin America, cuts in core poverty programs range from 25-40% in countries such as El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, all of which have MCA programs. In Nicaragua, the Administration proposed an $18 million cut to the country program for FY 2008 when compared to the previous fiscal year, including a 38% reduction in Development Assistance. The MCA compact focuses on infrastructure and supporting private enterprise. As worthwhile as these investments may be, they are not interchangeable with other types of programs funded through DA. InterAction’s development professionals and others in this field also have learned that vertical programs (such as PEPFAR) often fail if not matched with appropriate “horizontal” efforts to integrate them into the broader development landscape of a country and society. An egregious example is Cote d’Ivoire, a country th now ranked 6 on the “Failed States Index” for 2007 (just above the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)). Whereas the Administration makes a lengthy, reasoned argument for increasing a variety of resources in a multisectoral program in the DRC to help stabilize a country as it tries to move out of a difficult transition, the Administration’s submission to the Congress on Cote d’Ivoire is for a program that is virtually 100% PEPFAR. The Administration’s statement on Cote d’Ivoire notes that “(t)he most pressing problem in Cote d’Ivoire is overall security.” Yet, the request is for a more than 200% increase in PEPFAR from $30 million to $96 million, with only $100,000 requested for peace and security. By exempting PEPFAR from coordination, overall budget levels in too many PEPFAR countries are badly misaligned with the rest of the Administration’s stated purposes and approaches. I believe that any neutral examination of resources that is “country-driven,” as the Secretary regularly advocates, would not end up with the type of program mix found in countries such as Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, and Ethiopia. In summary, I strongly agree with Secretary Rice that needs-based approaches focused on poverty alleviation and global US security rationales are converging. Both require that the US have effective development strategies and programs in countries across the developing world. That, of course, includes those countries that do not, in and of themselves, rank particularly high on the list of US priority countries based on more narrowly focused US national security interests. In such countries (and in general), programs need to be designed to respond to the specific development challenges those countries face, and should avoid pitfalls such as an over-reliance on single sector focused, vertical approaches. It is particularly important that core poverty programs not be cut in countries when another program, such as under the MCA, also is in place there. As you know, the US is not alone in seeing the need to focus on such countries. International statements of purpose such as the Millennium Development Goals already galvanize multiple donors and a large number of countries to move to improve coordination and intensify efforts to meet these goals. When the US joins in this, particularly in those developing countries where we do not have large short-term security interests, the US wins the kinds of friends that we need more than ever in today’s world. I believe it is precisely through actions that may appear more altruistic on their face that the US may gain the most in terms of furthering our long-term security goals. My sense is if you adopted this approach you would be faithful to the words of the Secretary of State herself, reflect the views of the InterAction community, improve relations with donor and recipient countries alike, and receive deserved plaudits from key Members of Congress. The extra goodwill is, if you will, “bankable,” in that it should lead to greater cooperation and, therefore, greater impact in terms of actual results obtained. That strikes me as a rather good example of a win-win situation. I hope you have found these comments helpful and responsive to your request. I am more than ready to respond similarly on this or other issues that are of importance. Thank you very much. Best, Sam