Blog

Global Development in the State of the Union Address – We Do it Because it is Right

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address, after one year in office.  As expected, he discussed healthcare reform, the economic recovery, and national security.  He also went into great detail on the need to create more jobs in this country, and how we can do that through investing in green technology innovations, and expanding trade.

International development does not typically get much attention in a state of the union address.   President Obama did not give significantly more space to development than usual, but he did a nice job of articulating why the United States must continue to help people in faraway lands.  It’s not just about security, or preventing the spread of disease- we do it because it is right. 

We do it because it is right.  This sentiment could be the opening paragraph to a national development strategy, which could improve U.S. foreign assistance greatly.  We need a national development strategy that strongly articulates the U.S. vision and goals for foreign assistance – without it, we’re just shooting out money and programs and ideas from different U.S. government agencies to countries around the world, without any idea to bind it all together, without any way to even check that they meet U.S. goals.  Many of these programs and policies work, but sometimes they are in conflict with each other, and some of them really are just shots in the dark.  We need more coordination, and it has to start with a national strategy.

Here is the excerpt from President Obama’s speech that addresses global engagement:

“That’s the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We’re working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery.  We’re working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation.  We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We’re helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores.  But we also do it because it is right.  That’s why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild.  That’s why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea.  For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.” 

Policy News Roundup

President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze in spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget – however, military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs budgets (including foreign aid) are safe from the freeze.

The British development agency, DFID, launched a new fund for small non profits

Bill Gates writes about achieving productivity and sustainability in global agriculture in his new blog.

Are African women having too many babies?  See the World Bank blog on Africa and the feisty debate in the comments.

“It is all decided by a professor in New York,” said a shopkeeper in a Millennium Village in Ethiopia, when asked who decides on project priorities in the village.

Google has threatened to pull its business out of China, ending a 2006 compromise in which the company agreed to allow the government to filter taboo topics on searches done inside the populous Communist Party-run country.

And more on Haiti

Global Washington member Agros International blog on relief vs development work in Haiti

Haiti has problems because it wasn’t colonized long enough?    Let’s nip this one in the bud.

Should cruise ships stop in Haiti?

Who is in charge of US relief efforts in Haiti- defense or development?

Beware of sham organizations seeking money for Haiti

Refocusing Global Health Sector Aid…But to Where?

by guest blogger Patricia Orozco

Secretary Clinton’s speech earlier this month about the future of development policy suggested some interesting changes in US efforts to advance the global health sector —

 “Through our new Global Health Initiative, we will build on our success with PEPFAR and other infectious diseases, and we will focus more attention on maternal, newborn, and child health, where there is still a long way to go. We will invest $63 billion over the next six years to help our partners improve their own health systems and provide the care that their own people need…”

The CGD blogs that Secretary Clinton is right in pointing out the need to invest in the health systems of recipient countries—a move that steers health sector assistance away from its “too narrow a focus” of simply increasing the number of antiretroviral treatment beneficiaries.

What’s appealing about this potential “re-balancing act” is its sustainable, localized perspective. By helping to strengthen systems, recipient countries can take ownership of caring for their populations. I like how specific Secretary Clinton is in describing the future direction of the US’s work in this sector. Yet this move towards supporting health care systems and focusing efforts on improving maternal and child health in the developing world also raises a critical question: Has the US considered all potential options for refocusing efforts to advance global health?  Where else can global health sector assistance go?

The US has concentrated a huge amount of global health efforts, financially and otherwise, on HIV/AIDS. But is there too much emphasis on battling this disease? What about targeting other diseases that also have huge burdens on the populations and yet are easier to treat? A recent NYT article stated “Diarrhea kills 1.5 million young children a year in developing countries — more than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined — but only 4 in 10 of those who need the oral rehydration solution that can prevent death for pennies get it.” Pneumonia is another leading killer of children and can also be treated inexpensively, as opposed to AIDS which requires lifelong medication. So while PEPFAR has successfully provided antiretroviral treatment to the neediest populations and no one can deny the impact it’s made and I’m not advocating for PEPFAR to wean off from supporting these programs, I just wonder how some of these resources can be redirected to also address these other critical diseases.

I also have to question how PEPFAR has supported partner health systems and whether the US is really equipped to expand these efforts. In many ways, PEPFAR’s approach to global health aid is directly aligned with GW’s Four Principles of Aid Effectiveness. PEPFAR’s “partnership frameworks” are framed around supporting transparency, accountability and local ownership; it provides publicly available documents delineating funding allocations; targets partner countries who have the highest HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rates; etc.  But in what ways can PEPFAR improve how it helps partners? Global Health Council’s President/CEO Dr. Jeffery L. Sturchio argues for the strict inclusion of family planning and gender considerations in guiding PEPFAR managers in the field. He thinks this approach, integrating reproductive health services and HIV/AIDS, will help remove crucial barriers preventing more infections.