AAM DISPATCH

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has headed U.S. foreign assistance efforts since its creation nearly half a century ago. It once employed thousands of civilians with expertise in farming, engineering and governance who worked to reduce poverty, build infrastructure and promote public health around the globe. But years of budget cuts and bureaucratic sclerosis has eroded the agency’s personnel, capacity and morale. Today there are just 6 engineers and 16 agricultural specialists at USAID.

AAM’s Research Director, Christopher Williams, spoke with Sheila Herrling, Senior Policy Associate and Director of the Center for Global Development’s Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program, about the challenges of modernizing and rebuilding U.S. foreign assistance.

CW: First, there is the looming question of who will be next Administrator of USAID. Why has the post been vacant for so long? And, what has the lack of leadership done to the Agency?

SH: Between the time you asked me this question and I answered, we now have a USAID Administrator nominee, Dr. Raj Shah. I don’t think anyone expected it to take the 10 months it did but rather thought the administration would prioritize filling the position with a high-profile individual capable of leading the development agenda into the 21st century and up to the ranks of diplomacy and defense. My sense is that there were two reasons it took so long: first, the vetting process which for serious development practitioners would be a nightmare of listing every foreigner you came in contact with and making sure your taxes while abroad were done correctly. But second, and I think the bigger factor, was finding someone willing to lead an organization that has no policy or budget authority and whose reporting line to the Secretary is unclear. There is now a lot of chatter on the blogs and in the news on Dr. Shah’s qualifications to the job. The points that are less covered, and need to be, are what authorities is the president and the secretary of state going to give him to bolster his ability to succeed?

Read more…

Javier Barrera USAID

After months of deliberation, urgent appeals from his top generals and resistance from members of his own party, President Obama announced a troop surge in Afghanistan. While he’s sending in reinforcements, he said they are a short-term solution. Combined with help from NATO allies, the deployed troops will come close to the amount requested by General McChrystal to wage a counterinsurgency campaign. Troops will take the fight to the Taliban in an attempt to provide breathing room for Afghan forces to develop the competence necessary to secure their country.

Success will be defined with much more than just boots on the ground. Victory requires a civillan force to help Afghans cultivate their land, build government institutions and deliver public health. The administration has emphasized that development is a high priority for foreign policy beyond conflict zones, like Afghanistan and Iraq. From Secretary of State Hilary Clinton:

A personal priority for me as secretary is to elevate and integrate development as a core pillar of American power. We advance our security, our prosperity and our values by improving the material conditions of people’s lives around the world.

But over the last two decades, US foreign assistance has faltered. There were once tens of thousands of people with expertise in farming, engineering and governance. Staff cuts have made the US Agency for International Development (USAID) little more than a grant-making institution. President Obama has ordered a civilian surge which places USAID right in the center of success.

Listen to Arrested Development: Short-Changing Foreign Aid.

Javier Barrera

Israeli envoys are in Washington for talks with US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell on restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and steps to move forward. Palestinians will meet separately with Mitchell on Friday and have lowered any expectations for the latest US attempt to restart peace talks. Abbas has repeatedly said he would not return to talks without a freeze in Israeli settlements, which is mandated by a US-backed peace plan. Israel refuses to comply, offering at best to slow construction for a limited period.

Last week at the United Nations General Assembly, Obama made clear the imperative of a sustainable Middle East peace, including a two-state solution, not only to Israelis, Palestinians, and their Arab neighbors, but to the international community as well. Obama urged the sides to move beyond the two main sticking points — continued Israeli settlement construction and the framework for resuming talks. From the BBC:

Last week’s three-way talks appeared to make little headway on the obstacles between the two sides – Israel’s rejection of US and Palestinian demands that it put a total stop to settlements. Disagreements over the settlements issue have blocked all attempts to restart peace talks since they were suspended last December.

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) is a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, a Member of the Middle East Subcommittee and a leading congressional voice on Middle East issues. He recently spoke at the Center for American Progress and suggested that the best way forward might be to lead with the issue of borders. The continued emphasis on Israeli settlements, Wexler argues, has stymied talks so far. He suggests that a new focus on the definition of Palestinian borders would open the door for negotiation by providing a concrete – albeit contentious – issue for both sides to debate.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The US has been in some way involved in helping to resolve the conflicts between Israel and Palestine since the creation and recognition of the Jewish state in the hopes that it would help stabilize the region. Listen to a history of America’s role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Javier Barrera Israel, Middle East

Iraq is a stable Middle Eastern democracy, facing sectarian conflict head on and building a new political culture based on rule of law and international cooperation – at least that’s the picture Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri Al-Maliki presented in a speech at the United States Institute for Peace earlier today.

Taking a break from meetings with President Obama and other high level U.S. officials, Maliki said “national reconciliation would not have been possible without good cooperation between United States and Iraqi forces.”

He went on to say:

“This is an attempt for the Sunnis and Shia to live in harmony. The national reconciliation really laid the foundation of harmony for the Iraqi people.”

Those foundations will be tested in the January 2010 Iraqi presidential elections. A United States Institute for Peace report found that only 50% of the Iraqi population turned out for the February 2009 provincial elections – a reality that has Iraqi political parties becoming increasingly aware of the need for stronger organization and coalition-building to make the most of every vote.

The report also found that “Maliki has emerged as the dominant force in Iraqi politics. The prime minister has become the ‘point of reference:’ all Iraqi political factions and leaders can be understood by their stance toward him.”

Maliki said “elections will be based on a national platform with nationalist tendencies – not on racist or sectarian grounds.”

Maliki went on to criticize “political corruption and regional and international interference in Iraqi affairs” including “others who implement agendas.”  Although he declined to elaborate on who might be interfering in Iraqi affairs, Maliki noted “all countries have various components, ethnicities and religious sects. We feel these components have not yet reached the level that we have with the constitution and democracy in Iraq.”

Some critics claim that Maliki – who initially was an unknown candidate from a fragmented political party – has grown too strong. Responding to reports of abuse and a failure of rule of law within Iraqi prisons, Maliki said:

“There will be a prison within any city where there will be violations of the law or against the people. What would be a source of concern is if one sectarian or ethnic group was being targeted….we have sympathy with the families of victims and not those who are committing crimes.”

Maliki said he was surprised at U.S. media reports questioning whether U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves in Iraq and added “there is cooperation at all levels.  If any problem arises, it does not mean there is something wrong with the [Status of Forces] agreement.”

“Today the security relationship between the U.S. and Iraq is a relationship based on cooperation and all of the requirements in the [Status of Forces] agreement. If Iraqi forces need further training and further support we will look at those needs at that time.”

Katherine Gypson Iraq

The “Green Revolution” in Iran is being fueled by the numerous ways people are sharing information through social networking sites, like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Online media is playing an important role in reporting on the ongoing political protests. It has been the most effective means of communication between what’s happening in Iran and the rest of the world since there is a growing crackdown on independent Iranian and foreign journalists who want to relay what is being said on the streets and to tell the world what is happening in Tehran and other parts of Iran. From the AP:

To read more about the Iranian-Twitter revolution, read the Daily Dish from the Atlantic and for some background on US-Iranian relations, listen the AAM’s Iran: The Looming Confrontation.

Javier Barrera Iran

Lebanese voters went to the polls on Sunday in an election that will determine if the country maintains its pro-Western government or votes for an alliance backed by the militant group Hezbollah. A win by Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, could bring added conflict with Israel and set back US Mideast policy since the US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. At stake are 128 seats in the parliament which will determine the majority. From Al Jazeera:

Lebanon’s interior ministry said turnout was more than 52 per cent, exceeding the 45 per cent total recorded in the 2005 election. “Since 1990, and possibly even before, we have not seen such turnout,” Ziad Baroud, Lebanon’s interior minister, said. “The election was a challenge that many doubted would take place. But Lebanon’s political factions and the Lebanese met the challenge.”

Listen to a breakdown of the electoral process from Battleground Lebanon with Hilal Khasan, Professor of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut and Paul Salem, Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera Lebanon, Middle East

I will admit that I am endlessly fascinated Lebanese politics. The confessionally-based “democracy” there frequently teeters on the brink of implosion (often quite literally), yet manages to endure one way or another. As we explored in our “Battleground Lebanon” program last summer, the political system is a compromise forged at the time of independence, and while it made sense then, the country has chaffed against the rigid constraints of the system.

I bring this up because of Robert Worth’s article in today’s New York Times exploring the scramble to influence Lebanon’s parliamentary elections this June. Because Lebanon is a weak state, it is subject to external influence, and again as we explored in our program, it is a sandbox for regional disputes. So, various conflicts and tensions play out in Lebanon, and currently, a host of nations are trying to influence the elections.

Lebanon has long been seen as a battleground for regional influence, and now, with no more foreign armies on the ground, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are arming their allies here with campaign money in place of weapons. The result is a race that is widely seen as the freest and most competitive to be held here in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. But it may also be the most corrupt.

…“We are putting a lot into this,” said one adviser to the Saudi government, who added that the Saudi contribution was likely to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in a country of only four million people. “We’re supporting candidates running against Hezbollah, and we’re going to make Iran feel the pressure.”

To be clear, all of this foreign investment in Lebanon’s elections, and the payments by candidates to voters – it’s all illegal, but goes on nonetheless. I remember people in Lebanon telling me last summer that they vote for people who pave their roads and provide services – or cash. And ultimately, the politics are essentially parochial and “tribal” with no real unifying national political interests or candidates. Hence, a perpetually unstable country subject to the power politics of the region.

Sean Carberry International Politics, Middle East

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today Jehan Sadat, the wife of the courageous former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, weighed in on the lessons of the Camp David Summit her husband participated in 30 years ago. In this piece she emphasized that one of the central tenets of her husband’s peace effort was “serious work.”  She proceeds to correctly note that “for many, the so-called peace process is a myth–a lot of talk with few results.”

When America Abroad interviewed Dennis Ross, the Clinton Administration’s point man for the peace talks, he recalled a conversation with Israeli official Dan Meridor that made a similar point. Meridor referred to the peace process as a bicycle that then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was riding.

He can’t stop pedaling; as long as we’re pedaling we have a process and we can move ahead. He stops pedaling, he falls off. …He might not want to proceed but he doesn’t have a choice. So it was this notion of as long as you’re pedaling you’re okay; a soon as you stop you crash and it is true that one of the dangers of having any negotiating process is it takes on a life of its own independent of its purposes. You’re so afraid of the crash that you keep it going and you look past some of the what might be called the–the lack of fulfillment of obligations–because what I was saying–there had to be accountability.

What both Ross and Sadat are warning against is negotiating only for the sake of negotiations.  Agreements that are disingenuous or simply unable to be fulfilled may keep a process going, but they do little to advance the cause of peace. The Annapolis conference held in the winter of 2007 was long on ceremony and smiles, but short on substance. It was the sort of gambit that makes observers lose even more faith in a peace process that has fallen short time and again. The Obama Administration should turn its attention to forging a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  But it must first ask whether that peace is currently possible. If it is not, then the US can help by supporting intermediary steps essential for peace—the construction of a professional Palestinian security force being one example. A durable agreement will only come when both parties have the willingness and capability to keep it.

Chris Williams Egypt, Israel

Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin at Signing of Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement, March 26, 1979, Photo © State of Israel

Tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. Israel will celebrate with multiple celebrations throughout the country while Egypt is making no such plans. Al-Arabya News reports:

“No commemoration is planned in Cairo” for Thursday’s anniversary, foreign ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said, in a sign of the cold peace that still reigns between the two neighbors amid widespread popular opposition to the treaty in Egypt.

The “cold peace” is rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has continued to plague the Middle East. Abdel Moniem Said, Director of al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies:

“To say that the peace is cold or warm is inaccurate; its temperature is closely linked to fluctuations in the region, primarily the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”

Three decades after the Camp David Accords, peace between Israel and Egypt remains intact which wasn’t the case when the UN created a two-state solution for Palestine in 1947.

Listen to a brief historical summary of relations between Egypt and Israel produced by AAM.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

To hear the program in its entirety, follow this link >>

Javier Barrera Egypt, Israel