Diplomacy & Development: Best Friends For Life (or BFFLs in government speak)

Best Friends For Life

As Republicans gear themselves up to take over the House, the debate around the States’ finances, and the terror of Government spending is starting anew.  Unsurprisingly, among the potential targets for cuts in funding is the area of development and foreign aid.  As Barak mentioned in a previous article, domestically we’ve a pretty mixed up opinion when it comes to issues of foreign spending, and this flawed understanding is something legislators don’t hesitate to take advantage of.

I definitely wouldn’t argue that we’re doing everything right where foreign aid is concerned, historically we’ve a pretty shaky record in the area of aid.  Yet the type of results we tend to expect in the amount of time we’re willing to commit also tends to be fairly absurd.  It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that what we need isn’t less spending, or even more spending, but more effective spending, unfortunately we have a hard time agreeing on just what that means.

A few days ago Secretary Clinton spoke on the release of the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review or in government terms “QDDR” (oh how I hate acronyms).  The review aims to shape future changes in US policy in the areas of development and diplomacy, by among other things utilizing “civilian power” and getting agencies like the Department of State and USAID to work cooperatively.  If successful in bringing about any actual policy change, QDDR could nip some of the foreign aid spending rhetoric in the bud before our incoming legislators have a chance to go too far in gutting funding.

F

It seems to me that something like the the F process – the effective merging of USAID funding with foreign policy priorities- was probably an inevitable result of USAID’s growth. The agency could stay autonomous when it was small, but this is an unrealistic expectation for a large government agency. More to the point, USAID needs to answer why it should be large and autonomous. I get the point that from an operational perspective, independence from US foreign policy is something that USAID desires. Why US taxpayers ought to fund such an agency is a different question. The argument that if USAID wants to be big, it needs to justify its budgets through US foreign policy priorities is a strong one. I understand why USAID doesn’t like F. USAID needs to make a better case for why the US government should get rid of it.

Why doesn’t Elmo ever go to USAID?

Contemplating the travails of USAID is a common theme on this blog. Our analysis today is the self-inflicted wound of omission. The world’s most popular children’s television show is Sesame Street. USAID is one of the major funders of Sesame Street overseas.

Question: Why is there so little on USAID’s website about this impressive accomplishment?

Answer: I don’t know.

Elmo is stumped

The definition of transparency

The meaning of transparency isn’t as clear as the term suggests.

Transparency

Leading by example is not USAID’s strong suit.