Public Radio International (PRI) just received a 3-year, $5 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to produce and distribute content on global development and health topics. This is good news for people who care about global development—the more we talk about it (and our media talks about it), the more our future leaders will know that Global Development Matters to us, and will be able to shape US policy accordingly. PRI’s programming currently reaches around 11 million listeners each week.

PRI President and CEO Alisa Miller said, “This transformational grant will enable PRI to increase Americans’ understanding of the impact that global health and development issues have in today’s world….People and nations of the world are more interdependent than ever before, yet many media outlets continue to withdraw from international news. PRI is uniquely capable of aggressively developing compelling content, global reporting and interactive strategies to fill this urgent need.”

Stories on global development and health might focus on trade policy and how it affects developing countries’ food supplies, the effectiveness of development assistance, or personal stories of those with HIV/AIDS.

In addition to radio broadcast, coverage will also include online engagement tools through PRI’s website and other partner websites: blogs, podcasts, searchable transcripts, and mobile phone segments.

Read the press release to learn more.

Over the next 10 years, competition for jobs in developing countries will be tough—it is estimated that a billion young people in developing countries will be competing for 300 million jobs. In this recent interview in Motley Fool, Mercy Corps’s President Nancy Lindborg talks about their Silent Disasters program, which addresses the crises that fall through the cracks of public attention. One of the ways Silent Disasters seeks to improve youth unemployment is through job training kits. These kits fund training programs specific to different regions, such as Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon. Kids learn to participate in the global economy, thrive in a steady job, and become financially literate. Teaching young people about finance can benefit their entire community.

UNICEF released a report that shows our progress towards the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, which seek to unite countries’ efforts to improve education, halt the spread of AIDS, alleviate poverty, and more. We are making some advances–more than 1.2 billion people gained access to safe drinking water between 1990 and 2004, and since 2000, the use of insecticide-treated nets among children has tripled in many cases in Malaria-affected countries. However, there is much more to be done, and we are not on track to achieving many of the goals. If we are going to reach these goals by the target date of 2015, we must improve rich country policy.

Here’s a good video that gives you an overview of the Millennium Development Goals:

You can also read this article in the Guardian to learn more.

The following post appeared in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center on December 6th:

Late last week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her global development agenda, promising to fight HIV/AIDS, end malaria deaths, continue her leadership on basic education for all, expand women’s opportunity and children’s health, eliminate poor country debt, and improve U.S. development assistance. Advance market commitments for vaccines and consideration of a cabinet-level poverty and international development agency are also part of her global development agenda.

The Clinton campaign says:

America has a long and proud history of fighting poverty and encouraging economic development around the world. But that commitment has lagged relative to our own wealth, and in comparison with other prosperous nations. We need again to reclaim this great tradition, which is a testament to the kindness, generosity, and wisdom of the American people. America has long represented the ideal of opportunity. We must once again reclaim our leadership in promoting opportunity around the world. We do this first and foremost because it is right. And we do it also because it is smart. Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day.

Committing to global development because it is right and it is smart are dual rationales echoed in the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s Impact 08 framework, Smart Power: Building a Better, Safer World, ONE Vote 08’s campaign, and CGD’s own Global Development Matters website.

Other highlights of Clinton’s global development agenda include:

1. Investing $50 billion for global HIV/AIDS by 2013 to ensure universal access to treatment, prevention and care.

2. Committing to the goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa, beginning with a $1 billion per year investment in addition to U.S. commitments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and encouraging the use of research prizes and advance market commitments to spur innovation to address diseases in poor countries.

3. Continuing Hillary Clinton’s leadership in achieving free basic education for all, with a specific focus on girls in poor countries and the opportunities created through secondary as well as primary education.

4. Increasing women’s involvement in economic, political, and social sectors around the world as a tool for development and expanding access to health care, reducing maternal mortality and improving access to reproductive health and family planning services.

5. Improving health and opportunity for children through investments in nutrition, vaccines, public health and anti-trafficking.

6. Eliminating debts of the poorest countries including complete debt cancellation for all Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and expanding HIPC to an additional 20 poor countries.

7. Maximize the impact of U.S. development assistance by spending an additional 1% of the U.S. budget on foreign assistance; reviewing all U.S. foreign assistance efforts, in consultation with field experts, and considering consolidating program authority under a single cabinet-level poverty and international development agency; improving coordination with other donor countries; and better tracking, monitoring and evaluating U.S. funds for development assistance.

I again encourage my colleagues to comment further on the specifics of Clinton’s proposals. I know they will applaud her support for advance market commitments for vaccines, and idea born out of CGD research, and will be interested in her consideration of a cabinet-level agency for development, and focus on girls’ secondary as well as primary education. CGD senior fellow Kim Elliott has also taken notice of Clinton’s trade policies that are not mentioned as part of her global development agenda, but will have a strong impact on poor countries (See: Senator Clinton’s Disappointing Stance on Trade).

Clinton’s global development agenda, released last Thursday, is a welcome addition to the proposals Obama announced two days earlier. I am reminded that John Edwards too put forward a global poverty proposal in March this year. So, we have three candidates talking about global development so far and three agendas we can now compare, discuss, and debate. I invite readers to send me any other statements they hear from the presidential candidates, and am hopeful that we will see similar announcements from the rest of the presidential hopefuls, on what we know is not a partisan issue.

As you may know, developing countries are the most at risk when it comes to the effects of global warming. They depend quite a bit on agriculture and are also more closely located to the equator. At the Bali Conference, there has been talk of a new environmental policy deal that would create a fund for developing countries. The fund is a completely new item from the 1997 Kyoto treaty.

Saleemul Huq, a climate specialist at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, has some ideas about how this fund might work. A country that can’t meet its carbon emissions caps can currently invest in projects in developing countries. Huq’s idea is to take a percentage of those investments and put them in the fund to the countries that need it most. He said, “This is not development assistance. This is the polluter paying the victim of pollution.” There will have to be other methods that contribute to the fund as well, since much more money is needed than Huq’s solution could provide. But it’s good that some great minds in environment and policy are working on it.

The new deal is hoped to close in 2009.

Read NPR’s article to learn more.

The U.S. ranks #2 in the world’s worst environmental offenders, according to environmental groups at the global warming conference in Bali . Our greenhouse gas emissions and environmental policies contribute to this ranking. Saudi Arabia snags the gold at #1 worst environmental offender. Australia trails just behind the U.S. at #3—however, they just signed the Kyoto Protocol, so they may be on their way to a ranking that contributes to environmental well-being.

We are the only industrialized nation that hasn’t yet signed the Kyoto Protocol. If we add our name, we could make great strides in global development–since climate change affects developing countries first and worst.

Read the entire article here.

The One Campaign just posted the results of their “On the Record” project that compares the presidential candidates’ plans on global poverty and disease.

One Campaign members sent a petition in November urging the candidates to respond to issues that One members cared about. Most of the candidates participated, mainly in the form of video responses. The website is a great resource—and an especially cool feature is that you can compare several candidates side by side and then send the results to your friends.

See how the candidates responded “On the Record.”

Yesterday’s NPR Democratic Debate covered only three topics: Iran, China, and Immigration.

As you know, immigration has a great affect on global development. Here are some boiled down points from the candidates:

Biden said that employers have an obligation during their hiring process to know whether or not the job is being given to an American versus an illegal immigrant.

Clinton said we need better enforcement against those who hire undocumented workers, but that we should have some sympathy for them—and that if the US produces enough jobs, immigration isn’t as much on an issue.

Dodd thought that immigration could be used as a wedge issue by Republicans.

Edwards defended a previous statement that immigration doesn’t drive down wages by turning the discussion towards the loss of good middle class jobs. He also called for comprehensive immigration reform.

Gravel said that the way we’ve been approaching the problem is not going to solve anything. He also said that we should open our doors and if we have jobs for immigrants, they’ll get them and if not, they’ll go home.

Kucinich said that we should cancel Nafta and provide a path to legalization for undocumented workers.

Obama thought that employers who hire illegal immigrants should be penalized, but immigrants should have also a chance to acquire legal status.

Read the full article or the transcript for more.

Popping up in the candidates’ discourse is the issue of trade, especially fair trade, U.S. policy concerning African and Latin American economies, and labor standards enforcement. Here are some things the candidates have said about trade:

Clinton, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“I believe in smart trade. I’ve said that for years. Pro- American trade; trade that has labor and environmental standards; that’s not a race to the bottom, but tries to lift up not only American workers but also workers around the world.”
Read more.

Dodd, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“I agree [NAFTA] requires modification, but we also need to do something else here. In addition to having trading agreements that include labor, environmental health provisions in them and insisting upon those provisions in any trading agreement here, we need to stop exporting the jobs in the country that already are here.”
Read more.

Edwards, from speech on Trade Policy in Iowa: August 6, 2007
“As president, I will seek to restore America’s moral leadership of the world, and our trade policies with these countries can help. But we are going to be tough in our negotiations because the overriding obligation of the president of the United States is to put America’s workers, economy and national interests first.”
Read more.

Gravel, from Democratic Debate at Howard University: June 28, 2007
“No, outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that we have that benefit the management and, of course, the shareholders, and have neglected on either side of the issue, whether it’s in Mexico or in other countries or the United States. That’s the problem that must be addressed.”
Read more.

Guiliani, from his “12 Commitment’s Pledge”:
Aggressively Advance Free Trade: Rudy will tear down the walls to free trade and create new markets for American-made products. He will protect America’s innovations and intellectual property by enforcing our trade agreements aggressively.
* Reduce corporate tax rates and regulatory burden so that Americans can better compete in the global economy.
* Reform the excesses of Sarbanes-Oxley that are driving our corporations overseas to list on foreign exchanges.
* Reenact the Presidential Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority and complete the Doha Development Round.
Read more.

Huckabee, from speech in Iowa, April 28th, 2007
“If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told ‘I’m sorry but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.”
Read more.

Kucinich, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA. I will notify the WTO we’re withdrawing from the WTO.”
Read more.

McCain, from Conference on Bio Economy in Ames, IA November 5, 2007
“Our future prosperity depends on our competitiveness. Globalization is here and globalization is an opportunity not a threat. The American farmer is the most productive and innovative farmer on the planet and can compete with anyone. Period. But farmers can’t compete if they can’t get into the game. My friends, 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside the borders of the United States. While my Democratic opponents play politics with trade — using words like a trade “time out” to disguise their protectionism — I don’t intend to sit out opportunities and challenges of the world’s economy. I intend to seize those opportunities to ensure, as every American generation has done, that our children’s lives will be even more prosperous than were ours.”
Read more.

Obama, from his paper, “Connecting and Empowering all Americans through Technology and Innovation”:

Promote American Businesses Abroad: Trade can create wealth and drive innovation through competition. Barack Obama supports a trade policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. At the same time, trade policy must stay consistent with our commitment to demand improved labor and environmental practices worldwide. In its first six years, the Bush Administration has filed only 16 cases to enforce its rights under WTO agreements. This compares to 68 cases filed during the first six years of the Clinton Administration. President Bush has failed to address the fact that China has engaged in ongoing currency manipulation that undercuts US exports; that China fails to enforce U.S. copyrights and trademarks and that some of our competitors create regulatory and tax barriers to the delivery and sale of technology goods and services abroad. Barack Obama will fight for fair treatment of our companies abroad.
Read more.

Richardson, from speech at UCLA: October 24, 2007
”We must promote trade agreements that include strong and enforceable labor, environmental, and human rights standards. Free and fair trade can benefit both Latin American and US workers. It will benefit consumers throughout the region. And it will bind closer the nations of the entire hemisphere.”
Read more.

Romney, from Trade Advisory Group Press Release: October 31, 2007
”Opening markets to our goods and services is key to expanding opportunity here at home. Expanding trade is pro-growth, pro-industry, pro-agriculture, and pro-American leadership in the world,” said Governor Romney. “With years of public and private sector experience working on trade related issues, this group will provide valuable insight into what we can do as a nation to expand trade opportunities around the world.”
Read more.

Many of the above quotations are from the Center for Global Engagment’s Candidate Position Tracker.

You can also learn more about the candidates’ stances on trade at the Council on Foreign Relations website.

The following post also appears today in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center.

The security and well-being of each and every American is tied to the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders, according to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The theme of global interdependence is the bedrock of Obama’s new strategy for America’s engagement in the world, in which global development matters, a lot.

Obama unveiled his new strategy (download full strategy document, PDF, 71k) for “Strengthening Our Common Security by Investing in Our Common Humanity” at a foreign policy forum in New Hampshire last week (video footage available here and news coverage in the Concord Monitor). The new strategy explains:

The United States should provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and common humanity. We must lead not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner. Extending an outstretched hand to others must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality, dignity, and worth of all people. It will require American leadership that leverages engagement and resources from our traditional allies in the G-8 as well as new actors, including emerging economies (e.g. India, China, Brazil and South Africa), the private sector and global philanthropy. Yet, while America and our friends and allies can help developing countries build more secure and prosperous societies, we much never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them.

Obama’s strategy reiterates a promise to double U.S. foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012 that my colleague Steve Radelet discussed in a CGD blog several months ago. Also of note are commitments to:

* Expand prosperity through investments in agriculture, infrastructure and economic growth so the benefits and burdens of globalization are shared equally and economic policy is seen as central to security policy;
* Create an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative to promote a Green Revolution in Africa in addition to other measures to increase poor farmers’ access to agricultural markets;
* Establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund for primary education to help eliminate the “global education deficit”;
* Launch a Global Energy and Environment Initiative, create an Emerging Market Energy Fund, and spur the creation of an open-source, real-time mapping system to forecast the impacts of climate change country-by-county to address climate change and other global environmental challenges;
* Lead efforts to reform the International Monetary Fund and World Bank;
* Develop a rapid response fund for societies in transition;
* Invest in global health infrastructure, including creating health care systems that train and retain health care workers; and (last but not least)
* Coordinate and consolidate the twenty-some U.S. agencies currently involved in U.S. foreign assistance (including the Millennium Challenge Account and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) in a restructured and empowered U.S. Agency for International Development.

Obama was joined at the forum by his foreign policy advisers including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy; Tony Lake, former national security adviser; Adm, John Hutson, former U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General; Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of human rights and foreign policy; and Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs. Together they discussed these and other ideas for U.S. global engagement should Obama become the next president.

Long before Obama’s speech, the Center for Global Development and many other organizations including the ONE Campaign and Center for U.S. Global Engagement have been working to put global development onto the agenda of the 2008 presidential campaigns. This is indeed the focus of our Global Development Matters website and the documentary film footage it uses to tell the story of why global development matters for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

I encourage my CGD colleagues and others to comment further on the details of Obama’s proposals and extend my own applause for the Obama campaign’s vision and as yet uncommon commitment to addressing global development in the 2008 presidential campaigns. Sadly, Obama’s foreign policy goals are no longer the headline on his campaign website, nor did they seem to make national press coverage this weekend. Here’s hoping that other candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, start saying as much and more about their commitment to global development and their vision for America’s role in the world, and that the media and others start taking notice.