In a foreign policy speech today, John McCain listed terrorism as our #1 threat—and many of his solutions involved aspects of global development.

He called for America to embrace being a good international citizen: respecting our allies’ points of view as well as our own, basing alliances on “mutual respect and trust,” not tolerating torture, and addressing our environmental crises. Additionally, he said “Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union [by]… developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.”

With respect to Africa, he continued, “We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law…I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent.”

Calling for the renewal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, McCain said, “The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.”

According to McCain, dealing with terrorism “will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges.”

Some other parts of his speech were more controversial: in addition to defending his stance on keeping America in the war with Iraq, he also called for the building of “a new global compact…that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” If you’re interested in why why this coalition might not be the best idea, the UN Dispatch mentions that the Bush administration suggested something similar–and also points to a book by Matt Yglesias, Heads in the Sand for further reading.

What about Obama and Clinton? Here’s a video that shows them debating about foreign policy:

Read about the global development agendas of McCain, Clinton, and Obama.

Read the transcripts of McCain’s foreign policy speech.

U.S. Foreign Assistance is woefully out of date. It’s crucial to our security and relations with the rest of the world to have a strong foreign assistance program. As CGD Research Fellow Stewart Patrick said in a 2006 speech on foreign assistance, “economic stagnation, authoritarian misrule, and weak institutions are closely linked with political instability, extremism, and violent conflict.” We know by now that global development makes us richer and safer. So how do we modernize U.S. foreign assistance?

CGD Senior Fellow Steve Radelet outlines an updated foreign assistance agenda for the future president in his recently published essay, “Modernizing Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century: An Agenda for the Next U.S. President.” Here are his five to-dos for America:

1. Develop a National Foreign Assistance Strategy that elevates global development as critical to our national interest and lays out the principal missions and mandates for foreign assistance;
2. Reform the organizational structure by merging most foreign assistance programs and related development policy instruments into a new Cabinet-level department, and strengthening the organization by expanding and deepening the professional staff, revamping delivery mechanisms, and building a serious monitoring and evaluation system;
3. Rewrite the outdated and unwieldy 1961 Foreign Assistance Act in order to streamline procurement rules, earmarks, and restrictions, and to reestablish a strong partnership between the Executive Branch and Congress that allows greater flexibility to the former provided there is greater accountability and responsiveness to the latter;
4. Place a higher priority on multilateral channels of assistance; and
5. Increase the quantity and improve the allocation of assistance, since even with recent increases U.S. foreign assistance is not large enough or unencumbered enough to meet our major foreign policy goals.

We here at Global Development Matters urge our future president to use this road map to prepare us for the 21st century and beyond, repairing our global leadership so we can better field environmental and security crises as well as advance our efficacy in helping the billion people that live on less than a dollar a day.

Watch this speech by USAID Administrator and Director of Foreign Assistance Henrietta Fore for a quick overview about why foreign assistance is important and what we can do about it.

Advocates of global development scored a win yesterday—restoring $4 billion to the 2009 International Affairs Budget. Initially, George W. Bush requested $39.8 billion for this budget that covers things like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Peace Corps–and the Senate considered decreasing it by $4 billion. Thanks to Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Gordon Smith (R-OR)–who quickly responded by introducing an amendment to partially restore the funds–to the rest of the senators who voted “yes,” and to the support of concerned citizens from the One Campaign, the full $4 billion was restored.

Contact the Senators who voted “yes” and thank them at the US Global Leadership Campaign’s website—and also give the “no’s” a call and let them know that this issue is important to you. See the One campaign’s blog for more info contacting the “no’s.”

Learn more about the International Affairs Budget at the US Global Leadership Campaign’s website.

You may have heard about Obama’s Global Poverty Bill that is setting the Conservative blogging community ablaze. However, it isn’t currently receiving much coverage in the mainstream press.

If it becomes law, it would commit the president to creating and implementing a strategy to help eradicate global poverty. The number of people living on less than a dollar a day would be halved by 2015—which means we would achieve Millennium Development Goal #1.

This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign relations. Check it out for yourself–you can read the entire bill here. (It isn’t too long).

We here at Global Development Matters hope that all of the candidates make global development a priority.

This post originally appeared yesterday in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center.

Yesterday President George Bush reported on his recent trip to Africa to members of the diplomatic corps, NGOs, and development policymakers at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. at an event hosted by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation. President Bush relayed the details of what he called his “most exciting, exhilarating and uplifting trip” since becoming president and showed slides from his visits to Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia. He argued Americans should be “mighty proud” of the work the U.S. is doing in Africa and made a final plea for Congress to fully and promptly fund U.S. development programs and for presidential candidates of both parties to make engagement with Africa an enduring priority of the United States. (See full remarks and video)

As the president narrated the photos with anecdotes from his trip, there were mentions of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PEPFAR), malaria initiative and the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) amidst commentary on the photos of the stuffed lion given to him by Tanzanian President Kikwete (Bush worried that his dog Barney might be “slightly intimidated”); the stylish dresses worn by several Tanzanian women (bearing images of George Bush); and how happy their audience in Accra was to see him (but, according to Bush, “even more excited to see [their] surprise guest, reigning American Idol Jordin Sparks”). All this made for an entertaining presentation but a major policy speech it was not.

When a U.S. president travels to Africa and then takes time to deliver a speech devoted entirely to U.S. relations with the continent, it somehow seems churlish to be critical. After all, this sort of prioritization of development issues is exactly what the development community would like to see.

Still, I suspect that, like me, many of the 400+ people who attended the speech left feeling ambivalent. On the one hand, it’s great that the president is talking about global development, the U.S. relationship with Africa and his signature assistance programs. No one doubts that these programs have significantly increased the flow of resources to Africa and provided opportunity for experiments with innovative delivery mechanisms. On the other hand, there was little if any new information or agenda and there was something vaguely unsettling about the broad brushstrokes and glossy pictures. Listening to the speech felt like looking over vacation photos with the president. I sensed that much of the audience, who were either from Africa or know the continent very well, appreciated the president’s attention but had been hoping for something more: a coherent vision of the reasons for U.S.engagement with Africa and the development process more broadly, and a clear sense of what should be done next.

Though few new announcements came out of the presentation, President Bush iterated his administration’s calls for Congress to:

Reauthorize PEPFAR and double the initial commitment to $30 billion over the next 5 years; Provide 5.2 million new insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malaria; Offer $100 million for “African nations willing to step forward and serve the cause of peace in Darfur”; Spend $350 million to target neglected tropical diseases like river blindness and hookworm; and Ensure full and prompt funding for U.S. development programs (in the FY09 budget).

President Bush also said that it is in the U.S. interest to “open up trade and deal with subsidies and trade-distorting tariffs” and that he is “firmly dedicated to coming up with a successful Doha Round to make trade freer and fairer.” He noted that Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf had come to the U.S. for some of her schooling and that “the more people who come to get educated in the United States from abroad, the better off our country will be.” Again, while I am thrilled to see U.S. trade and migration policies raised as policies affecting global development, I was disappointed that there seemed to be an assumption that all our aid, trade, migration and other policies related to Africa automatically add up to one big good. In reality, the U.S. gives some assistance with one hand, takes some back with some trade policies, and does a little of both with migration policies. I left wanting a little more vision of how to make U.S. foreign assistance, trade, migration and other policies compliment each other and add up to a real development strategy.

For me it comes down to a question of how much expertise, nuance and leadership it is reasonable for an audience of development policymakers and practitioners to expect from a presidential speech. President Bush deserves credit for his work on Africa, the new programs created during his administration, and for raising other rich world policies like trade and migration that affect developing countries. But just as President Bush urged presidential candidates of both parties to make engagement with Africa an enduring priority of the United States, I urge them to take advantage of an audience that is eager for more substantive leadership on the complex and competing development policy issues, and for a more comprehensive approach to U.S. foreign assistance.

Clearly there are readers out there who are from, have lived in, or have worked with the African countries President Bush visited. You are doing the real work beyond the red carpets and greetings that accompany a presidential trip. How would you like to see the next American president make engagement with Africa and global development an enduring priority of the United States?

The CEO of the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC),Ambassdaor Danilovich, spoke at a press conference marking its fourth anniversary. The MCC was created by congress in order to further “smart aid,” which is development assistance that is based on the performance of the partner countries. The idea is to produce tangible results in the fight against global poverty. Danilovich also said that it’s the best way to sustain the positive impacts after the aid has ended. He outlined the three main principles of MCC: 1) Partner countries go through a significant review process and only countries with good polices will receive aid. 2) Partner countries must develop and implement their own path out of poverty. 3) Partner countries must identify from the outset what goals the aid will bring about.

You can read the full text here on the U.S. Department of State’s website.

The Millenium Challenge Corporation is in charge of the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA), which receives funds assigned annually by Congress.

Learn more about the MCC and the MCA on the Center for Global Development’s MCA Monitor Blog or on the MCC’s website.

The World Bank said mid-December that they raised a record $25.1 billion for developing countries. Why is this significant? First of all, The United States ceded its spot as the top contributor to Britain. This is caused in part by the slipping value of the dollar against European currencies, but it also points to our commitment to global development. We currently only pledge .19% net aid as a portion of our economy. More importantly, the large increases in both Britain and Germany’s pledges indicate that relations between the World Bank and Europe are strengthening.

Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, said, “The Europeans were looking for a sense of direction and some confidence in where the bank was going. This shows there is a renewed confidence.”

On another hopeful note, several countries that were once recipients of this money, such as Egypt and China, are now contributors.

Of course, as you know by now, there’s much more to global development than aid–other factors such as trade, investment, security, migration, and the environment are essential when considering our policy. Take a look at the Commitment to Global Development Index (CDI).

Read the New York Times article for more about this topic.

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.

A new report found that poor countries are more likely to experience health problems due to climate change than rich countries.

Kevin Watkins, from the UN Development Program and author of this new report, spoke briefly on NPR this morning. His report concentrates on the immediate effects of climate change on poor countries. The report found that developing countries will be hit particularly hard by health problems, since they don’t have the resources to deal with environmental disasters, such as droughts and floods.

For example, people in Northern Ethiopia living in drought zones have no protection should one occur. This study looks at two groups of Ethiopian children, some born in an area experiencing a drought and others that weren’t. Guess what? Five years later, those who were born in the drought-affected area were far more malnourished—by 36% percent.

This drought also led to long-term malnourishment to over 2 million children in the country. This backed their parents into a corner. They had to sell their farming equipment to take care of the immediate needs of their children—but this left them no way to feed their families when the draught was over. Desmond Tutu refers to this as “Adaptation Apartheid,” which means that when something bad happens, rich countries are able to use their resources to withstand it, but poor countries are left high and dry.

Watkins’ solution to this problem is that rich countries should change the way they give aid, for example, giving more money to improve flood control and early warning systems. We should keep in mind the effects of climate change whenever we give aid money.

Want to listen to full story? Check it out on NPR.

Those of us who follow global development news know that agriculture is a critical issue in the big picture of global poverty. From drought to hunger, food aid to farm bills, agriculture issues have a major impact on the ground in poor countries.

Of particular interest in the US is the Farm Bill, that big piece of legislation that is renewed every 5 years and gives subsidies for those growing specific crops.

All of these issues are related. How much money gets invested in poor countries in agriculture has a lot to do with the international market for the crops they would grow. The fact that three quarters of the world’s poor live in rural communities makes this issue even more critical.

The World Bank is taking notice. As Celia Dugger reports in the New York Times,

“Foreign aid for agriculture has plunged as support for global health and primary education has surged. The fight against AIDS and other diseases is keeping millions of people alive, and rising elementary school attendance is lifting literacy rates. But most poor Africans make their living in agriculture and need to grow more to feed themselves and earn their way out of destitution, many analysts say.”

The conclusion of the World Bank’s report is clear:

“Increased public investment in scientific research, rural roads, irrigation, credit, fertilizer and seeds — the basics of an agricultural economy — is crucial to helping Africa’s poor farmers grow more sorghum, corn, millet, cassava and rice on their miniature plots.”

Read the NYT article for more on this point.

It’s not too late to take action on the Farm Bill. Contact your senators today and ask them to create a Farm Bill that reduces misguided subsidies and shifts those resources to support the programs that really need the money.