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.

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

The crucial role of the Ohio primary in deciding the Democratic nominee for president is having a regrettable impact on judgment and rhetoric in this campaign, as noted earlier this week by Lawrence MacDonald. But does this necessarily mean that a Democratic president–either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama–along with a Democratic Congress, which has been stubbornly blocking a vote on the trade agreement negotiated with Colombia, would be bad for trade, especially with developing countries?

Not necessarily, at least not relative to a situation where John McCain is president and facing a Democratic Congress (a Republican majority in either chamber seems unlikely at this stage). That political alignment has led to gridlock for the past two years, since the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress, and the opposite alignment in the 1990s did the same for the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The problem is the increasing lack of trust between the two parties.

Under “trade promotion authority,” the US Congress delegates some of its constitutional authority to regulate trade to the executive branch. It allows the president to negotiate trade agreements that the Congress agrees to vote on expeditiously and without amending it. That process requires a certain level of trust on the part of Congress that the president will use the authority in ways that Congress finds acceptable. But increasing political partisanship–generally as well as over trade–has undermined the trust that underpins that process.

There is an even more fundamental reason why a Democratic president and Congress, working together, might do more to put trade back on track. Democrats, at least in their rhetoric, are more committed to working on the domestic policy agenda that is desperately needed to support globalization–from an expanded Trade Adjustment Act, to unemployment insurance reform, and better education and training for workers. And, of course, expanding health care coverage has been a major issue in the campaign.

Still the recent rhetoric is troubling and it has costs that the candidates ignore to their peril once we get past Ohio. The Financial Times summed them up well in an editorial yesterday:

“The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.”

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

It was perhaps inevitable but it is nonetheless disappointing to see the Democratic candidates for president engaged in such energetic trade bashing (see, for example, the Washington Post’s Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach, Obama Cites NAFTA in Questioning Her Criticism of Corporate World). The New York Times, in a sensible editorial on Sunday titled It Must Be Ohio offered both an explanation for this unfortunate trend and some solid advice:

Ohio, which has lost almost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs since 2000, is feeling the pain of globalization. Yet what the voters deserve to hear (and are unlikely to hear from the Republicans) are honest answers about how government can help them adapt. Instead, both Democratic candidates were sending out mailers last week denouncing each other’s presumed support for the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

Of course the stakes are high in Ohio and Texas (and even in Rhode Island and Vermont, which also vote on March 4). But it is precisely when the stakes are high that we would hope that candidates for president show their mettle. Obama in particular tells voters he prefers truth-telling – pointing out to Detroit automakers the dire need for higher auto-fuel economy standards, for instance. It’s too bad that he and Senator Clinton aren’t giving us similarly plain talk on the challenges of globalization, and what should and shouldn’t be done about it. In recent years global trade has helped to lift 100 million Chinese from poverty—the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of the world—and through cheap imports helped to hold down inflation, too. Would America be better-off if this had not happened?

We care about trade at CGD because we work for shared global prosperity. Expanding trade is generally win-win: countries on both sides of the deal benefit, and most of their people do, too. The real question for American leaders, as the New York Times points out, is not who is best at bashing trade but how to help those people who do lose from trade expansion to adapt. And since I’m dreaming, perhaps the candidates could begin to speak about their ideas for improving U.S. leadership on development.

Not convinced? Check out these accessible CGD resources:

* Global Trade, the United States, and Developing Countries (Rich World, Poor World Brief)
* A Better Way Forward on Trade and Labor Standards, by Kimberly Elliott (Policy Brief)
* Made in China, a provocative video with two workers’ experience of trade expansion, one in China and one in the U.S.

And for the policy adept, two important CGD books:

* Delivering on Doha: Farm Trade and the Poor, by Kimberly Elliott
* Trade Policy and Global Poverty, by William Cline

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.

Tonight is Michigan’s turn to cast its votes—and the big issue is the economy. The Republicans have more at stake, since several democratic candidates aren’t on the ballot. According to NPR.org, Michigan may matter the most to Romney and McCain–you can find their stands on global development on our candidates page.

Tune in this evening for the results at CNN online.

How is a primary different than a caucus? You can find out more here.

As you’ve probably heard, Obama and Huckabee were the winners of last night’s Iowa Caucus.

In Obama’s victory speech, he gave a nod to climate change and poverty as some of the topics he would address as president. In December, Obama committed to strengthen our security through a global development strategy.

Watch his speech:

Huckabee also mentioned some global development issues when he appeared on the “Early Show” the morning of the caucus. He said people “in the Republican establishment think I’m a little too liberal for them because I actually care about hunger, poverty, disease and the environment.”

Watch the segment:

The race for nomination is far from over—make sure to check out the rest of the candidates’ stands on global development issues on our candidate page and on One.org’s On the Record page.

The process of selecting the U.S. presidential nominees will begin tonight. If you want to follow the Iowa Caucus results, the Iowa Republican and Democratic parties are posting the results online in real time.

Where do the candidates stand on global development issues? Learn more here on our blog.

What is a caucus? Why is it important? This article in the LA Times can help.

Curious to find out what the results could mean for each candidate? Take a look at this handy guide by Chuck Todd, the Political Director of NBC News.

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.

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.”