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?

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

On the eve of U.S. President Bush’s second trip to Africa, CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet reviews the administration’s record on a continent that some are calling a rare bright spot for American foreign policy. In an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Radelet discusses the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, the Millennium Challenge Account, and Darfur.

Radelet says that he hopes that the president’s trip will help to strengthen bipartisan support for U.S. initiatives in Africa, while also shedding light on areas where the U.S. could do better. His bottom line: “I would give them a B on their stuff on Africa.”

This post originally appeared in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center on January 28, 2008.

*This post was co-authored by Nancy Birdsall and Steve Radelet

The extraordinary challenges and opportunities of today require a new vision of American global leadership based on the strength of our core values, ideas and ingenuity. They call for an integrated foreign policy that promotes our values, enhances our security, helps create economic and political opportunities for people around the world, and restores America’s faltering image abroad. We cannot rely exclusively or even primarily on military might to meet these goals. Instead, we must make greater use of all the tools of statecraft through “smart power,” including diplomacy, trade, investment, intelligence, and a strong and effective foreign assistance strategy.

In today’s world, foreign assistance is a vital tool for strengthening U.S. foreign policy and restoring American global leadership. Foreign policy experts on both sides of the political aisle now recognize the importance of strong foreign assistance programs. But they also recognize that our foreign assistance programs are out of date and badly in need of overhaul to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In 2004, as members of the CGD-sponsored Commission on Weak States and US National Security, we recognized the need for rebuilding the mission, mandate and organizational structure of our outdated foreign assistance apparatus to meet today’s foreign policy challenges, particularly our institutions and policies focusing on global development. We called for it then, welcome the more recent calls, and say again: It’s time for the United States to establish a new Cabinet-level Department of Global Development.

We hope that our next President will believe, as we do, that investing in global development is an investment in America’s future — strengthening its security, its economic opportunities, and its moral values. And that establishing a Department of Global Development to manage our foreign assistance — both bilateral and multilateral — and other development policy instruments would streamline the currently fragmented bureaucracy, reduce duplication, strengthen our ability to align major programs with our key objectives, and leverage U.S. dollars and influence to get results. It would establish development as the primary mission of US foreign assistance, elevating development to equal standing with diplomacy and defense as the three key pillars of U.S. foreign policy.

Because development is about more than development assistance, the new Department would have a mandate for policy coherence on the full range of US policies affecting poor countries, such as trade, environment, migration, and debt. It would facilitate the professionalization of a core of development expertise within the U.S. government on issues of public health, climate change, agriculture, institutional development, education, infrastructure, clean water, and other development issues. It would allow for the independence necessary to ensure that short-term political goals do not crowd out long-term development objectives.

Creating a new Department will be a heavy lift politically, and will take significant efforts on the part of both the new administration and Congress. But it would create a powerful new instrument for U.S. global leadership. We hope that momentum continues to build and that these ideas feature prominently in the 2008 presidential campaigns. It’s time for the U.S. to take a smarter and stronger approach to building a better, safer world.

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.

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.