This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Administrator J. Brian Atwood
"Rethinking Development"
Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center
Washington, D.C., April 16, 1997
U.S. Agency for International Development
I want to thank Julius Coles for his invitation to speak
tonight. I also want to thank him for his wonderful service to
USAID and his contribution to development over the span of his
first career. How many of us are lucky enough to have two
careers? It seems clear when I see the progress the Bunche
Center has made in its first three years that Julius is succeeding
as well in his second career as he did in his first.
This conference's focus -- rethinking development in today's
world -- could not be more timely. It is also quite fitting that we
hold this event in the Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs
Center. Dr. Bunche was a statesman in the very best sense of the
world. He was truly deserving of the Nobel prize, and he was a
statesman in the very best sense of the word. Dr. Bunche's work
at the United Nations helped pave the way for establishing
international institutions that continue to serve us today. The last several years have found the development
community doing a lot of soul searching about how to make
development more effective as the world around us has changed
rapidly. Losing the geo-strategic rationale has been tough on our
budget, but the end of the Cold War could be the best thing that
ever happened to development. For the first time, we are being
allowed to pursue a development agenda based on achieving
results. I am convinced that over time the success of this
approach and the obvious burden of our challenge will restore our
budget to its Cold War highs.
We now live in a world where political and economic
freedom have advanced. Our government no longer sees
supporting morally bankrupt leaders as either good politics or
good policy. Today, we live in a time when we can focus
development with great intensity on promoting economic growth,
fostering democratic systems and addressing global health and
environmental problems. There is little reason any longer to
direct resources to nations that refuse to recognize the rights and
potential of their own citizens.
The American taxpayers should be pleased to know that our
program today invests in their future. It invests in job security as
we create the new markets of the 21st Century. It invests in
environmental protection as we work to create a climate change
strategy for the developing world. It invests in our health safety
as we try to deal with dangerous diseases at their source.
Yet, we don't hear expressions of gratitude from some
quarters on Capitol Hill that our aid program today helps
Americans as much as it helps foreigners. The need to balance
the budget has brought us into the "Era of Rationalization."
Government programs that are funded from discretionary budget
accounts are subject not only to objective scrutiny, today they are
subjected to abject rationalization. What we hear today is: "we
don't need to invest in global stability." "Foreign aid has never
worked." "Scientists can't agree about climate change." "Private
capital will develop the new markets." "Trade not aid." "The
population explosion will take care of itself."
Yes, and I still believe in the tooth fairy!
The debate today reminds me of the hesitation of Congress
when we were trying to convince members to accept the Marshall
Plan 50 years ago. One member of Congress, speaking about the
potential effectiveness of the Plan, likened it to "believing that the
Atlantic can be bailed out with a soup ladle." Yet another
member, a Senator Wherry of Nebraska said investing Marshall
Plan resources in Europe would be akin to throwing tax dollars
down a "rate hole." Sounds familiar.
It was difficult in 1947 to look ahead to what was ultimately
one of the most important foreign policy successes of this
century. A New York Times editorial of that time wrote: "it is
plainly difficult for many persons to think of a restored Europe in
terms of normal civilian life as a reasonable possibility."
Imagine what the world would look like today -- 50 years
later -- had we listened to the skeptics. Imagine what the
developing world would look like had we not restored the
European economies and transformed those former recipient
nations into donor partners. Thank goodness for the old fashioned notion that "politics
stops at the water's edge." Senator Arthur Vandenberg argued
that the Marshall Plan was a "plan for peace, stability and
freedom. As such, it involves the clear self-interest of the United
States."
It is not my intention to deliver a history lesson. However,
I do think that when we hear critics today claim that parts of
Africa are somehow economically and politically hopeless, we
should remember those who wanted to condemn Europe to a
future of failure. This is the same kind of thinking that said
South Korea and Taiwan would always be economically backward
and that a peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa or
Poland was a pipe dream. These are the same voices who
doubted we could eradicate smallpox or ever see democracies
stretching from Argentina to Canada. Indeed, perhaps the
greatest satisfaction in working in the development field is that
we get to prove our critics wrong with such regularity.
We know development works. The real question is how do
we make it work better, and how do we best advance our national
interests in the process of delivering assistance. In his superb
book, The Fragile Species, Lewis Thomas sets forth our challenge
when he wrote: "The essential foreign policy question is the
obvious one: what should the relatively healthy 1.5 billion
human beings be doing to bring the other 3 billion into the 20th
century? I shall take it as given that there is an obligation here."
The 3 billion people Thomas talked about in his quote in the
1970's are now more than 4.6 billion people. For that reason,
the question Thomas asked is even more relevant today.
Perhaps the most welcome change in how the international
community approaches development assistance has been the
consensus that has emerged among donors over the last several
years. Despite the severe budget cuts in U.S. aid levels, the
United States has retained real influence in shaping the common
agenda among the donors. We pushed hard within the
Development Assistance Committee, the DAC, to convince the
donor nations to target real problems, set goals and measure
results. For too long the international community measured
success simply by the money it could spend and not by the impact
of its programs on the ground in the developing world.
We pressed hard for more work in the democracy-governance area and for the principle that economic progress
cannot be sustained in the absence of strong political and judicial
systems.
We urged other development agencies to join us in
improving our capacity to work in nations emerging from
conflict, nations such as Angola, Bosnia and Cambodia.
We convinced development professionals to move away
from a compartmentalized approach to crisis-prone regions and
stressed a continuum that encompassed relief, recovery and
development.
We promoted a more comprehensive approach to the needs
of women in development, combining maternal health programs
with access to family planning and reproductive health services,
child survival programs, girls education and the economic
opportunity created by microenterprise programs. For too long,
the industrialized nations were too willing to turn a blind eye to
the crucial role that women play in development.
Most important, we agreed that achieving results requires a
comprehensive, integrated approach to development.
We agreed that economic growth and open markets lie at the
heart of development. But we also pointed out that economic
growth does not occur in a vacuum, and that growth cannot be
sustained without strong and open government institutions, sound
environmental management, sustainable population growth and
healthy and well educated citizens.
These issues and more -- advanced through American
leadership -- were reflected in a May 7, 1996 statement entitled
"Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development
Cooperation." In that very political document, 21 donor nations
set those specific goals for the future:
-- We agreed that by the year 2005, gender disparity in
primary and secondary schools should no longer exist.
-- We agreed that every nation should have in place a
strategy for development that protects the environment.
-- We agreed that by the year 2015 extreme poverty
should be cut in half, that universal education should be
a reality, that infant mortality should be cut 66 percent
from the 1990 level, that maternal mortality should be
cut by 75 percent of its 1990 level, and that
reproductive health and family planning services should
be available to all who want them.
These are ambitious goals, but they are eminently worthy
and achievable targets. The DAC statement was also endorsed by
the G-7 leaders at the summit in Lyon, France in July of 1996.
If the United States had not advanced this agenda -- and the very
concept of setting targets -- the outcome would have been quite
different.
The nations of the industrial world argue over trade. We
argue over security. We often pursue narrower interests that
sometimes divide us.
But in the development field, we act as one.
The end of the Cold War has allowed us to focus more than
ever on human capital and institutions. Now we can demand that
any nation that receives our assistance be a good partner and fully
embrace reform. Today, more than ever before, we can draw a
straight line from our assistance programs directly to building
democratic and stable societies and advancing trade and mutual
cooperation.
We review the progress of the past 30 years and we ask
ourselves, why not wipe out polio, leprosy, river blindness and,
some day, even malaria? Why not reduce infant mortality by
even more than one-half? Why not erase the gender gap that
prevents hundreds of millions of girls from even receiving a basic
education? Why not turn Senegal into the next Singapore? We,
as the international community working with the dynamic leaders
that have emerged in the developing world, have the power to do
all these things. We are constrained only by our imagination and
by the need to continually remind Americans themselves that
international engagement is in their best interests.
As optimistic as I am, there are still serious challenges
before us. Our greatest challenge today is in Africa. Yet, it is
our greatest opportunity as well. Twenty-two of the world's 30
poorest countries are in Africa. A quarter of all African children
will die before their fifth birthday from disease and malnutrition.
Only half of all adults are literate, and fewer than 20 percent of
young people can attend high school. HIV/AIDS infection rates
are the highest in the world. It is no wonder that Africa's
potential for political instability remains high.
Nowhere is the justification for foreign aid more compelling,
in terms of our national values, than Africa. Fortunately, there
have been a number of promising developments in recent years.
Political and economic changes have swept across the continent,
enhancing the opportunity for peace and prosperity.
USAID has focussed resources on the continent's most
critical problems and concentrated assistance in countries
committed to sound economic policies, good governance and
democracy. Just as investments in Latin America and Asia over
the past three decades are now reaping returns, USAID's
assistance to Africa is laying the foundation for expansion of U.S.
exports and economic growth in the 21st century.
Key to our investments will be promising regional
approaches and initiatives that add value to bilateral programs
while addressing critical development challenges. The President's
Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, for example, is focusing on
preventing crises, and achieving political stability and food
security. The Initiative for Southern Africa, whose centerpiece is
the Enterprise Development Fund, is promoting regional
economic integration and investment across 11 countries. Our
West African programs are also looking closely at promoting
intra-regional trade through numerous private sector-led activities
and networks.
A second major challenge for U.S. foreign policy is posed
by violent conflicts and imploding nation states, not only in
Africa, but around the world. Persistent crises have drained
resources from other national security concerns and led to
dilemmas over the use of force, international collaboration and
national sovereignty. Since the mid-1980s, the number of man-made emergencies requiring a U.S. government response has
doubled. The human, financial and political cost of these
conflicts is staggering.
Since the Gulf War, the United States has mounted 27
military operations as a result of ethnic conflicts and failed states.
Up to 1 million people lost their lives through genocide in one
year in Rwanda. In the former Yugoslavia, the loss of human
life in less than four years was the greatest in Europe's post-World War II history. The number of refugees and displaced
persons in the world now numbers close to 50 million.
The root causes of conflict are tied directly to development.
The fuel that fires many of today's civil and ethnic conflicts is
poverty. It is the inability of nations to realize lasting social,
political and economic development. The precursors of conflict
are significant political, economic and structural weaknesses that
render societies vulnerable to breakdown.
Among the ingredients for national stability are a balance
between population growth and resources, healthy and educated
citizens, economic opportunity and resilient and responsive
political systems. Achievements in these areas are fundamental
objectives of USAID's programs. Long-term development is the
best preventive medicine to prevent crises.
In many ways, the challenge we have in preparing for
the next century is to maintain our commitment to long term
development and crisis prevention while further developing the
fast and flexible instruments that allow us to take direct and
positive action in transitions or in situations where crisis is
imminent.
Perhaps twenty years ago we might have used the Central
Intelligence Agency to take covert actions in these situations.
Maybe in those days of East-West conflict we were capable of
using coercion and brute strength to bring about the desired
policy outcome. But the world has changed. Today, our
challenge is to develop overt mechanisms to quickly advance our
strategic interests and prevent crisis. The overt mechanisms of
the 1990s, unlike the covert efforts of the 1960s, have to be
transparent, democratic and able to stand the test of public
scrutiny. And AID - another three letter acronym -- is best
position to do this task.
Only open programs will gain the international collaboration
we need. Only open programs have a chance for success.
These are the operational requirements of this new, dynamic
paradigm: diplomacy and development programs working side by
side both to prevent crisis, to transit from crisis, and to produce
positive change. Diplomacy and humanitarian relief to mitigate
and resolve crises. Diplomacy and development working together
to move nations toward a more democratic, more peaceful
international community. Idealistic? Maybe. But what choice
does an indispensable nation have?
As we rethink development, we must also put forth even
greater effort to make our diplomatic and development teams
more representative of the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of
our nation. Institutions such as Howard University and other
minority serving institutions can have important roles in
enhancing diplomacy and development through participation in
long-term institutional partnerships.
We believe we have the most effective development program
in the world because we play to America's strengths. We capture
ideas. We promote our ideals. We exploit the richness of our
society. And part of that richness is diversity -- diverse ethnic
backgrounds, diverse racial backgrounds, diverse national
backgrounds.
To further exploit that valuable concept -- unity in diversity
-- I am pleased to announce tonight the new International
Development Partnership Program -- IDP -- at USAID. Under
the IDP, a number of competitive grants will be awarded to
HBCUs over a five year period; five of them in the first year.
The grants will be used to build and strengthen HBCU ties to
higher education and other institutions in developing countries
and in the United States.
HBCUs and other minority serving institutions make a
difference by producing outstanding young men and women who
may be the Ralph Bunche of tomorrow. Your involvement in
foreign policy and development could shape the world for decades
to come. And it is a world that will need reshaping.
I end where I began. No one in the development community
should regret the ending of the Cold War. That confrontation
perverted our profession. Today we can do development the way
it should be done. We can work with good partners who trust
our motives. It is a time of great opportunity -- a time of hope.
It is a time when people of good will can make a difference. It is
a time when foreign aid can make a difference as it has for 50
years.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
Last Updated on: July 18, 2001
|
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
