|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Remarks of Ambassador Harriet Babbitt USAID Deputy Administrator
June 18, 1998
Women's Foreign Policy Group
When I came to USAID in December, it was after four years as U.S. representative to the Organization of American States (OAS) and five years on the board of the National Democratic Institute. I had traveled to dozens of developing nations and countries making the transition to democracy and observed USAID operations in many places from the outside.But it doesn't matter how familiar you are with an agency's activities and accomplishments from the outside -- the inside is different.
USAID's work spans almost every aspect of human activity -- farming and family planning, energy efficiency and environmental management, refugees and revolving credit, water supplies and women's rights, childbirth and credit, elections and economic growth. Most people know we do development assistance -- few realize we also demobilize combatants after conflicts and help re-integrate them into civilian life.
I knew when I came to USAID that it received less than one-half of one percent of the federal budget -- but it has been encouraging to learn about the many ways our Agency leverages that relatively small amount of money to provide significant humanitarian relief, to spur long-term economic growth and help the poor and powerless around the world.
I was aware that USAID has probably the mostly highly educated workforce in the government.
But in my six months with USAID, I have come to a much deeper appreciation for the wide range of knowledge, experience, technical skills and what we in the Southwest call ``savvy'' that our people bring to their work.
USAID is the world's premier humanitarian relief agency. After watching our emergency teams go into action, I know why.
I understand a lot more now about the enormous difficulties they encounter to get relief to people -- and the resourcefulness, ingenuity and inspiring dedication they bring to bear against those difficulties.
I have seen in a new light the value of USAID's strong field presence on my visits to Africa, the Asia and Latin America and seen the work our missions are doing.
The knowledge and experience our people on the ground have built up over the years are invaluable resources -- and like a lot of other invaluable resources today -- are endangered.
USAID's staff has been cut by 30 percent over the past five years. We have added new missions in Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia. We have been charged with new global responsibilities, but we have closed missions in 28 countries. Five more are slated to be closed by the end of this fiscal year.
Until very recently, we thought 1999 was going to be the year when the long decline in funding truly turned around. Last year, Congress gave us a small increase in our budget, and President Clinton had requested modest additional increases for FY'99.
But current proposals in Congress would seriously CUT BACK -- rather than BUILD BACK -- development funding. Congressional proposals would require the equivalent of a 10 percent across the board reduction in all Foreign Operations from this year's actual spending levels.
As Administrator Brian Atwood testified last week before the Senate Appropriations Committee, the proposed ceiling on USAID's budget authority would be almost $1 billion below the President's request.
A further proposed Congressional cap on outlays would reduce our budget by as much as an additional $1 billion.
A $2 billion cut for USAID would be larger than the entire Development Assistance account request for 1999. A cut of that magnitude could fund the entire Peace Corps for more than eight years -- the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for almost 40 years.
Such a cut is the equivalent of our all our funding for refugee assistance for three years. It would fund the 20 years of U.S. contributions to UNICEF.We survived major cuts during the years when President Clinton and Congress were struggling to bring down deficits. Now that there are surpluses, we are being asked to absorb even more.
Since some portions of USAID's budget are generally protected from reductions, other development programs would have to be cut by 20 to 30 percent.
-- That could mean deep cuts in agricultural research aimed at increasing harvests -- when malnutrition is involved in half of the
12 million child deaths each year.-- Such cuts could cause sharp reductions in microenterprise programs which provide loans of a few hundred dollars to poor people so they can start small businesses and work their way out of poverty.
-- Microenterprise programs are especially important for poor women -- who rarely have access to traditional sources of credit.
-- Further reductions would also be required in our family planning programs, our democracy efforts and environmental programs.
Just last month, other donor nations completed the peer review of America's aid program. It was generally very complimentary, but it included a cautionary note -- quote:
"...the extent of cutbacks of USAID's overseas presence diminished two of its most prized assets: an experienced, strong field staff, close to the action and the unique scope of the United States' programme in line with America's global capabilities."
Those capabilities are formidable -- and that makes the proposed constraints even more disturbing.
There is so much we could be doing if we had the funds. We have the people with the know-how. We have programs in place -- and they are working. We have a history of successes.
Look at our track record:
USAID played a major role in eradicating smallpox in the 1970s -- and more recently, in eliminating polio from this hemisphere and much of the rest of the world. We are working hard to complete the eradication of the last pockets of polio by the year 2000. The polio eradication campaign has already saved millions of lives -- and will save billions of dollars.
American aid supported the research that produced the Green Revolution, preventing expected famines in Asia in the 1960s and 70s. We have been joined by other donors -- most of them former U.S. aid recipients -- in subsequent research that enabled many developing countries to increase per capita food supplies despite doubling and tripling of their populations.
We supported the research that first identified Vitamin A deficiencies as a major child killer -- and then demonstrated that supplements could prevent those deaths.
We support the world's largest HIV/AIDs prevention program.
We are the leading supporter of family planning services.
Those services have helped tens of millions of couples prevent unwanted pregnancies. That has helped to bring down exploding increases in population growth rates. But to those couples, family planning is not about lower population. It is about being able to provide better education, better nutrition, better opportunities for their children.
It is also about being able to plan and space their children to provide maximum health for mother and child. In developing countries, diseases and injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for women in their reproductive years.
It's ironic and sad that abortion foes attack our family planning program as "baby killing." In fact, family planning prevents abortions -- and saves lives.
This post-Cold War period is a time of great hope and opportunity:
Democracy has swept much of the world. Latin America is at peace for the first time in my memory. New leaders in many African countries are determined to improve the health, education and opportunities of their people. There is much we can do to help.
Our Agency is proud of its role in increasing the lifespans of people in the developing world. In 1960, one child in five died before reaching its fifth birthday
-- by 1990, only one child in twenty.Donor nations agreed in 1996 on a goal of cutting the percentage of child deaths in half again. That ambitious goal is reachable with current knowledge and technology -- if we allocate the necessary resources.
The discrepancy between what we know how to do and what we are able to do is especially poignant for women. It simply is not necessary for women in Thailand to die in childbirth or pregnancy at 13 times the rate of women in the United States, or for women in Indonesia to die at 30 times the rate here. We know a mother's death also puts her child at much greater risk.
There are cultural issues, but money is crucial, too. In many developing countries, when national economies or family finances are tight, women's health, women's education, women's jobs, women's rights suffer. Research shows that the children of a mother who has EVEN A SINGLE YEAR of education has a 9 percent better chance to live to the age of five. Gains increase substantially with each additional year.
Yet, at a time of awakening promise for women in Africa and when Asia's economic troubles are exacerbating women's problems, we are faced with serious cuts in our ability to help.
The proposed cuts also come at a crucial time for the environment.
Maybe it sounds naive after so many years of involvement in foreign affairs, but I thought the devastating wildfires in Mexico and Central America would serve as a wake-up call about the importance of our environmental work.
Those wildfires have destroyed millions of acres of some of the most bio-diverse lands in the world. When the smoke from those fires reached Houston and Atlanta, state officials and several Congressmen were quick to call on USAID to get immediate help to Mexican officials to put out those fires.
That was perfectly appropriate.
We are in the business of disaster assistance, and we GOT immediate help down there. Had Mexico requested it earlier, we could have acted sooner.
Yet Brian Atwood had barely gotten back to Washington from observing fires and firefighting efforts in Mexico when he had to go plead with the Senate Committee not to cut back our ability to provide environmental and agricultural assistance.
The wildfires in Mexico were the result of the worst drought in 70 years. Hot El Nino winds combined with the highest average temperatures on the earth's surface in any year since people began keeping systematic records in the mid-19th century. Despite our progress, nature's power is still awesome.
There is plenty of blame to go around -- we all can have a share. President Ernesto Zedillo has accused drug rings of setting some of the fires. Others may have been set by poor farmers, desperate to feed their families, practicing "slash and burn agriculture."
But this is the eve of the 21st century. We know a lot better agricultural methods than "slash and burn."
I would rather share those methods than share the blame for another environmental disaster.
The message in the smoke blown from those fires into American cities should be clear: We are not immune from what happens in developing countries.
The wildfires brought to mind a famous fireside talk by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was explaining why America should help a beleaguered Great Britain in the early days of World War II. FDR talked about lending his hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. He described that as a sensible precaution to keep his own house from catching fire.
Rather than just helping our neighbors put out their fires, wouldn't it be far wiser to help them prevent the fires in the first place?
People in this room understand that our Agency is an essential part of America's foreign policy team. You know it is our job to address many of the most dangerous problems that confront our nation today -- problems which cannot be solved with either missiles or economic sanctions.
As Brian Atwood told the Appropriations Committee, "This budget funds the mitigation of the world's crises, the transition from post-conflict situations and the prevention of future crises."
We haven't lost the budget battle yet -- in fact, we have just begun to fight. But this is very serious.
I believe that our people are doing some of the most important jobs in the world. I believe that the work they are doing is absolutely vital to American leadership in the world. And I believe that American leadership is vital to the world's peace and prosperity.
USAID is about hope and opportunity -- not as abstract ideals, but as practical ways of helping people create the change they need.
Helping people in developing and transition nations help themselves also advances America's national interests. These nations provide the fastest growing markets for American goods and services. They also provide the potential hot spots that can turn into spreading conflicts when people's needs and aspirations are denied.
Last year, the world celebrated the 50th anniversary of what was probably the most successful foreign assistance venture of all time, the Marshall Plan. When he unveiled that plan in 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall said this:
"Our policy is directed -- not against any country or doctrine -- but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."
That is still our policy, and it is still our goal.
Thank you.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: July 18, 2001 |
