Development: A Pillar of U.S. Foreign Policy

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
January 7, 2010

Today, Secretary Clinton delivered remarks to the Center for Global Development at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Secretary Clinton underscored that the Obama Administration is adopting a model of development based on partnership, not patronage, and working to elevate development and integrate it more closely with defense and diplomacy.

Secretary Clinton said, "The United States seeks a safer, more prosperous, more democratic and more equitable world. We cannot reach that goal when one-third of humankind live in conditions that offer them little chance of building better lives for themselves or their children. We cannot stop terrorism or defeat the ideologies of violent extremism when hundreds of millions of young people see a future with no jobs, no hope, and no way ever to catch up to the developed world.

"We cannot build a stable, global economy when hundreds of millions of workers and families find themselves on the wrong side of globalization, cut off from markets and out of reach of modern technologies. We cannot rely on regional partners to help us stop conflicts and counter global criminal networks when those countries are struggling to stabilize and secure their own societies. And we cannot advance democracy and human rights when hunger and poverty threaten to undermine the good governance and rule of law needed to make those rights real.

"We cannot stop global pandemics until billions of people gain access to better healthcare, and we cannot address climate change or scarcer resources until billions gain access to greener energy and sustainable livelihoods.

"Now, development was once the province of humanitarians, charities, and governments looking to gain allies in global struggles. Today it is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative -- as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defense.

"Because development is indispensable, it does demand a new approach suited for the times in which we find ourselves. For too long, our work has been riven by conflict and controversy. Differences of opinion over where and how to pursue development have hardened into entrenched, almost theological, positions that hold us back. These stand-offs aren't fair to the experts who put their lives on the line doing this critical work. They aren't fair to the American taxpayers who, by and large, want to do good in the world, so long as the money is used well.

"So it's time for a new mindset for a new century. Time to retire old debates and replace dogmatic attitudes with clear reasoning and common sense. And time to elevate development as a central pillar of all that we do in our foreign policy. And it is past time to rebuild USAID into the world's premier development agency."Full Text

Comments

Comments

Michael K.
|
Australia
January 7, 2010

Michael K. in Australia writes:

I like this: "partnership, not patronage".

What I - and, eventually, many others ordinary Does Joneses - do not understand are limits of developing the nations manifesting hatred towards the developers steadily in advance.

Probably, some reasonable extent should be impost on development by developers.

Moshe
|
District Of Columbia, USA
January 7, 2010

Moshe in Washington, DC writes:

Thank you Secretary Clinton for issuing a call for change in the way the US utilizes its foreign policy tools. Development can take many forms, with the determination of the relevant form being a specific country’s needs. Too often we have polarized the international foreign policy debate into spheres of military, monetary, and infrastructural/agricultural aid. While political and institutional stability must exist for development to work, development can also be working to create such stability. Therefore, we must capably be able to use any one of our foreign policy tools, and in many cases some together, to create positive change for a country and for ourselves. I believe your words, Secretary Clinton, do exhibit this.

One thing that does need to be addressed is how standardized practices and procedures are used for much of our development efforts. However, such practices may or may not fit the cultures and norms of the countries that they are being applied to. I remember on one recent excursion in the West Bank seeing a USAID building erected in a Palestinian town. The building, as noted on the sign, was to be used to encourage agricultural production. However, the building was erected as if it was to be placed in Manhattan, not in one of the poorest towns next to Jericho where it was located. For the price of what that building looked like it cost, one could have acquired new agricultural technology for the town, and neighboring towns, it resided in. Worst of all, it looked as if it was not being used at all, and, thus, provided a negative image of foreign policy spending. This example shows how we tend to forget the diversity of players involved and the necessity to observe and integrate their relevant cultures, as well as our own, when creating a more equitable and sustainable world. What probably happened was that a strategy or policy was created to help this small town, then a policy analysis was done to see what kind of aid can be given, finally – as deadlines were approaching – the relevant program management team released a solicitation to improve the agricultural and business conditions of the town, yet because of time constraints the winning contractor erected a building and the rest of the project went to the wayside. Possibly, a more robust stakeholder analysis, thus integrating the relevant input in the villages near Jericho, may have targeted our spending more wisely to reach a positive end goal of improving agricultural and local business production. According to the USAID website, in 2010, USAID will invest $153 million through the Infrastructure Needs Programs, with the Palestinian Authority, targeting roads, schools, and water access programs. As a taxpayer I do hope that these programs will take into account the observations I have previously made.

In closing, I urge our foreign policy arms to do more to share our own experience on the creation of equity and pluralism, while learning from and utilizing the knowledge, practices, and tools of recipient countries to make a positive and lasting impact. Let us not forget the ever changing and diverse world we live in if we are to alleviate poverty and extremism worldwide. I agree with you, Secretary Clinton, wholeheartedly and simply offer a bit of advice when we do turn to allocating more of our resources to development, and coordinating with other foreign policy tools, as we should.

Rosemary
|
New Jersey, USA
January 7, 2010

Rosemary in New Jersey writes:

The handsome new look notwithstanding, Dipnote has yet to "get it" with regard to Secretary Clinton. People want to know what she is doing and saying (more posts about her), and they want to SEE her! How is it possible that out of the 20+ photos from yesterday, you chose to use the ONE I thought was not even worth saving because she looks like a tiny little speck here. People want to see her, her face, her new jacket. More pictures of her, please, and better ones.

Susan C.
|
Florida, USA
January 7, 2010

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Moshe in D.C. Thank you for this very thoughtful posting. I am in agreement with you...especially with your closing paragraph. It is imperative that we "share our own experience on the creation of equity and puralism, while learning from and utilizing the knowledge, practices, and tools of recipient countries..". Well said. This seems to be a simple, and to me, an obvious principle that is very often overlooked.

Rosemary
|
New Jersey, USA
January 7, 2010

Rosemary in New Jersey writes:

Thank you for replacing the picture with the video. Big improvement on this post!

Ron
|
New York, USA
January 7, 2010

Ron in New York writes:

Development in an ethics context:

U.S development must ensure the highest standards of transparency, accountability and governance. This will require alliances based on mutual integrity. The price and costs of development in the context of corruption; are too great for the U.S. to bear.

palgye
|
South Korea
January 8, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

In Argentina and Brazil quite will make the electric motorcar factory which is simple with capital and technique of the United States and will hang and? To think their buying power from,…Thinks that is possible. Also the ripple effect is big

Rick A.
|
United States
January 8, 2010

Rick A. in U.S.A. writes:

Every day, excellent ideas keep coming from our leaders of all levels. Is it too late to prioritize our socio-economic development?

palgye
|
South Korea
January 8, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Dear to only Listening persons.

Is a work which starts to like, repeatedly thinks from actuality that is advanced with different direction. Will hang and will use and will be actual and will split will accomplish and? Some effort did but, the result was not condition. Is like that but, The eWith the method which does well maybe knows the people who does well? Becomes a little dangerously.

The end of ability and influence will be where?

M.Elhadi D.
|
Egypt
January 8, 2010

Elhadi D. in Egypt writes:

Work of U.S. policy in the good way to eliminate terrorism and to gain the confidence of the people ... You send a letter to President Obama for that - that poverty and hunger drives thinkers bad to take control of the poor people - and pushing them to terrorism (see the - the people of Somalia - Yemen - Afghanistan - Iraq - Sudan - Africa are -- -) that the development of economic resources to provide all the success to achieve peace - development creates job opportunities - development raise the overall income of the nations and peoples - Development defeat poverty - and the best way of development - development in the agricultural sector - development of the agricultural sector produces: - Preserving the Environment \ maintain the climate (green plant cell transformation of CO2 into O2) - the provision of farm products \ for the Eradication of Hunger - creating jobs \ eliminate unemployment --- the provision of agricultural products, industrial \ food industries - industries service (Clothing - Paper - Oil ....) policy --- a great move by the U.S. administration - to get aid to poor countries - and is working to provide a lot of taxpayer money .... We sent a letter to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - a letter containing a project for agricultural development - is being implemented in poor countries - instead of sending money - or send food to poor countries - to plant a tree is better than paying a thousand dollars .. - We have developed a project for the development of resources - we sent the project to the Egyptian government to implement the project in Egypt - but the Egyptian government does not seek to implement the national projects will serve the people \ and serve the Government \ elimination of unemployment (with a summary of the project) .. We welcome the U.S. policy aimed at the development - and we are honored to cooperate with you to implement development projects - Egypt - Iraq - Sudan - Afghanistan ... We offer our readiness to participate in the implementation of development in any location on Earth.

Ari C.
|
Pennsylvania, USA
January 11, 2010

Ari C. in Pennsylvania writes:

Good Luck Team Obama & Team Clinton on your good efforts for people Worldwide.

Mixing things up a bit may just work well,

Dr. Cole

.

Latest Stories

October 1, 2008

Living With Volatility

About the Author: Ambassador Gaddi H. Vasquez is the 8th U.S. Representative to the United Nations Organizations in Rome. All… more

Pages