The Foreign Service Journal, April 2005

C Y B E R N O T E S 12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 5 50 Years Ago... In his excellent letter … Ambassador Mills shows very clearly that the Foreign Service officer is overwhelmingly outnumbered by representatives of other agencies in the field. … All the current discussion of what is happening to the Foreign Service reminds me of what the regular Army used to say during the expansion which took place in the war years: “First we had the old Army, then we had the new Army, and now we’ve got this damned thing.” — From Letters to the Editors, FSJ , April 1955. tsunami, the rapid if uneven pace of globalization and a growing aware- ness that the different types of eco- nomic, strategic and humanitarian aid are increasingly vital to U.S. foreign policy have converged to place a new, critical focus on American foreign aid and its delivery systems. Over the past six months, a series of workshops, roundtables and spe- cial reports have examined the cur- rent foreign aid programs, and asked if they are adequate to the task. The latest, a workshop at the Brookings Institution on Dec. 8, brought together participants from USAID, OMB, the UNDP, the World Bank, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the Aspen Institute and other NGOs to discuss how the U.S. manages its expanding aid pro- grams, how that compares with other governments, and how the process of getting assistance out to the field can be streamlined ( http:// www.brookings.edu/pge/pge_ hp.htm ). This group identified the frag- mentation of American aid pro- grams as a great handicap in the changing foreign aid landscape. Instead of the once-simple world of governments interacting with other governments, today many different agents — from corporate and public foundations to venture philan- thropists and NGOs — are giving to many different kinds of recipients. Coordination, focus and leadership are at a premium under these condi- tions. This group advises the U.S. to unify all aid programs into a single aid agency, preferably one with Cabinet rank. Coordination and accountability was the problem focus for a recent GAO report on U.S. assistance devot- ed to trade capacity development ( www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-05-150 ). Th e GAO found that although trade capacity building was extensive — 18 U.S. agencies report they obligated some $2.9 billion in over 100 countries from 2001 through 2004 — most of the agencies were not systematically measuring the results of their assistance or evaluat- ing its effectiveness. A somewhat more wide-ranging discussion took place last July at the Aspen Institute, where more than 40 pre-eminent international leaders gathered to consider “America’s Role in the Fight Against Global Poverty.” This diverse group’s aim was to lay out a forward-looking strategy for the U.S. based on key challenges in poverty reduction, an understanding of what works and a clear-headed view of American interests and responsibilities. Their lively and thoughtful discussion can be read in full online ( http://www.brookings. edu/pge/20040731aspen.htm ). ■