The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2007

V.P. VOICE: USAID BY FRANCISCO ZAMORA Welcome to the Department for Global Development A las, poor USAID, the Cinderella of the U.S. government. Born out of the need to regularize and consolidate for- eignassistance and initiatedby thegoodworksof her father, theMarshall Plan inEurope, she is also known asDevelopment. She has never been invited to sit at the table of government with her sisters, Defense and Diplomacy. After more than 40 years ofworking in themost difficult countries of theworld, doinggood deeds and cleaning up messes sometimes made by her stepsis- ters, she still is not considered a full member of the family. It’s true that in an attempt tomake hermore respectable and cooperativewithDiplomacy, a younger versionofDevelopment — the Office of Foreign Assistance, known as “F” —now lives at the State Department. But her place in the household is still and always has been clear: to be subservient. After all, her step- sisters, who don’t really understand her, don’t want her to get any fancy ideas about going off to theball onher own. They want to make sure they clear off on anything that she does. But now, a new idea has come along. What if Developmentwere emancipated tobecome an equal partner? In fact, how about creating a Cabinet-level Department for Global Development? This idea was presented by The Brookings Institution, a respected think-tank, in its recent publication, “Security by Other Means: Foreign Assistance, Global Poverty, andAmericanLeadership.” In it, a thoroughanalysis of four alter- nate modalities for foreign assistance supports the rationality of establishing an independent USAID-type organization. Brookings presents these four options: 1) Increase coordina- tion. This is a short-term fix and is especially bad for morale. It makes aligning policy and operations more difficult. 2) Make USAIDan implementation armof the StateDepartment , expand- ingwhat beganwith creationof the FBureau. We all knowhow well that has gone! USAID has been neglected in favor of Diplomacy, decisionmaking is overly centralized and confusion reigns about who is responsible for what. Operational budgets have been cut to the bone, making it highly possible that many missions will be closed. Talk about being a stepchild! 3) Merge USAID into State. Does anyone remember the JesseHelms fias- co with USIA and ACDA? This option would certainly hurt morale, independence, stature anddis- rupt aid programs around the world, as roles are redefined. Short-termpolit- ical gains would trounce long-term development. This option would only exacerbate the current situation that exists in F. Finally, there isOption4: Set up a newly empoweredCabinet- levelDepartment forGlobalDevelopment. The advantages areobvi- ous: Aclearmission for foreign assistance, a boost inmorale and purpose that would attract andmaintain talent and finallymake development an equal member of the U.S. government house- hold, completing the three-Ds concept of Defense, Diplomacy andDevelopment. Folding all aid programs into such a depart- mentwoulddomuch to reinforce theoriginal purposeofUSAID, whichwas to rationalize themany disparate programs that exist- ed in the 1950s and are mirrored today by the Millennium ChallengeCorporation, thePresident’s EmergencyPlan forAIDS Relief, the President’sMalaria Initiative, development assistance, emergency humanitarian assistance and other such initiatives. This newdepartmentwouldnot just be another International Development Cooperation Agency, established in 1979, which some of you remember. IDCAwas intended to be a coordinat- ing mechanism, but it never really got off the ground and was eventually abolished. In contrast, the Department for Global Development would have to have real authority under which to operate. My Cinderella analogy may seem trite, but the concept of a truly independent Cabinet-level department makes sense. The last few years of the F Bureau experiment have been disastrous to our true mission. The risk of a total breakdown is frighten- ingly real. NumerousUSAIDmissionsworldwide are nowbeing targeted for closure, and morale has reached historic lows. Itwill take brave andvisionary leaders toguideus downanew path, but I believe our Foreign Service officers, Civil Service col- leagues, Foreign Service Nationals, contractors and the broader development community (NGOs, foundations, universities, etc.) would all welcome this shift and do everything tomake the new department successful. We must make sure that Defense, Diplomacy and Development are all appreciated for their unique contributions to world peace, progress and safety. Although they must coop- eratewith eachother, none of themshouldbe subservient to the other two. Higher-level policydirectionshouldcomedirectly from the chief executive and Congress. There is nobetter time to start the process than now. 72 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / J U L Y - A UGU S T 2 0 0 7 A F S A N E W S Like an orphaned stepsister, Development has never been invited to sit at the table with her sisters, Defense and Diplomacy.