Although I don’t know quite what to say, I can’t not say something about this.

Erik Prince and his private security services company, Blackwater, gained notoriety in Iraq.  Prince had an inside track with the Bush administration, flew around with Dick Cheney on Air Force Two, secured billions in government contracts without open competition, and lunged into all sorts of difficult and sensitive places guns drawn. In Iraq, Blackwater was involved in 195 shooting incidents that involved civilians—many of which resulted in injuries or deaths of civilians. But that was just the tip of the iceberg of scandals and violations. In 2010, Prince sold Blackwater, which has been renamed several times, trying to escape the stench of scandal and atrocity.

Now, it seems, Prince has reinvented himself as an investment advisor. From a comfortable perch in Abu Dhabi (no extradition treaty with the US), Prince now raises funds and advises clients on the wonderful investment opportunities in Africa. He claims he’s raised $100 million and is shooting (err) for $400 million more. His new company, Frontier Resource Group (motto: fortuna audaces iuvat or fortune favors the bold) offers support for investors mixed with “security and logistical capacity”.

Ever the bottom dweller, Prince has focused his efforts on some of the more problematic investments (natural resources extraction), and problematic countries; DRC, Guinea, and South Sudan. Which should be appealing to problematic investors (based in Hong Kong).

So.  What can I say?

Sorry, Africa.

Rice distributed and sold in Liberia. Photo: Ruby Wright/Oxfam International

With Farm Bill negotiations simmering on the back burner and an all-consuming Congressional focus on dealing with the fiscal cliff, the Alliance for Global Food Security, a group of Private Voluntary Organizations who have opposed common sense reforms to food aid programs, took the opportunity to launch a new study on the use of food aid monetization—essentially the sale of agricultural commodities in developing countries—to generate revenues for use in development programs. The Value of Food Aid Monetization: benefits, Risks and Best Practices sets out to provide additional information and evidence on one of the thornier issues in food aid programs authorized through the Farm Bill.

The problem: As the report rightly notes, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, on more than one occasion criticized the practice of monetization as a wasteful and inefficient use of US assistance. In their most recent accounting, the GAO found that over a recent three year period, monetization resulted in a loss of $219 million. The reason? It’s difficult to recoup the full cost of purchase, shipment, and delivery of food aid in competitive transactions in developing countries. Cost recovery for monetization activities for USAID administered programs averaged 76 percent. Activities managed by USDA fared slightly worse.

Then there is the question of market impact. Concerns have long been raised (including in the GAO report) that monetized food aid can compete with locally produced goods (or more relevantly, goods produced by smallholder farmers in the same market/country), disrupting lives and livelihoods.

How the Alliance responds: The study produced by the Alliance admits that on a pure cost recovery basis, monetization programs score poorly. But fixating on how much money is lost in monetization only tells part of the story and ignores all the good that can come from selling food aid. To elaborate this point, the study looks at five monetization activities in Gambia, Guatemala, Uganda, Liberia and Mozambique.

So, what exactly does the report tell us?

• In the cases under review, monetization did not disrupt domestic production or marketing. A positive finding, though I suspect there would have been resistance to publishing cases in which monetization did disrupt markets;

• Even if not explicit, it’s pretty clear that monetization serves as an export promotion program and an export subsidy to US producers. Take this language from the Liberia case study in which rice is the monetized commodity: “The six importers [which dominate rice imports] would not import as much [US] parboiled rice commercially because it would be cost-prohibitive, which is overcome by selling in smaller lots and allowing incremental payments.” Is this why we have food aid programs, to promote US agriculture products abroad?

• Program results achieved from the monetization process (as opposed to the ones achieved with the resulting funds generated through monetization) demonstrate benefits in terms of improving food markets, though not necessarily agriculture markets. For instance, one of the key benefits of wheat sales in Uganda has been the contribution to a stronger milling sector. But no data is presented to demonstrate that the improved capacity of millers has resulted in stronger linkages with farmers, particularly smallholder farmers who are the subject of much focus in Feed the Future and other development programs.

And what does the report not tell us?

West Point Market in Monrovia, Liberia.Photo: Aubrey Wade/Oxfam GB

Whether the positive outcomes associated with the monetization program could be achieved through other means. The crux of the issue is not whether monetization proceeds fund good programs that benefit producers or consumers. It is whether monetization is really the only or the optimal means of achieving positive results. For example, several of the case studies note instances of increased market participation by small vendors because of favorable credit or financing provisions accompanying monetization schemes. But these outcomes could also be achieved through strengthening commercial financial services and other assistance provided directly to traders.

And finally, even if one agrees that this study presents compelling evidence that the practice of monetization should continue to be part of US food aid programs, it does not mean having to accept the status quo. If organizations continue to insist on monetization—and if by law a minimum amount of food aid must continue to be sold on markets—we need smart policies and strong guidance and indicators regarding outcomes and acceptable levels of loss in the program.  Provisions in the Senate-passed Farm Bill take a step in this direction by directing agencies practicing monetization to achieve at least 70 percent cost recovery (though USAID and USDA would have discretion to authorize monetization even in instances where this could not be achieved). Of the cases reviewed in this study, this level is met or exceeded in all but one instance. The Senate provisions would not have precluded any of the positive outcomes these activities appear to have achieved.

From the outside, losing 24 percent of aid resources on average in the process of monetization seems like a terrible waste of scarce resources. But what’s worse is that some aid groups that regularly practice monetization seem to be ok with this cost of doing business and are opposed to the Senate reforms. Shame on them. We should strive to do better.

With the 2012 election over, the lame-duck Congress is diving back into its unfinished business. First on their to-do list: funding the federal government for next year, including America’s efforts to fight global poverty and save lives. Will Congress protect life-saving aid? Or will Congress duck fiscal reality and common sense as they waddle through the budget gridlock?

Aid to fight poverty and help out in disasters is one of America’s proudest traditions—and smartest investments. For decades, American aid has helped people escape poverty and survive war and hunger.  US aid has helped end polio, fuel the Green Revolution, and rebuild shattered economies. It has also helped build some of America’s strongest allies, like Turkey, South Korea, and Poland. When you look at that record, and then consider the cost—less than one percent of the federal budget—your elected representatives in Washington would have to be quackers to vote to cut aid.

And yet aid, despite this legacy of success, global poverty assistance always seems to end up the ugly duckling of the federal budget. Perhaps it is because aid has a complicated story to tell. Of course aid doesn’t lift people or countries out of poverty—people do that themselves.

People like Cyiza Eliab in Rwanda who started a farm cooperative with his neighbors to grow corn and beans to help feed their families and earn an income. With a little help for USAID’s Feed the Future program, Cyiza‘s cooperative built a storage shed where corn is hung to dry, which reduced rot and increased profits.  With the additional income, Cyiza can educate his children and brighten their futures.

Or Kim Nay Heang, a 57-year-old entrepreneur from Cambodia who got USAID support to transform her household fishpond into a profitable business venture. With this income, Heang helped her family survive a dramatic spike in food prices—and provided an education for her five grandchildren.

Or Jose Ordoñez, a Honduran corn farmer who started to plant more profitable crops, like papaya, and is now able to transport the fruits to a market where they fetch a good price, travelling on rural roads constructed using U.S. assistance. He is now earning enough to secure his family’s future.

Farmers, entrepreneurs, nurses, teachers, watchdogs who call out corruption and abuse—these are America’s partners in the fight against global poverty. For decades, assistance from the US government has been there to help. Sure, we don’t always do it as well as we could. But when it pays off, we get a world that is better, safer, and more prosperous for everyone.

But telling how aid works is hard; holding up the example of money going to shiftless foreigners is easy. No wonder some politicians try to feather their own nests by saying aid is a waste. You can expect a flock of critics to peck holes in the foreign aid budget over the next few weeks. But don’t fall for it. Don’t let them wash poor people—or America’s values and interests—down the drain. Stand up and protect America’s poverty-fighting and life-saving aid.

Sarah Kalloch’s blog is cross-posted from Women Thrive Worldwide. Oxfam America is working with women’s groups that are actively working on ending violence against women and making links between violence against women and food security. 

World Food Day—October 16—falls right in the middle of Domestic Violence Awareness month. At first the connection between the two might seem tenuous. But as Oxfam’s GROW Campaign eloquently argues, “Hunger isn’t about too many people and too little food. Hunger is about inequality. And women and girls face the greatest inequalities of all”. When women are hungry, they are forced to make impossible choices and take untenable chances that make them vulnerable to violence.

Women grow the majority of the world’s food—and are also the majority of the world’s hungry because of vast inequalities in resources and power. Women farmers in the US still face a “grass ceiling”—denied access to billions in loans from the USDA.  And the situation is worse in developing countries, where women face discrimination in land ownership, lack of education, and little access to the capital, technology, and markets needed to make a living on the land. Women could feed up to 150 million more people if they had the same agricultural resources as men, according to a United Nations report.

But before women feed the world, they must feed themselves and their families—a simple act which exposes them up to violence, rape and abuse.

• In Bangladesh, women in households with lower food security are more at risk for physical and emotional abuse.
• Women in Bostwana who did not have enough to eat were twice as likely to have sold sex and were more likely to report a lack of control in sexual relationships.
• Women displaced by conflict in Darfur face further violence when they go to gather firewood and water.
• When food rations were cut at refugee camps in Tanzania in 2005, the World Food Program warned of an increased violence against women as women ventured further afield to feed their families and tensions rose in hungry households.
• Women from Canada to the Congo who have left abusive relationship or been victims of violence are often left economically vulnerable and food insecure.

This month, join Oxfam’s GROW Campaign and hold a WFD dinner with friends and family. Take time to talk about the amazing culture, community and power of food. Food security is human security. Women feed the world—they deserve the chance to feed their families free of violence.

[youtube width="560" height="315"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA6p0w2Xoqg[/youtube]

Credit: Oxfam America Action Corps and  Grazioso Pictures Inc.

Last week, I managed an (almost) zero mile meal. My backyard chickens provided eggs for a crustless quiche, flavored by garden-grown cherry tomatoes and basil, with freshly dug roasted potatoes on the side. The food was all local—almost. You need olive oil, salt and pepper to flavor, well, everything. And for dessert there was coffee and chocolate, wonderful foods that don’t grow so well in Massachusetts—but that do come in fair trade varieties that ensure small-scale farmers and farm workers around the world get a fair deal.

The meal was a reminder that “Eating Local” is just one part of the food justice equation. Buying fair trade is another. And there are many more. As Oxfam prepares to mark World Food Day on October 16, we’re thinking a lot about all the components of food justice. We hope you’ll do the same by holding a World Food Day meal and talking about how you can fight world hunger from your kitchen table.

Oxfam’s GROW Campaign recently released a report, Food Transformations, which detailed the power of consumers to contribute to global food security. For instance, meat production alone takes up eight percent of the world’s water supply. If a family of four substituted lentil burgers for beef burgers for just one night, they would save the equivalent of 17 bathtubs full of water. That is a small change with a powerful impact. To help consumers harness this power, Oxfam has launched the GROW Method, five easy ways to feed your family healthy and delicious meals while ensuring everyone on the planet has enough to eat, always.

The steps seem simple and straightforward: waste less food, eat local and seasonal, support small farmers worldwide, eat less meat, and cook smart. But nothing is simple when it comes to the politics of  the plate. When the USDA raised the idea of employees participating in Meatless Monday this summer, it sparked a political firestorm. Meanwhile, a stalled Farm Bill threatens to harm food security from Michigan to Mali, and ethanol mandates are requiring much needed food to be used as fuel. As food prices rise and Oxfam and other organizations warn of a potential global food crisis, the price of political and personal inaction also rises. Order our free World Food Day 2012 resources, and consider holding a World Food Day Meal to celebrate the culture and community, power and politics of food.

Livingstone Sewanyana. Source: http://www.fhri.or.ug

My name is Livingstone Sewanyana, and I am a human rights lawyer and Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) in Kampala, Uganda. I have worked in the field of human rights for 25 years at the national and international level. I support USAID’s Implementation and Procurement Reform, and I signed this letter to send a message to the US Congress that if they also want to fight corruption and promote development, they must work more with local people, the principal actors in the development process.

I have seen that development dollars, when directed at both the civil society groups and local governments, add more value and reduce the risk of waste and abuse. More support to local civil society actors means more support for campaigns against corruption. In Uganda, civil society groups like the Coalition Against Corruption and the Uganda Debt Network, among others, have spearheaded campaigns against corruption. Citizens are monitoring electoral votes to protect democracy, and Ugandan civil society has been instrumental in shining a light on development projects where there have been failures or misuse of funds.

In one high profile case, when the Ministry of Health misallocated funds, some of which came from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, citizen groups monitoring health care delivery discovered that funds were being misused. As Ugandan citizens, they were highly motivated, watching their fellow countrymen and women die due to lack of drugs and other related services. It was precisely because of strong civil society groups that the Global Fund was aware of the corruption. It was civil society efforts that led to an audit, which uncovered massive misuse of funds. Even a sophisticated operation like the Global Fund, which has in place safeguards to reduce corruption and increase transparency, needed local partners to hold their government accountable.

But the fight against corruption isn’t just about money—it is also about education, trust building and partnership. Groups like the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative work with both civil society organizations and local governments.

On the government side, we train local leaders, judiciaries, and Members of Parliament and their staff on human rights issues and legal procedures. This is especially important because Uganda adopted a decentralization policy in 1997 with an objective of bringing services closer to the people. While local governments are closer to the people, they do not always have the knowledge, skills and motivation to achieve this objective. So the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative has for several years engaged local government in programs that enhance their human rights knowledge, skills in budgeting and policy formulation and monitoring, and help them set up committees to develop initiatives targeting women, the disabled, and youth.

On the civil society side, we work with citizens to ensure they know their rights and can speak out when they detect problems or rights being violated. In order for these anti-corruption campaigns to be successful, there must be space for people to blow the whistle while knowing that they will be protected. Having the support of strong partners and leaders like the US can go a long way in making it easier.

As a human rights activist, I support initiatives like USAID Forward where the US government works more directly both with my government—even though it is not perfect—and through local civil society groups like mine, because direct support to these groups reaps high rewards in creating a better Uganda.

Are there more international laws on the trade of bananas than conventional weapons, like AK-47s?

The short answer is astonishingly, yes. The global trade in bananas or banana plants is governed by at least three binding global agreements and the non-binding, though strictly adhered to, Codex food code. The arms trade is not governed by any binding global agreements.

The long answer for those who need to know the details is:

1) Bananas: As agricultural products, the trade of bananas is governed by the World Trade Organization/Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. The goal of this agreement is to reform trade in the sector and to make policies more market-oriented and improve the predictability of global pricing.

AK-47s: No WTO agreement includes arms within its scope. In fact, Article XXI of the GATT exempts “the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.”

2) Bananas also fall under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the “SPS Agreement”). This Agreement sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards.

AK-47s: The arms trade is not governed by any legally-binding agreement covering all countries. While there are some international arms trade agreements, no global agreement is binding and most agreements are regional in scope and limited by significant gaps in coverage. For example, over 40 states are not part of any regional organization that maintains an arms trade control instrument.

3) Banana safety standards are set and governed on a voluntary basis by the international food code. The Codex Alimentarius contains recommendations for voluntary application but serves in many cases as a basis for national legislation and sets the standards for the SPS Agreement. While not technically binding, international commerce on food strictly adheres to the standards set out in the Codex.

AK-47s: There are no global standards on the arms trade in regard to when a particular arms transfer is or is not appropriate. Out of a total 154 countries that have reported, only 73 countries said they have basic controls on the export of AK-47s and other small arms.

4) Banana plants, as opposed to bananas, are also regulated by an international convention: the International Plant Protection Convention which aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing the introduction and spread of pests.

AK-47s: Only 56 governments have indicated they have specific crimes related to the illegal international transfer or illegal manufacturing of small arms. And astonishingly some countries do not even have criminal penalties associated with violating UN arms embargoes. (See Beyond Viktor Bout by Oxfam for details.)

Does it matter?

The fact that the world’s governments have come together to ensure the banana trade is governed by some basic rules and have not done so on the arms trade is a great concern. It is beyond ridiculous that governments and corporations are far more constrained by international law when trading bananas than when trading arms.

I have to admit that while the comparison between the amount of international law governing bananas as opposed to arms shows how absurd it is that there are no controls on the arms trade, there are significant differences between global commerce on each that need to be raised.

The goals of international agreements covering bananas are to reduce trade barriers, establish uniform enforcement of contracts, and prevent contamination of the global food supply. The primary goal of the a potential Arms Trade Treaty is to prevent conventional weapons from making their way into the hands of human rights abusers and from being used to perpetuate conflicts and undermine development. It is thus not surprising that because the goals are different the means for addressing the issue are different. Up to now, the major arms exporting states have preferred to forgo international agreements and instead address the process of making arms deals and limiting arms transfers to dangerous end-users through domestic law and regional agreements.

Notwithstanding these differences, the reluctance by countries to add global regulations on the arms trade has resulted in a patchwork international regulatory system where some states have strong controls and others have next to nothing.

The patchwork of laws allows irresponsible dealers and governments to operate in the black holes of the international regulatory system and supply weapons to entities that would use them to commit war crimes and human rights abuse with impunity.

If governments can get together to ensure food is safe and the price of bananas is free from protectionist policies, they should be able to come together and forge an Arms Trade Treaty that would save lives and protect livelihoods.

On April 5, the Federal New York District Court is expected to announce the sentence for Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer believed to be the inspiration for Nicolas Cage’s character in Hollywood’s “Lord of War,” who was found guilty of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

Viktor Bout (furthest on the left). Photo by Control Arms.

Though the sentencing marks a major victory for those who spent decades tracking Mr. Bout, it’s unlikely that he will ever serve justice for other alleged acts, such as supplying weapons to countries in violation of UN arms embargoes, selling weapons to abusive regimes unable to purchase weapons through the legal market, or fueling civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. That’s because Mr. Bout, like many arms dealers, is skilled at operating in the black holes of the international regulatory system and circumventing the jurisdiction of countries. Indeed, more can be done to prevent unnecessary death caused by the irresponsible and under-regulated arms trade.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Mr. Bout, it’s that the world needs an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). While the United States and a few other countries have strict laws regulating the arms trade, many countries still have weak, ineffective, or no regulations. For example, only 52 governments have laws regulating arms brokers and less than half of these have criminal or monetary penalties associated with illegal brokering. If more countries had stronger laws on the arms trade, Mr. Bout may have been held accountable for the crimes he allegedly committed.

An ATT would require countries to adopt strong laws that would govern the flow of weapons in and out of their borders and prevent weapons from reaching the hands of warlords and human rights abusers. When the world gathers at the United Nations this summer to negotiate the treaty, governments must make the most of the opportunity and close the loopholes that allow arms dealers like Mr. Bout to flourish on the suffering of others.

Unfortunately, opponents to the treaty, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), claim the United Nations will chip away at Americans’ right to own guns. This nonsense couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, an ATT would bring the rest of the world closer to the standards on international arms transfers followed by the United States; these standards do not affect US citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Unless more countries adopt rigorous standards and regulations, the United States and other countries will continue facing challenges apprehending irresponsible arms brokers.

For too long, innocent people have become victims of atrocious acts of violence and investigation because there are no international laws governing the cross-border sale of weapons. It’s time to close the loopholes and tackle the problem of the irresponsible arms trade.

Send a message to Secretary Clinton now asking her to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty on April 16.

If the ultimate goal of foreign aid is to help countries help themselves, then bypassing local organizations and governments in delivering aid defeats the purpose of aid. The United States and other donors know this, but it’s a hard habit to kick.

This bridge spanning the Sekong River, shown in 2007, is slated to be part of a highway connecting Laos and Cambodia. The bridge and highway will help Cambodians engage in trade with their neighbor. Brett Eloff / Oxfam America

Today, Oxfam releases a new report featuring new research from Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Malawi, and Tanzania, identifying the real challenges donors confront when they trust and support local leaders. We’ll be launching the report on Tuesday with remarks from Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), Ghanaian Member of Parliament Albert Kan-Dapaah, health activist Martha Kwataine from Malawi, and businessman Evans Rweikiza of the Tanzania Private Sector Foundation.

The report outlines nine concrete ways the US can be a better partner and get the most out of foreign assistance. Here’s what we found:

Worried about corruption?

1. Support the good ones: promising leaders and agencies who are changing their societies
2. Support political and civil rights activists to hold them accountable
3. Make a habit of pairing an investment in good government with an investment in “watchdogs” in civil society and the media

Worried that poor people won’t have enough capacity to do it for themselves?

4. Support partners for the long-term, avoid doing it for them
5. Support local institutions directly, so they can grow in professionalism and capacity

Worried poor countries might have different priorities than US aid agencies?

6. Strengthen existing local rules and systems to avoid duplicating their efforts
7. Show some trust: fund the priorities that recipients identify wherever possible
8. But demand performance
9. And encourage transparency

The bottom line: instead of trying to avoid risk, donors should accept and manage risk that comes with genuine partnership, as the only way to get real and lasting development successes.

Why partner now?

The fiscal and economic crises faced by rich countries are putting strains on the volume of aid they are willing to provide. And yet, the scale of the global poverty challenge remains enormous, with one billion people still living with hunger and poverty. While the world is making progress fighting poverty and hunger, that progress simply isn’t coming quickly enough for the poorest. To meet their needs, we need to try new approaches, and work in ways that help poor people lead the fight. That means taking risks to try new approaches and trusting recipients more.

And yet, Congress is often reluctant to let development professionals take on the risk of innovating new approaches. USAID is working to put more trust in poor people and governments; Congress needs to give US government agencies more latitude to trust recipients and build true partnerships—despite these risks. US policy makers and taxpayers need to support these efforts, beyond any partisan line, so the US can support the visions and efforts of people and their government through more effective aid.

Providing aid that is more useful to recipients offers new opportunities—but only if the US invests in building true partnerships with its aid. It is up to US policy makers and taxpayers to support these efforts, beyond any partisan line, so the US can rise to the occasion and step up during this closing window of opportunity on the world stage.

President Obama’s decision earlier this month to deploy approximately 100 US troops to central Africa in support of regional efforts to defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has attracted both praise and criticism. As one of the only international NGOs providing humanitarian aid in LRA-affected areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Oxfam’s primary concern is that any efforts to address the LRA learn from the mistakes of past counter-LRA efforts and ensure that the protection of civilians is at the center of any intervention.

This is not the first time that the United States has intervened militarily in pursuit of the rebel group. Since 2008, the US has provided more than 40 million dollars of logistical assistance, training, and equipment to support regional efforts against the LRA. In December 2008, the US supported Operation Lightning Thunder, a disastrous joint military campaign conducted by the armies of the DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. The operation not only failed to eliminate senior LRA leaders, but led to vicious reprisal attacks against civilians in eastern DRC and South Sudan, which killed approximately 865 women, men, and children. There is an even longer history of military campaigns by Uganda–where the LRA originated–which did little to dislodge senior leadership while inflicting massive suffering on the civilian population of northern Uganda.

Marie-Paul Kimakosa, 18, with 12 month-old son Emmanuel Mbolina, and Mado, 3 (sleeping). Formerly of Ngilima village, Marie-Paul lost her husband, her father, grand-father, grand-mother to the LRA. Two cousins have been kidnapped and not returned. She fled to Dungu where she has settled with other Internally Displaced Persons. Photo by Simon Rawles/Oxfam.

Focusing exclusively on military solutions to the LRA only deals with one piece of the problem: it is no coincidence that the LRA preys on villages in the most remote and underdeveloped areas of central Africa. The lack of basic infrastructure or effective protection by police, the Congolese military, or international peacekeepers makes vulnerable people easy targets for killing, abduction, and looting.

Although military experts have suggested that the LRA may have been significantly degraded militarily, it nevertheless retains the capacity to displace, abduct, rape, and kill hundreds of thousands. Nearly 440,000 people remain displaced by the LRA in the region, not including those who flee attacks for short periods of time and then return home. Such violence and displacement further entrench poverty and vulnerability for hundreds of thousands. Accordingly, the US needs to do much more to make these communities less vulnerable by developing infrastructure such as increased phone coverage and roads, but also by helping to address the absence of effective state presence and protection which made these areas attractive to the LRA in the first place and continue to allow them to operate freely today.

This is not just good sense; it is also the law. In May 2010, President Obama signed the bipartisan Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, which made it the policy of the US to “work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution” to LRA-affected areas by providing humanitarian aid and “providing political, economic, military and intelligence support” for both military and non-military strategies to defeat senior leadership of the LRA and disarm and demobilize lower-level fighters.

To operationalize this law, nearly a year ago the Obama administration released a strategy with four key objectives: to 1) increase protection of civilians, 2) ‘apprehend or remove from the battlefield Joseph Kony and senior commanders’, 3) promote defection and DDR (disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration) of LRA fighters, and 4) increase humanitarian access to LRA- affected communities. Some progress has been made over the past year since this groundbreaking strategy was announced, but much more still needs to be done.

Oxfam has conducted annual surveys in eastern DRC for the last five years to better understand the threats and challenges people face as well as their suggestions for national and international actions to help them live in safety and dignity. In 2011, Oxfam interviewed 322 people across nine LRA-affected communities in Haut Uélé Province; 62% of all those interviewed—and the vast majority of women and children—said that they felt less safe than last year.

One important way to help people to feel more secure is to ensure that the Congolese security forces actually protect people from the LRA and other threats. Unfortunately, people interviewed by Oxfam cited the Congolese police and army as both protective forces and as abusers of power. Accordingly, US efforts to combat the LRA should include supporting the security sector reforms that communities say will most directly improve their safety, including providing for soldiers’ pay and welfare, garrisoning troops to reduce tensions with communities, enhancing discipline and justice, and providing training in human rights. Next week, I’ll write more about the non-military means the US should pursue to defeat the LRA and help protect the hundreds of thousands of people who continue to leave in fear of rebel attacks.

Update 25 October 11: Today I live-tweeted Congress’ first-ever hearing on the LRA from the House of Representative’s Foreign Affairs Committee. It was great to see the strong bipartisan support from Committee Members for enhancing US involvement in helping to reduce the suffering caused by LRA. Not enough attention, however, was given to the non-military aspects of the LRA strategy including encouraging the demobilization of lower-level fighters and providing humanitarian and development assistance. In response, Oxfam America released this statement reminding policymakers of the obligation under the law to take a more comprehensive approach.