Right before recess last week, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA) re-introduced the Global Partnerships Act (H.R. 1793), the first major rewrite of foreign assistance legislation in decades. The bill is an enormous accomplishment, created through a three-year effort led by former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Howard Berman.

Source: Brookings Institution, 2006.

A rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act is long past due. US Foreign Assistance programs have not been reauthorized since 1986; the underlying law dates from 1961. The problem isn’t just the quaint and kitschy references to Kampuchea, East Pakistan, or Zaire; it’s the fact that good legislation should actually help US government implementers do their job well, and should help Congress conduct effective oversight. On both counts, the existing system is failing miserably (see chart).

Like most huge pieces of legislation, this one offers something for (almost) everyone—Pollyannas and pessimists alike. Cynics will be quick to point out that, with 889 pages and no Republican co-sponsors, this bill is hardly on a fast track to enshrinement in the US Code.

But such cynicism misses the point. An effort like the Berman/Connolly bill is not only important once it becomes law. It can also be important for the conversation it drives among different stakeholders. As we’ve noted before, the most important reason to update foreign aid legislation is to try to get a new consensus between the President, the Congress, and the American people about what we’re actually trying to achieve with our development programs and what success looks like. And the Berman/Connolly bill provides a wealth of specific improvements for policymakers to convene around, including, but not limited to:

• linking US funding priorities to country-level planning (Sec. 1018);
• greater aid transparency and predictability (Sec. 8301); and
• better coordination of US efforts to promote trade & investment in partner countries (Sec. 7002).

Oxfam has heard from local leaders in the field that recent US reform efforts are starting to get noticed. But few of these reforms have actually made it into law. Without legislation to protect these reforms—and more important, without political consensus around them—it’s possible many reforms won’t stick long enough to really pay off for people in the developing world.

We don’t expect Congress is going to swallow the Berman/Connolly bill whole. But it’s worth them spending some time chewing on it, trying to figure out where they can make real progress towards a new political consensus around US development efforts.

***

Here’s what else I had to say about the bill from last week’s InterAction Forum:

Five Minutes at Forum with Greg Adams from InterAction on Vimeo.

The President’s State of the Union address last night contained a lesser announcement of the launching of a US-EU free trade agreement:

“And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

This idea has been floating for some months, pushed more from the European side than the US. The US and EU are already massive trading partners with mostly low tariffs and few serious trade disputes.  Nonetheless, making a trade marriage of it has hurdles.  The crux of the US-EU deal will be regulatory and ‘behind the border’ issues.  For example, both the US and EU have extensive farm subsidies and have been critical of one another.  Europeans have some regulatory measures that US exporters see as problematic. (Think GMOs.)

The question is—do developing countries have a stake in this?

The answer is—they could.

What if both sides committed to embracing the pro-development trade policies of the other to harmonize and improve the trade opportunities for poor countries?  The US has a handful of “trade preference” programs that offer special access to developing countries, like the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the African Grown and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and regional programs for the Caribbean and Andean countries.  The Europeans have the “Everything But Arms” initiative that offers free export access to least developed countries.

Each side has some pros, and also some cons.  Very broadly, the European program is broader (more products included) and more generous (zero tariffs) than anything the US offers.  But the US programs,  especially AGOA, offer more favorable “rules of origin,” which help poor countries export more complex products like garments, rather than being stuck exporting low-value commodities and products.

Neither the US, nor the EU provide full “duty-free, quota-free” access for all least developed countries (LDCs), which has been a key goal for development advocates in the long-stalled Doha Round trade negotiations.  In fact, LDCs have not seen any of the promised outcomes from the so-called “development round” of the World Trade Organization.  Their request to extend the soon-to-expire exemption to implement intellectual property rules for LDCs has failed to gain support from the US in particular.

If the US and EU want to demonstrate global leadership and do something very positive for the world, they could start by using the trade agreement negotiations to start a “race to the top” in creating economic opportunities for poor countries.

Imagine this:  in a few months, the heads of most of the biggest and most important countries will get together for a couple of days.  A few leaders from developing countries will tag along.  The media will cover the event in detail because…well, because why not?  And for a few hours, a lot of the world’s power and attention will be focused in a single place.

What if I told you that the agenda for the meeting isn’t set, and that the outcomes of the meeting have not yet been decided?  Do you think you might have some ideas?

This is the G8 summit, a traveling carnival that reappears every year.  Leaders of some of the most powerful countries gather to discuss weighty topics.  Sometimes they make big promises.  Sometimes they don’t.

For anti-poverty campaigners, this combination of factors is absolutely irresistible.  Or it might be better to say that ignoring such an opportunity would be absolutely irresponsible.  If you believe in making a difference, advancing a cause, having an impact, changing policies and the world, you really must try to take advantage of the G8 summit—and it’s supporting processes and negotiations—for your mission.

Despite some significant and measurable achievements, the G8 and campaigners at the summit have come under some criticism in recent years.  The argument is that while it’s an enormous public relations event, it has a declining value as a negotiating venue and achievements are only symbolic.  Some argue that a better target is the G20.  Others argue that these summits are all losing (or have long lost) their significance.

But if the G8 and the G20 didn’t exist, would anti-poverty campaigners have to invent them?  There’s just no bigger and better way to get these global issues onto a world stage and put pressure on critical leaders to make commitments and then follow them up.  Done.

On Wednesday a coalition of UK groups, including Oxfam, launched the “Enough food for everyone IF” campaign.  The goal is to push Prime Minister David Cameron “relentlessly and every which way” to take action on hunger with the G8.  The campaign has a platform that includes promoting more foreign assistance, clamping down on tax dodging by big companies, stopping land-grabs, and increasing transparency.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi38ZtG4NhM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I like this effort.  It’s positive without being pandering.  There are some real asks that aren’t easy, but aren’t completely unreasonable.  It has focus, but there’s enough room for a broad coalition.  (For additional commentary about the campaign, see these posts from Duncan Green of Oxfam UK, David Harewood of Cafod, David McNair of Save the Children UK, Lawrence Haddad of IDS, and Leni Wild of ODI and Sarah Mulley of IPPR.)

What many seem to miss is that if the campaign and this year’s G8 will be a success, the US will have to step up and take a lead.  The issue of food security and agriculture has actually been championed more by the US than other G8 members in the past.  President Obama managed a modest coup by pulling a significant agriculture and food security initiative out of the otherwise embarrassingly disorganized G8 in 2009, hosted by Silvio Berlusconi.

But what can President Obama deliver this time round?  For now, the newly re-inaugurated President is putting together his team.  Senator Kerry at State Department and Jack Lew at Treasury will both have a hand in the G8 discussions, assuming they are confirmed by the Senate.  President Obama’s key staffer on the G8, National Security Council aide Michael Froman, is strongly rumored to be moving into a new job as the US Trade Representative.  So there’s a lot of uncertainty and movement.

Let’s hope President Obama gets his team in place and his game-plan organized, so we can make something big out of this year’s G8.

Fear of heights has consumed Washington; more specifically the fear of the dreaded fiscal cliff. The stakes are big if President Obama and House Speaker Boehner hold hands and drive over the cliff, like the Washington version of the final scene of Thelma and Louise. The defense sector faces more than $50b in cuts and a million jobs lost. Already unemployed people will lose benefits. Employed people will pay higher payroll taxes. Doctors who see elderly patients will get lower payments. The agriculture sector is concerned about how higher estate taxes will hit farm land prices.

Wall Street expresses a lot of concern about the fiscal cliff. But the financial sector doesn’t have a direct stake in the political drama. Financial taxes won’t go up, investors will continue buying and selling, traders will still make money. Even while much of America is still struggling economically, the titans of finance are back in the black with profits, big bonuses, and parties.

Which raises a question: how is the financial sector contributing to digging the country out of the budget hole? The hole created by the economic crisis? The economic crisis that was created by the financial sector’s mismanagement, irresponsible risk-taking, and gross misbehavior?

Really, not much.

I have argued that a Robin Hood tax is justified on that basis—in addition to other reasons. But it was shouting into the wind. President Obama hasn’t supported it and there seemed no chance that Congress would embrace the idea. But maybe a window of opportunity is opening…

Robin Hood activists outside the San Francisco office of Rep. Pelosi. Photo by The Robin Hood Tax.

A likely outcome of the negotiations around the fiscal cliff is a punt. Congress and President Obama can put off the most severe cuts and tax increases in the hope that a broader and more comprehensive deal can be forged later. So, a second act is in discussion that would involve a significant tax reform. Tax reform, as the term is used in Washington, generally means trying to do four interrelated things: simplify the rules, broaden the base, lower the rates, increase (or reduce) revenue. Simplifying the rules is self-explanatory, except that the complexity is usually there for a reason—and behind every tax deduction is a lobbyist (or 10) working hard to keep it. “Broadening the base” means increasing the tax base, or the number of people and activities that are taxed. That will tend to increase tax revenues. Lowering rates is what politicians love to do: give away goodies to voters! Raising or lowering revenue can be done most simply by raising or lowering rates. But there are other strategies, like creating new deductions and exemptions.

A big tax measure comes around every 10 or 15 years. So we’re due.

Big tax bills are monsters: huge, complicated and sometimes politically dangerous. Once they start moving, they become vehicles for all sorts of ideas and initiatives. They are heavily lobbied by every possible special interest and group. So the question is whether a tax reform might offer an opportunity to push a Robin Hood tax, that asks for a bigger contribution from the financial sector and uses the revenues to pay for critical social needs.  That would be broadening the base. And raising revenues.

Something to consider.

In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, we are experiencing a potential shift in the political tides on climate change. Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama Thursday, citing climate change, thrust climate issues into the political debate. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy have also made strong statements calling climate change a reality and calling for more preparedness and reforms in its wake. The media is becoming more willing to connect the dots and call a spade a spade.

Let’s not forget that climate change has ushered in a “new normal” for many communities around the world. Up and down the east coast, many Americans are experiencing the same sense of helplessness, and maybe some level of solidarity with people who are more vulnerable to extreme weather events than those of us who have the resources to cope and institutions able to support us through crisis. The startling images of Sandy remind us of how these crises must feel in places without the kind of support we are able to provide our fellow Americans. Places like Bangladesh, a least developed country with most of its population living in poverty, the majority living in low-lying areas highly vulnerable to floods, storms, and saltwater intrusion. Let’s not forget that Hurricane Sandy itself claimed more than 50 lives in Haiti where cholera is an acute public health threat and communities are still recovering from the earthquake that devastated that country less than two years ago.

So we should seize this temporary moment of realization about the threats all of us face to push forward towards a global response to climate change to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions levels and to direct resources those who need it most to build their preparedness. With the US election tomorrow and the next round of UN climate negotiations happening later this month, we have an opportunity to usher in a new political dynamic on this issue. The onus is now on the American public to hold our political leaders accountable for demonstrating new and sustained leadership on this global crisis. We owe it to the people who lost their lives in this awful storm, and to the estimated 400,000 people who lose their lives every year due to climate-related disasters.

Americans recognize a problem when we see it. But what happens when that problem continues to worsen year after year, and leaders are reluctant to speak its name?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of workers under the federal poverty line rose to a 20 year high in 2010, the last year analyzed. The number of working poor families in America, many who work multiple jobs, has steadily risen each year since 2005, even before the recession.

Still, after three Presidential debates, neither candidate has spoken about how to address this issue. To be fair, Governor Romney has mentioned poverty five times, and President Obama has spoken about those “who want to climb to the middle class” without being explicit. But neither took the opportunity to detail how their policy agenda will help the working poor. Thought leaders as diverse as Michael Reagan, the pundit and son of President Ronald Reagan, the USA Today editorial board, and former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Lynn Woolsey have each expressed surprise or dismay that the working poor are not a part of this campaign’s debates.

Speaking up for the working poor is not only vital, but it is a winning argument that resonates with a majority of Americans who want to find viable solutions.

Ignoring the issue of poverty is a missed opportunity according to new polling commissioned by the American Values Network. In total, 87 percent of voters, a strong majority of respondents across ideological lines, believe the working poor should be a top or important government priority.

The next Congress and President will make decisions that could significantly impact these families’ income and economic mobility. The survey tested which arguments voters found most compelling in support of policies addressing poverty and for cutting such efforts. When asked to choose between the best argument in support of government initiatives to help struggling families and the best argument for cutting those programs, 58% of respondents found the messages supporting government poverty programs more convincing. Whoever is on Capitol Hill or in the White House after this election should take note.

The poll, conducted among 1005 voters nationwide by the Prime Group between September 26-30, also found voters say candidates who address the issue of poverty as more trustworthy and authentic than those who focus solely on the middle class.

And we’re seeing renewed political interest as American s have come together across the country and online to elevate the discussion of the working poor. Earlier this month, Oxfam joined with Sojourners, World Vision and Bread for the World to launch the documentary film, “The Line”, to highlight the story of hard working American families doing everything right but still struggling in poverty. We could never have imagined the response: over 2,000 screenings in churches, community centers and homes in every state in the union, attended by tens of thousands of people since the film premiered Oct 2. People have gathered to talk about growing poverty in our communities and start a conversation they do not see their leaders having. You can still sign up at http://thelinemovie.com/ to host a screening and join the conversation.

At the film’s premiere, Rev. Jim Wallis encouraged a crowd of 400 in DC plus online viewers to encourage our Presidential candidates to #TalkPoverty and take the conversation to social media. The Half in Ten Campaign has spearheaded the response by grassroots communities who have used Twitter to ask our leaders to discuss their plans for addressing poverty. In 24 hours after the second Presidential debate, these messages reached over 700,000 followers.

Americans care about these issues and they are not afraid to act. But will our leaders listen?

It was an interesting debate. The thrust and parry.

But it was a big disappointment for those of us who wanted to hear about foreign policy. Very little beyond the “Middle East”, Afghanistan, with a little China thrown in. Heavy on the big D. Light on the lesser d’s.

“Poor” appeared twice—in the context of Medicaid. “Poverty” not at all. Romney mentioned “foreign aid” in the context of how to spur economic development.

See the word cloud:  http://www.usglc.org/2012/10/23/word-cloud/

There’s still a couple weeks, so maybe the candidates will remember the rest of the world.

Tonight’s the last debate between President Obama and Governor Romney. This one is advertised as the “foreign policy” debate.

US foreign engagement is often described as resting on a three-legged stool; the three “Ds”. Defense, diplomacy, and development. The Obama administration, and Secretary Clinton in particular, has always emphasized that diplomacy and development are equal partners of the three. In past Presidential debates, US financial contributions to foreign assistance and reducing poverty were occasionally topics. During a 2000 debate, then-Governor Bush and Vice President Gore talked about their views, prodded by a question from Jim Lehrer.

I’m guessing that the last “D”, development, will be missing this time round.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer will moderate tonight and has announced an agenda with topics ranging from Afghanistan to the Middle East, with a bit of terrorism thrown in. Also China. But no airtime for development, foreign assistance. There’s a lot to talk about, actually; the outstanding progress made on some counts and the terrible failure on others. The fate of initiatives launched by President Bush during his term to address AIDS and new foreign aid programs for poor countries with good governance. The new initiatives launched under President Obama on food security and health.

Some politicians (former and possibly future) still think it’s worth talking about and supporting.

But, in all likelihood, issues that matter to the roughly 1.3 billion people who live in and with poverty—and to the hundreds of millions of US taxpayers who pay for these programs—won’t make an appearance.

To make the debates go better, a lot of my friends play drinking games. They’re generally designed to crystalize and shatter the clichés, pierce the banality, and give life to the predictable.

So, I’ll make a game of it. If either candidate mentions “poverty” or “poor people” or even something close, I’ll give $25 to their campaign. If either candidate makes something like a defense of foreign aid, or talks about US obligations—moral and otherwise—to the least of us, I’ll donate $100.

Should make it more interesting.

Editor’s note:  At 9 pm tonight, hundreds of Oxfam America supporters will raise their voices to change the conversation by calling attention to the fight to end hunger and poverty during the debates. How? By signing up on Thunderclap to tweet and post to Facebook. Join us.  

I asked the question whether President Obama could surpass the rather low standard set by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi when Italy hosted the G8 in 2009.

The parallels are eerie. In the wake of an earthquake, Berlusconi, made a grandiose gesture of moving the G8 from Sardinia to the ravaged L’Aquila. It was a symbolic statement that Italy would rebuild L’Aquila, although it was a logistical nightmare.

Yesterday, California had an earthquake as well. But President Obama eschewed the Italian grand gesture. Instead, he retreated, moving the G8 meeting from his home town, Chicago, to his mountain redoubt, Camp David.

Berlusconi eating spaghetti. Ilaria DiBagio/Oxfam-UCODEP

In fairness, the California earthquake wasn’t so bad, so making a grand symbolic gesture about rebuilding wasn’t really called for. But the symbolism and purpose of Obama’s move to Camp David aren’t yet clear. The White House, in a short explanatory statement, said, “To facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G8 partners, the President is inviting his fellow G8 leaders to Camp David on May 18-19 for the G8 Summit, which will address a broad range of economic, political and security issues.”

The Occupy movement declared a sort of victory, tweeting: “#BREAKING: #G8 Summit is retreating from Chicago to Camp David, afraid they might have to listen to the voice of the people. #OWS #winning”

The City Mayor Rahm Emanuel (former Obama Chief of Staff) demurely said, “We wish President Obama and the other leaders well at the G8 meeting at Camp David and look forward to hosting the NATO Summit in Chicago.”

For the rest of us, there’s confusion. Oxfam and others had hoped that this G8 summit would be an opportunity for President Obama to launch the next generation of the G8 food security initiative that was launched in 2009. Does moving the G8 summit out of sight and out of reach make this more likely? Is it easier for leaders to make commitments when they’re holed up on a mountain?

I have my doubts. But we haven’t yet seen or heard from President Obama about what his ambitions are for the meeting.

Perhaps his main purpose is to contribute to the slow asphyxiation of the G8. This might, in fact, be a good thing to do. But if that’s the plan, why not say so and just kill it off?

On May 19, Barack Obama will become President of the developed world, for all intents and purposes. That’s when the G8 meeting begins in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago. He will host the heads of the eight most important and powerful countries, and a raft of other dignitaries and officials, in an annual summit that has a rich history and a record of accomplishment.

In every year, the host uses the G8 for their own personal and political advantage, with photo-ops looking powerful and “presidential,” shaking hands with other world leaders, and discussing the most important political and economic issues of the day. In some years, the host has used the G8 summit to promote important international agendas. Increasing foreign assistance, responding to the AIDS crisis, the cause of Africa’s development, reducing the burdensome debt of poor countries; each has featured prominently in past G8 summits.

So, what’s President Obama’s agenda for his G8?

President Obama was the driving force behind the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative at the 2009 G8 hosted by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. What is his ambition for the Chicago summit in May? Photo by Ilaria DiBiagio/Oxfam-UCODEP.

Strangely, we don’t know. With less than three months to go till the summit, things are still very vague from the White House—which is frustrating and could signal a missed opportunity of historic scale. Even if he wins re-election, President Obama will only get to host one G8, this one. So this is his chance to set a big outcome, to deliver a big international win.

A natural area for President Obama to push would be around food security and agriculture development. This has been a keystone international development theme for his Administration, embodied in the Feed the Future initiative. And President Obama used the 2009 G8 summit in Italy to launch the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative which cajoled and leveraged other donors to make funding commitments and to improve their donorship practice. Although former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gets the credit for L’Aquila, President Obama was the driving force.

But for now, we don’t know what President Obama is thinking. What’s his ambition? What’s the goal? Perhaps there’s a secret plan; although we hear, through colleagues and whispers, that other G8 leaders (and G20) are confused and are waiting for a signal from President Obama.

The G8 comes in for a lot of criticism—and rightfully so. It’s an exclusive, rich-man’s club. But the G8 summits have also delivered some impressive outcomes, brought global attention to neglected issues, and helped mobilize the international community around important concerns. Silvio Berlusconi set pretty low standards for behavior in his career. But it would be a shame if historians wrote that Berlusconi delivered a more meaningful G8 summit than President Obama.