#
re: How do development and foreign policy connect? @ Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:47 AM
With faulty instruments and inadequate vision development intervention, military force and diplomacy are at present irreconcilable. An intellectual case can be made for recognising the linkages between peace keeping, emergency aid and reconstruction, with poverty reduction dependent upon their combined success. Soldiers, aid workers, businesspeople and supporting diplomats would all seem to have a role as partners within such a grand picture. All would need to talk to each other or at least feel part of a master plan. But there is no indication of a realistic grand picture or plan in any of the countries in which UK is now engaged. In Afghanistan for instance, keeping peace is actually war; the apparent assumption that ‘development’ can be put in during the closed season for fighting does not fit with any current DFID view of its capabilities and commercial development consists in destroying the poppy crop. Where lies the problem? Is it in the weakness of the instruments; the soldier who cannot avoid collateral damage, the businessman – if there at all – who appears as a thief of national assets, the aid donor who takes years to trickle out the conditional goods, the diplomat more intent on ‘war by other means’ than harmony and understanding? Or is it that we have far too simple a view of the good society that we seek to impose; one that is centrally ordered, with periodic voting and, of course, a free market – the post Washington consensus: trumpeted as virtue, except when we don’t like the outcome?
#
re: How do development and foreign policy connect? @ Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:14 AM
On the question of values, I had occasion to re-read a selection of recent ministerial speeches, and thought there were some strong statements which could usefully be linked together into a new narrative about social justice or social inclusion seen from a global perspective. Some key quotes are:
Gordon Brown, UN, 31 July: called for a ‘new age of empowerment’ and said ‘our task is to support and empower you in the open, transparent decision making and reforms you need to make’. He talked about being ‘committed to the rights of every child’.
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, 12 November: talked about ‘the timeless values that underpin our policies at home – our belief in the liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity and environmental protection shared by all’. He said ‘it is possible for the first time in human history, to contemplate and create a global society that empowers people’.
David Miliband – Bruges speech, 15 November: ‘across Europe, people are feeling a divergence between the freedom and control they have in their personal lives, and the sense of powerlessness they face against the great global challenges we face: from preventing conflict and terrorism, to addressing climate change, energy security, and religious extremism. They are confident about personal progress, but pessimistic about societal progress’.
Douglas Alexander, Washington Speech, 12 July: ‘we must now advance the case for change by better articulating the commonly held values around which we must rally the whole international community . . . we must be driven by core values, not special interests. Our place in the world depends on us making choices based on values – values like opportunity, responsibility, justice.’
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:58 AM
by
Simon Maxwell
For a long time, the development aid community has worked to ring-fence aid and ensure that it is used specifically for ‘poverty reduction’. Historically, this has its roots in the often well-founded fear that ‘they’ would use ‘our’ money to further geo-strategic political or commercial interests that could only loosely be described as developmental – supporting some states, punishing others, using aid money to fund repression, diverting aid money to help rich country companies, and so on. Specific cases have been central to the aid debate for a generation – from US aid to Israel, Egypt and South Vietnam, through the scandal of the Pergau Dam, to EU aid for the ring of friends in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. Administrative and legislative instruments have been used to reinforce the stockade – whether restrictive rules on what can legitimately be claimed as official development assistance (oda), agreed by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, or the passage of the International Development Act in the UK, which limits the use of aid to poverty reduction.
But what if ‘we’ and ‘they’ were actually on the same side? What if ‘we’ (development ministries, say) and ‘they’ (foreign ministries, say, or defence ministries, or trade ministries or environment ministries) were trying to grapple together with intractable and inter-related challenges, in countries and regions with complex collations of political, military and developmental problems? Sierra Leone, for example? The Horn of Africa? Even Afghanistan? What if, in these and many other cases, the values and objectives were shared, but the instruments were independently owned by different agencies and differentially funded? What if aid ministries were relatively rich, and foreign or trade or environment ministries (and even defence ministries) relatively poor? Would it make sense to reconsider the acute ring-fencing that currently prevails?
Many have been grappling with these questions. On the one hand, attempts have been made to map the boundaries between different actors and define better the rules of engagement when they find themselves engaged on the same terrain: such is the case, for example, with the military and humanitarian communities. On the other hand, donors have recognised the need for a more integrated approach, for example by creating special funds which are jointly owned across Government: the UK’s Africa and Global Conflict Pools are examples, now merged alongside a single, new Stabilisation Aid Fund; the Canadian Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START) and Global Peace and Security Fund (GPSF) are others. The EU has regional strategies (for example for the Horn of Africa). The US has probably taken the ideas furthest, with a discourse of transformational diplomacy and the creation of an integrated Africa Command, currently based in Stuttgart, incorporating both military and aid components. Internationally, the adoption of new doctrine on the Responsibility to Protect, and the setting up of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, reflect a similar concern for coherent analysis, better early warning, and more effective and integrated action.
In the UK, this issue has moved to the centre of the policy stage. Speaking at the Mansion House in November 2007, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said
‘If we are to honour the responsibility to protect we urgently need a new framework to assist reconstruction. With the systematic use of earlier Security Council action, proper funding of peacekeepers, targeted sanctions - and their ratcheting up to include the real threat of international criminal court actions - we must now set in place the first internationally agreed procedures to prevent breakdowns of states and societies.
But where breakdowns occur, the UN - and regional bodies such as the EU and African Union - must now also agree to systematically combine traditional emergency aid and peacekeeping with stabilisation, reconstruction and development.
There are many steps the international community can assist with on the ladder from insecurity and conflict to stability and prosperity. So I propose that, in future, Security Council peacekeeping resolutions and UN Envoys should make stablisation, reconstruction and development an equal priority; that the international community should be ready to act with a standby civilian force including police and judiciary who can be deployed to rebuild civic societies; and that to repair damaged economies we sponsor local economic development agencies ---- in each area the international community able to offer a practical route map from failure to stability.’
It is not difficult to imagine the questions that might arise in implementing this vision. And they stretch well beyond the fragile states agenda into questions of how we deal with global security or with climate change. For example:
What are the shared values that operate across the development, humanitarian, foreign policy, military and environmental spheres? What is meant by a ‘progressive foreign policy’ or its Conservative equivalent?
Does the new doctrine of integrated engagement apply only to current or potential ‘fragile states’ (however defined), or more widely?
Should humanitarian action be co-opted to this agenda or does it have a special status?
Who is responsible for defining and managing integrated strategies, and with what accountability?
What (in the International Development Act and more widely) is meant by ‘poverty reduction’? What can money legitimately be spent on?
Should the DAC criteria on what is allowable as oda be revised?
What would be the implications of an integrated approach for the level, geographical allocation and sectoral composition of spending?
Even if aid money remains ring-fenced, would a better appreciation of the foreign policy or defence or environmental context change spending priorities?
We are planning a meeting series which will explore these questions, using a combination of conceptual challenges, institutional perspectives and geographical case studies.
Related projects
Making oil and gas work for inclusive development: lessons from the South May 2008 - June 2008
Results of PSIAs on Bank operations April 2008 - September 2008
Reviewing the Results of Poverty and Social Impact Analysis on Bank Operations and In-Country Policy Formulation April 2008 - September 2008
2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration March 2008 - December 2008
2007 Pakistan National Survey of HIV & STIs March 2008 - April 2008
Aid for Trade: Promoting Inclusive Growth March 2008 - September 2009
Innocenti Child Rights March 2008 - September 2008
PRS Training 2008 March 2008 - December 2008
Political Diagnostics and Growth February 2008 - March 2008
PFM Training Maputo February 2008 - February 2008
Study on Aid Instruments in Fragile States February 2008 - April 2008
GAVI Alliance Gender Policy Development January 2008 - June 2008
Millennium Villages Project Review January 2008 - December 2008
2008 Progress Report on the Paris Declaration January 2008 - March 2008
Backstopping support to SDC 2008 January 2008 - December 2008
Mutual Accountability Concept Note January 2008 - November 2008
Educational Support Programme (EMMME) December 2007 - January 2008
Background paper for 2008 Commonwealth Conference of Auditors General December 2007 - May 2008
Country Governance Analysis Policy Review December 2007 - March 2008
Approaches to assessing multilateral performance December 2007 - January 2008
DFID Human Rights Practice Review December 2007 - March 2008
Human Rights Practice Review December 2007 - March 2008
Learning Event on Promoting Pro-Poor Growth December 2007 - December 2007
Review of Global Health Partnerships December 2007 - March 2008
Trade Policy, Trade and Investment Promotion November 2007 - February 2008
HIV AIDS Education Communications Strategy - Tanzania Workshop November 2007 - December 2007
Study on social protection and children in West and Central Africa November 2007 - September 2008
Synergy between bilateral and multilateral activities November 2007 - January 2008
Fragile State Analysis and Baseline October 2007 - January 2008
World Bank Guidance Note on PRS / Budget Links October 2007 - December 2007
Parliamentary strengthening case studies October 2007 - April 2008
Tanzania Scenario Analysis September 2007 - December 2007
China in Africa September 2007 - March 2008
Policy coherence for Development: Synthesis Report September 2007 - January 2008
Sindh Education Reform Programme August 2007 - February 2012
Wilton Park Democracy Papers August 2007 - September 2007
Commitment to Development Index Launch August 2007 - December 2007
Funding Sources of UN Agencies in Malawi August 2007 - September 2007
Quality of Aid - advisor to CGD August 2007 - January 2008
Policy Paper on taxation and accountability July 2007 - October 2007
Africa Power & Politics Programme (APPP) July 2007 - June 2012
Budget Support, Aid Instruments and the Environment - The country context July 2007 - February 2008
Design of a Climate Change Innovation Programme (CCIP) for India July 2007 - December 2007
Spatial disparities and development policy June 2007 - November 2007
EUROsociAL June 2007 - December 2007
SPA Budget Support Surveys 2007 and 2008 June 2007 - March 2009
Joint Learning Programme on SWAps: Cambodia June 2007 - August 2007
Mapping the Global Partnership for Development: Country-level mappings of global issues, external policies and country contexts. June 2007 - March 2008
Norad Country Evaluation – Zambia June 2007 - August 2007
Irish Aid Selection of 10th Programme Country - Statistical Indicators May 2007 - June 2007
Facilitator CAPS Results Framework May 2007 - May 2007
Analytical Paper on State-Building May 2007 - July 2007
Project Completion Reports for DFID Budget Support Programmes 04/05 and 05/06 May 2007 - May 2007
Assessment of Paris Baseline Survey Findings May 2007 - June 2007
Re-thinking aid policy in response to Zimbabwe's protracted crisis May 2007 - June 2007
UNCT Rwanda Liaison May 2007 - June 2007
Scoping DFID's Policy on Human Rights April 2007 - October 2007
Strengthening Public Expediture Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina April 2007 - June 2007
Short Term Consultancy for Strategic Conflict Assessment April 2007 - May 2007
2007 Annual Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations April 2007 - September 2007
Application of the Performance Based Allocation (PBA) System to Fragile States April 2007 - June 2007
EU Aid Effectiveness April 2007 - June 2007
ODI/AAPPG Meetings Series: Parliaments and Development April 2007 - May 2007
Strategic Governance and Corruption Assessments April 2007 - March 2009
Nepal Participatory Poverty Assessment March 2007 - June 2007
# Central Asia » Blog Archive » Food for thought: International aid @ Monday, December 03, 2007 7:39 PM
PingBack from http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/12/03/food-for-thought-international-aid/Central Asia » Blog Archive » Food for thought: International aid
# re: How do development and foreign policy connect? @ Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:47 AM
With faulty instruments and inadequate vision development intervention, military force and diplomacy are at present irreconcilable. An intellectual case can be made for recognising the linkages between peace keeping, emergency aid and reconstruction, with poverty reduction dependent upon their combined success. Soldiers, aid workers, businesspeople and supporting diplomats would all seem to have a role as partners within such a grand picture. All would need to talk to each other or at least feel part of a master plan. But there is no indication of a realistic grand picture or plan in any of the countries in which UK is now engaged. In Afghanistan for instance, keeping peace is actually war; the apparent assumption that ‘development’ can be put in during the closed season for fighting does not fit with any current DFID view of its capabilities and commercial development consists in destroying the poppy crop. Where lies the problem? Is it in the weakness of the instruments; the soldier who cannot avoid collateral damage, the businessman – if there at all – who appears as a thief of national assets, the aid donor who takes years to trickle out the conditional goods, the diplomat more intent on ‘war by other means’ than harmony and understanding? Or is it that we have far too simple a view of the good society that we seek to impose; one that is centrally ordered, with periodic voting and, of course, a free market – the post Washington consensus: trumpeted as virtue, except when we don’t like the outcome?Donald Curtis
# re: How do development and foreign policy connect? @ Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:14 AM
On the question of values, I had occasion to re-read a selection of recent ministerial speeches, and thought there were some strong statements which could usefully be linked together into a new narrative about social justice or social inclusion seen from a global perspective. Some key quotes are:Gordon Brown, UN, 31 July: called for a ‘new age of empowerment’ and said ‘our task is to support and empower you in the open, transparent decision making and reforms you need to make’. He talked about being ‘committed to the rights of every child’.
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, 12 November: talked about ‘the timeless values that underpin our policies at home – our belief in the liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity and environmental protection shared by all’. He said ‘it is possible for the first time in human history, to contemplate and create a global society that empowers people’.
David Miliband – Bruges speech, 15 November: ‘across Europe, people are feeling a divergence between the freedom and control they have in their personal lives, and the sense of powerlessness they face against the great global challenges we face: from preventing conflict and terrorism, to addressing climate change, energy security, and religious extremism. They are confident about personal progress, but pessimistic about societal progress’.
Douglas Alexander, Washington Speech, 12 July: ‘we must now advance the case for change by better articulating the commonly held values around which we must rally the whole international community . . . we must be driven by core values, not special interests. Our place in the world depends on us making choices based on values – values like opportunity, responsibility, justice.’
For links to these speeches and for further thoughts, see my blog on 15 October: ‘Important messages from the UK Government on International Development. Are we listening?’
http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2007/10/15/5405.aspx
Simon Maxwell