Some critics of foreign aid claim that it does not work because
they do not see immediate results. This line of argument always
annoys me. Development does work - we simply need to take a
longer perspective than one or two years. People also forget that
developed countries develop, as well as developing countries.
To illustrate this point, one need only look at economic and
social indicators for the United States in 1950. They were at levels
similar to those in the developing world today. The United States
has made remarkable progress in health, literacy, human rights,
infrastructure, economic growth and per capita income in the last
55 years. Europe, which was emerging from an extraordinarily destructive war in
1950, is now completely unrecognizable compared to its condition in the postwar
years.
Another point is that recent changes
in the world require us to review development
through evolving lenses. Such
changes include the devastating impact
of internal conflicts, the increasing role
of globalization, and, of course, the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. It is
in that light that we hope to continue the
excellent cooperation that we already
enjoy with the European Union on a
wide range of development issues. The
European Union shares Washington’s
view that security and development are
closely connected. It is no accident, for
example, that the first headquarters of al
Qaeda was in Somalia, which has not
had a functional national government
since 1991 - although attempts are now
being made to remedy that.
When al Qaeda was evicted from Somalia,
it went to Sudan, which has been
embroiled in a destructive civil war for
22 years. Al Qaeda then moved to
Afghanistan, a third failed state. Failed
states are not in the national security interests
of the United States or of Europe
- or, in fact, of the people in the countries
themselves. The local inhabitants
are those who suffer most from anarchy
and chaos.
The similar approach of the United
States and the European Union to failed
states is one of many areas in which we
agree. Despite some political differences,
we both recognize the critical importance
of supporting the transition
processes in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the
operational level, we are cooperating
very closely in both countries to coordinate
our work on reconstruction and development.
In Africa, we are both giving
priority to promoting economic growth,
democracy and good governance as critical
elements of development.
We have jointly pursued peace
agreements in Liberia, Sudan and Sierra
Leone. We are collaborating to encourage
stability and welfare in Haiti and in
the Palestinian Authority. Following the
recently signed peace agreement in
Sudan, the southern Sudanese need substantial
reconstruction assistance to
begin the process of governing, and
there are also humanitarian and reconstruction
needs in the north. If there is a
real settlement that ends atrocities and
human rights abuses in Darfur, the
United States, the European Union
and other donor governments can begin
assisting in the reconstruction
of the region.
We both recognize the urgent need
to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases
in Africa, and we welcome measures to
increase our collaboration and ensure
that all funds are being used effectively.
And we are gratified by the excellent coordination
between the United States
and the European Union in the wake of
the tsunami disaster in the Indian
Ocean.
As in any partnership, however,
there are certainly areas in which we differ
with some of our European colleagues.
We do not agree, for instance,
that targets for official development assistance
should be linked to the GDP of
donor countries. Such targets do not reflect
the capacity of recipients to use aid
effectively, nor do they account for the
balance of foreign assistance provided
through private rather than official
channels.
The U.S. approach to international
development goals will depend on the
context in each country. If a government
is predatory, corrupt and repressive, no
amount of foreign aid is going to rescue
the population from that government.
“If a government is
predatory, corrupt and
repressive, no amount of
foreign aid is going to
rescue the population”
As agreed in the Monterrey consensus,
adopted by the International Conference
on Financing and Development
in Mexico in 2002, each country has primary
responsibility for its own economic
and social development. To meet
the goals to which the international
community aspires, developing countries
must adopt domestic policies and
build institutions that promote sustainable,
broad based economic growth.We
can help them to meet that challenge. Increased
official financial aid is necessary,
but it is not sufficient for development.
Although some differences remain,
there is a growing consensus within the
donor community on the essential components
of aid effectiveness. USAID has
recently published a commitment to
nine basic principles of development,
but the reality is that we have not articulated
simple rules of development that
we can explain to people outside the development
community. So, we have
started discussions with non-governmental
organizations, the United Nations
and the military (which has a more
developed doctrine on the conduct of
wars) to see if we can agree on a general
development doctrine that would apply
to all sectors and programs.
Perhaps the most striking area of
agreement between the United States
and the European Union is on the priority
to be given to the various action programs
that we need to adopt. While we
are collaborating with the European
Commission in the field in all regions
and sectors, the Commission’s emphasis
on trade is extraordinarily important.
We can negotiate all the agreements we
want to bring down trade barriers, but if
we do not help developing countries to
take advantage of such new openings,
they will go unused.
If, for example, a developing nation
has no port for shipping exports, how
can it trade? If there is no refrigeration at
airports, how can produce be moved before
it rots? If potential exporters do not
understand U.S. and EU health regulations
– even if there are no tariff barriers
- how do they comply with the rules and
ship high-value food products that can
bring much-needed income to developing
countries? We have established
three centers in Africa to help countries
enhance their capacity to deal with these
issues
We look forward to future cooperation
between the European Union and
the United States on humanitarian assistance,
post-war reconstruction and longterm
development issues.
Andrew S. Natsios has been Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) since 2001. He was previously Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority from April 2000 to March 2001, with responsibility for managing the “Big
Dig” highway construction project in Boston, the largest public works project in U.S. history. He
has served as Secretary for Administration and Finance for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and Vice President ofWorld Vision U.S. He was a senior official at USAID from 1989 to 1993.
go to top
