Posts Tagged ‘ Foreign aid ’

Evening Fix

Thursday, February 24th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Our top five reads of the day:

  • Ruy Teixera finds strong public support for infrastructure spending: “It’s no secret that our country’s infrastructure is in urgent need of repair and serious modernization. Conservatives, in their mania for cutting government spending, have lost whatever little interest they once had in addressing this problem. But the public hasn’t.”
  • Thomas Carothers thinks Republicans should see foreign aid as a great value for their buck: “As House Republicans press for deeper budget cuts, one of their top targets is foreign aid. It is a tempting candidate for draconian cuts—a soft priority in today’s hard fiscal times and a budget line with no strong domestic constituency. Before Republican budget hawks wield their knife, however, they should take a lesson from their conservative cousins in the United Kingdom: When belt-tightening gets serious, foreign aid should be improved, not gutted.”
  • Tucker Willsie ponders how government can promote innovation: “A significantly more nuanced debate than ‘cut or invest’ is necessary to arrive at the best policies for stimulating innovation. Certain government interventions have been more successful than others. Government determination and funding was essential in creating the Internet, and there are clear instances of government intervention overcoming market failures such as when AT&T refused to build the initial infrastructure to demonstrate the internet technology – the task was instead taken on by the state-run British Post Office.”
  • Andrew Rotherham offers a five-point education reform plan: “So forget the theatrics in Wisconsin, reform doesn’t have to mean abolishing collective bargaining. But, if we’re serious about having school systems that put student learning first and creating a genuine profession for teachers here are five common practices that must change.”
  • John Avlon chronicles the apocalyptic politics in Wisconsin. “The Wisconsin protests are proving that the era of unhinged politics is not over. If anything, the hyperpartisan hysteria seems to be catching, with Democratic lawmakers in Indiana running for the hills while a new round of union protests swamps the statehouse in Ohio.”

P-Fix Highlights of the Week

Friday, February 18th, 2011
The Progressive Policy Institute





by The Progressive Policy Institute

In case you missed them, here are Progressive Fix’s highlights from the past week:

  • Mark Reutter analyzed Obama’s high-speed rail budget and exposed Gov. Rick Scott’s plans to build highways instead of high-speed trains.
  • Josh Block distilled Egypt’s lessons for Iran.
  • Ed Kilgore re-capped the craziness of the CPAC conference.
  • Jim Arkedis previewed the coming fight over foreign assistance.
  • Lee Drutman wrote about the new PPI report on scaling up charter schools and reported on the PPI panel releasing the report.

The Coming Fight Over Foreign Assistance

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Above is my quick and dirty comparison of the coming fight over foreign assistance. In green is the amount already spent in 2010 on each of the discreet line items (I’ve chosen these four areas because they were directly comparable between the various proposed appropriations).

Here’s how to read the graph: The actual amount spent in 2010 by the USG on each line item is in green. In red is the amount Republicans want to cut back to for the remainder of FY2011, expiring on 30 September. And in blue is what the White House would like to spend in FY2012’s budget proposal.

Now, I understand that there’s a conversation to be had about fixing how we spend foreign assistance and what we should receive back from it. But this is a more basic philosophical disagreement about whether or not America should be a world leader, or whether we should disengage from the rest of the world.  After all, at its best, foreign assistance buys soft power, something that has been in relatively short supply of late.

In light of that, it’s worth keeping in mind this quote from Joe Nye’s new book, The Future Power:

In general, the United States has not worked out an integrated plan for combining hard and soft power….Many official instruments of soft power – public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, military-to-military contracts – are scattered around the government, and there is no overarching strategy or budget that even tries to integrate them with hard power into an overarching smart power strategy. The United States spends about five hundred times more on the military than it does on broadcasting and exchanges.

Howard Berman Stands Up for Foreign Assistance

Tuesday, January 25th, 2011
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Foreign aid doesn’t have a constituency, and is often first on the chopping block, a maxim that is no different in the Tea Party Congress. In their haste to slash every penny of government spending (save the tough bits, of course), they have again failed to appreciate why foreign aid exists in the first place.

Unveiled last week was a Republican proposal to slash everything under the sun when it comes to aid: 84 percent of the USAID budget, the U.S. Trade Development Agency, the Woodrow Wilson Center, the USDA Sugar Program, economic assistance to Egypt, and many other programs.

To be sure, America needs a serious discussion about foreign aid reform. But we shouldn’t be questioning its very existence.

That’s why much credit is due to Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), ranking member (and former Chairman) of the House International Relations Committee, who rises to stand in the path of neo-isolationism:

We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership,” We’ve finally begun to turn that all around.  Let’s not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect.”

This is nothing short of casting the ideological die. On one side is the principle of standing for an America whose security is enhanced and values forwarded by being engaged as an active world leader. On the other side is an America that shirks from its vast and critical international responsibilities because most conservatives lack the gumption to have a tough discussion on revenues and spending.
Let’s talk about reforming aid and protecting America’s interests and values, not about taking our ball and going home.

These Just May Be The Lunatics We’re (Not) Looking For: Conservatives on Conservatives

Monday, November 8th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Here’s how Bill Kristol, Fox News contributor and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, summed up a panel discussion I attended at the conservative American Enterprise Institute:

This is a truly distinguished panel, and one I’m happy to say that’s fair and balanced.  We have (former Republican Senator from Missouri) Jim Talent, a responsible, respectable hawk.  We have a slightly crazed militarist in Tom Donnelly, and a really insane hegemonic imperialist… me.  It’s the correct spectrum of opinion.

The crowd chuckled its DC chuckle, and Wild Bill began. As it turned out, he was ironically prophetic – these people are batshit crazy. That tens of newly-elected Tea Partiers – folks who have never had much to say on national security and foreign policy issues – are now taking their cues from these jokers is downright terrifying.

But before diving into the political angles, here’s what makes these nutcases tick:

My suspicions were first aroused when former Senator Jim Talent (MO) blamed Bill Clinton for Iraq.  Would that I were joking! Indeed, Talent bemoaned Clinton’s decision to scale down the size of the military in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. He correctly claimed that we were “fully deployed” during Iraq and Afghanistan, meaning that we simply didn’t have the numbers of troops necessary to properly resource both conflicts.  It’s painfully and unfortunately obvious that Talent learned exactly the wrong lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan:

How much money and how many lives would it have saved if we’d have had 14 divisions instead of 10 and had been able to do in Afghanistan at the same time as we were (doing) in Iraq? … The blood, the lives, the people who were dying… we could have been years ahead of that schedule!

In other words, not only was invading Iraq the right call, we should have gone bigger and harder. It’s just too bad that all those people had to die and we had to waste all that money there because Bill Clinton decided to cut the size of the military after the Cold War.

Is Jim Talent a co-author on Decision Points or something?  And here I was thinking that the decision to go to war without fully understanding what we were getting ourselves into caused all the slow progress.

Then there was Kristol’s fundamentally misguided view of defense spending. And that’s odd because he starts out with a correct general premise: “We should cut what should be cut and shouldn’t cut what shouldn’t.”  That’s all well and good, provided you think that there are things to be cut.  So over to you, Bill:

The best possible spending you can have is defense spending! We got out of the Great Depression by having a big defense build up…. The Pentagon has plenty of shovel ready projects!

F-22? No way! Foreign aid? Why not? It was deliciously ironic that while Kristol supported the idea of foreign assistance, he was open to restructuring its $45 billion budget; at the same time, Kristol lauded Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), incoming House Appropriations chairman, saying Ryan “knows how little can be saved in the defense budget — maybe $20 billion.”  Pssst: Bill, that’s almost half of the foreign aid budget you think is big enough to reexamine. It’s also half of State’s.

It all seems so obvious to Talent: The defense budget “is affordable. To argue that it’s not affordable just isn’t right.” It’s especially affordable if we keep cutting taxes, right Jim?

Talent wrapped it all up in a nice big Fox News bow by tying alleged American declinism to Obama’s nefarious plan to nominate Joseph Stalin’s ghost as Tim Geithner’s replacement: “A socialized economy will not let America remain a great power.”  But hold on there –- does a socialist want to “position our nation for success in the global marketplace” via a “strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity”?  Then Talent has some explaining to do, because that’s what the president says in this year’s National Security Strategy.

Thankfully, there was one area these mental dwarfs didn’t completely screw up: New START.  Let’s be clear: Their partisan glasses won’t let them whole-heartedly endorse a very sensible treaty.  Instead, they’re holding it hostage to more missile defense spending.  But they’ll vote for it… hopefully.

Now, this all gets incredibly fascinating when you put it in a political context. The major take-away from this session is that the conservative establishment is pissing down their collective leg at the Tea Party’s soon-to-be dominant position on the Hill.  Their plan is to co-opt the Tea Party by supplying it with mainstream conservative positions in an area the Tea Party doesn’t spend much time thinking about.

Kristol liquored up new Tea Partiers in hopes of bringing her home after the prom:

I think the Tea Party gets a bum wrap. They don’t believe we should lose wars, they don’t believe we should weaken the military, they do believe the world would be safer if Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons.

Jim Talent poured a few shots into Kristol’s punchbowl by hitting the “DC Republican establishment” (note to Talent: you’re a member.)

People who sat around and didn’t do what had to be done in 2001-2004 (specifically: Don Rumsfeld)… it’s a little much for them to be all up in arms because one Tea Party candidate said something that sounded vaguely not quite correct from the point of view of a strong U.S. foreign policy.

They’re pandering, and hard.  Rand Paul doesn’t know it yet, but the Tea Party’s biggest spending hawk is about to vote for an ever-increasing defense budgets soon enough.

It was a mind-blowing Friday morning for yours truly, but was very reassuring in a way: The conservative establishment is as out of touch and irresponsible as always on national security, and they’re trying to take advantage of the strongest but most impressionable subset of their caucus.  That’s why now more than ever, progressives have to offer strong, smart, rational approaches to U.S. national security, military, and foreign policy challenges.

Haiti After the Quake: Nation-Building Next Door

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

Mike Derham



Mike Derham is chair of PPI's Innovative Economy Project.

by Jim Arkedis and Mike Derham

The State of StateDownload the report.

As the tragedy in Haiti plays out in nightly newscasts, Americans can be proud of their contribution to the relief effort. With over 16,000 U.S. forces already deployed and $100 million in reconstruction money pledged from the government — on top of over $500 million donated privately — America’s commitment is firm.

Following the earthquake, President Obama wrote, “[I]n times of tragedy, the United States of America steps forward and helps. That is who we are. That is what we do.” America’s can-do spirit and a large supply of humanitarian resources are certainly a promising start, but all the good intentions in the world won’t stabilize and rebuild our ravaged neighbor. In undertaking this mammoth task, Americans should embrace the implications of the president’s words: the United States’ and international community’s effort in Haiti is nothing short of a long-term nation-building exercise.

And that’s good news. Helping Haiti firmly stand on its own over the long term — both with reconstructed buildings and a functioning government — is not only the right thing to do but will lead to a more stable region.

In a time when U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan evoke uncomfortable associations with the term “nation-building,” it’s important to note that America’s troops have been unquestionably welcomed with open arms in Haiti. “It’s high time for those troops to have been deployed. They are crucial to help restore security in our devastated towns,” said Yvon Jerome, mayor of the hard-hit Carrefour district on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince.

On a day-to-day level, any major disaster relief effort will face a set of serious yet known problems: controlling the spread of infectious disease, staving off immediate hunger and dehydration, establishing basic order in a chaotic situation. Since we’re not on the ground in Haiti, we’ll leave decisions like where to put aid stations and which neighborhoods to secure first to responding disaster relief experts.

Though immediate relief is of course today’s pressing need, this memo takes a longer view to highlight potential roadblocks along the way to a robust and effective nation-building effort. First, we prioritize steps required to bring good governance to Haiti, both within the international chain-of-command and the Haitian government. Second, we identify reconstruction priorities and funding issues that must be addressed now to give Haiti a chance at meaningful recovery once the immediate humanitarian crisis is controlled.

Thousands of lives will be saved by the massive international effort underway. But the consequences of an ineffective reconstruction effort could be huge: If the main players in Haiti don’t figure out who’s in charge and plan for the next set of challenges, the international community could do as much damage as good, and billions of dollars and thousands more lives could be lost.

Who’s in Charge, Anyway?

The U.S. military (with 16,000 troops), United Nations (12,000 soldiers), and thousands of international non-governmental organizations have arrived in droves since the earthquake. Coordinating roles, missions, and even arrivals at Port-au-Prince airport between these groups has been confusing. Continued lack of clarity could hamper aid distribution and ultimately cripple reconstruction efforts in the long term.

Broadly speaking, the UN’s Blue Helmets have taken charge of street-level security in a peacekeeping role. U.S. Southern Command has control of the major ports of entry and supply routes that distribute relief aid throughout the city and region. NGO’s have undertaken a variety of humanitarian missions in accordance with their respective specialties.

These missions evolved on an ad hoc basis from mandates or delegated authorities in the panicked aftermath of the quake. For example, Haitian President René Préval signed over air traffic control to the U.S. military in order to better manage the arrival of relief supplies.

But the UN’s mandate is to conduct the Stabilization Mission in Haiti (the UN’s presence is most often referred to by its French acronym MINUSTAH), established in April 2004 under Resolution 1542. In the post-earthquake context, its mission — supporting the Haitian government and enforcing public safety — appears constrained. MINUSTAH originally provided for a maximum of 1,622 civilian police and 6,700 soldiers. Since the earthquake, the only modification has been in MINUSTAH’s number, not its role — the Security Council has approved an increase in force size to 12,000 soldiers.

Friction between competing missions has hampered efforts. In one anecdote that typifies these complications, French Secretary of State for Cooperation Alain Joyandet implied that the Americans were giving preferential landing rights to U.S. planes and called on the UN to clarify the American role in Haiti, saying the priority was “helping Haiti, not occupying Haiti.”

Fixing the Authority Problem

Such bureaucratic infighting decreases trust between international partners working toward the same goal. The lack of a unified command will slow the relief effort as governments and institutions must constantly cross-check with one another before taking meaningful action. We make the following recommendations for beginning the long struggle to rebuild Haiti:

  • Establish Meaningful Governance: In its current incarnation the UN mission lacks the capacity to address what needs to be done, missing the mandate to deal with post-earthquake reconstruction. MINUSTAH should be upgraded to become a full “nation-building” program, designed to last 10 years. The UN and EU missions in Kosovo offer the best model. The UN’s experience in Kosovo shows that just “peacekeeping” isn’t sufficient to help rebuild a society. The UN Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) had four pillars—policing and justice, civil administration, institution-building, and reconstruction and development—that can be adapted to address the multiple problems Haiti faces as it rebuilds from the earthquake.Edmond Mulet, the former and now interim head of MINUSTAH, should be elevated to Special Representative of the Secretary General to give him a clearer mandate. (He replaced his successor, Hédi Annabi, who perished in the quake.) In addition to the “peacekeeping” pillar currently in place, other duties of development, civil administration, and institution-building should be added and all international troops on the ground, including America’s, should be brought under its chain of command. A beefed-up MINUSTAH would work with the remaining Haitian government, by assisting with oversight and capacity building.
  • Police, Not Peacekeepers: Under the pre-earthquake MINUSTAH, Brazil led 7,000 troops — mostly from the Americas — in Haiti. Immediately after the quake, Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim was in Port-au-Prince to oversee his troops and committed to doubling them and having them stay for at least five more years. While a peacekeeping role will be vital in the months to come to get Haiti back on its feet, the role of Brazilian and other blue-helmeted troops will need to change.Once order is established, the UN mission will essentially become a national police force in the absence of a Haitian alternative. To transfer power back to the local government, the UN mission should be tasked with building an effective security force and justice system. That means in addition to cops, the UN may solicit prosecutors and judges in a proxy judiciary. It’s a tall order, but it may be the only way that allows the remaining Haitian government to fully concentrate on reconstruction.
  • Consider Moving the Capital: Port-au-Prince has been reduced to a rubble heap. To solve an immediate problem, we recommend that the government consider transferring its functions and offices from Port-Au-Prince to Cap-Haïtien, per George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen’s suggestion. The new capital would also serve as the new base for MINUSTAH. A move would allow the government to focus on core issues of governance in the wake of the disaster. Cap-Haïtien, Haiti’s second-largest city, was relatively untouched by the earthquake. It has a harbor and the longest runway outside of Port-au-Prince, allowing for reconstruction efforts to be staged from there.

Priorities for Haitian Reconstruction

Beyond the complex and immediate issues surrounding relief aid, the international community must already begin work on second-order concerns once immediate humanitarian priorities are brought under control.

Front and center is economic stabilization. Though signs are emerging that basic economic activity is returning, it must be solidified. International institutions and donor countries are set to meet again at the UN in March to discuss funding for reconstruction. It would be useful to come up with a battle plan for rebuilding by establishing priorities among competing interests in government, business, and communities.

  • Remittances: Haitians need cash in hand, and quickly. It’s the best hope of sustaining any meaningful economic activity when banking has slowed dramatically and business within the Port-Au-Prince region is struggling to survive. With the announcement that Haitians can take advantage of TPS (Temporary Protective Status) from the U.S. Immigration Service, upwards of 200,000 undocumented Haitians will be able to join 600,000 Haitians working legally in the U.S.That diaspora, along with similar groups in Canada and elsewhere, sent home at least one-third of Haiti’s GDP last year. To capitalize on the outpouring of goodwill by the Haitian diaspora, money must flow directly to individuals. Wire services expect to get money transfers going to Haiti in the short term. However, with the banking sector of Haiti already fragile, and many local money transfer agents (i.e. the local corner store) wiped out by the earthquake, making sure remittances arrive will be key. Here a simple technological solution can meet the challenge. Sub-Saharan Africa has adopted programs like M-PESA to allow people to use their cell phones as checking accounts. The time and effort necessary to establish a similar system in Haiti would be worthwhile.Credit can be transferred to individual phone numbers — including from overseas — and that credit can then be used for purchases from other phone owners who have a similar plan (including prepaid) from their provider. Cell coverage is one of the few institutions that covers all of Haiti. It is also an institution that has worked through the crisis, and that the American military is working to make sure stays running. But only 30 percent of Haitians have cell phones — so in addition to cell phone credit transfer, increasing cell phone penetration should be another priority.
  • Empower the State Department: The U.S. military’s presence cannot and should not be sustained at 16,000 troops. Once the humanitarian crisis is controlled, American troops should be withdrawn, and the American component of the UN mandate should be headed by the State Department. The State Department should focus on building long-term civil institutions through accountable governance programs. Further, it should actively engage the NGO community to build the unions, a free press, and political parties. Haiti’s fragile democracy has been unable to respond to this crisis, and long-term American involvement in the country’s civil institutions will better enable it to do so in the future.
  • Debt Relief: Many have suggested that the key to Haiti’s fortunes is finishing the “Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative” debt-forgiveness process by getting France, Venezuela, and the Inter-American Development Bank (Haiti’s three largest creditors) to wipe out Port-Au-Prince’s debt. But this is hardly a panacea. Haiti’s debt amounts to service payments of only $50 million per year. In other words, debt forgiveness will help, but it will not be significant enough to alleviate any real suffering.
  • Infrastructure: Infrastructure investment offers the quickest way to rebuild Haiti. Rebuilding the roads, bridges, and major points of transportation benefits individuals, businesses, and government. The international community should work with the Haitian people to make sure that building codes are drawn up and, more importantly, enforced. The destructiveness of the earthquake was magnified by the fact that almost no rebar was used to reinforce concrete structures in the country. This turned Port-au-Prince into a rubble field instead of a quake-struck city. Building-code enforcement would also protect against the hurricanes that frequently lash the country. To rebuild Port-au-Prince, the idea of acknowledging squatter’s rights may be the most effective way to rebuild quickly, by recognizing the tools for development that individuals already have at hand.
  • Funding: Given France’s colonial past with Haiti, the Obama administration and UN should invest significant political capital to press Paris to take the lead in funding infrastructure development. The colonial relationship between France and Haiti has been historically strained as France demanded — and received — compensation for its lost colony from a newly independent Haiti. Since it took Haiti 122 years to clear the books, France should seize the opportunity to right this historic wrong. Even in the aftermath of this disaster, the French have been shamefully outpaced by the British in the initial round of pledges, but they can rebound by making a more sizeable pledge at the Haiti donor conference in March.
  • Renew and Expand the CBI: But while France can take the lead on the debt-forgiveness front, the U.S. can take the lead on fostering development. The Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), a trade-preferences act signed by President Reagan in 1982 is designed to promote development in the Caribbean countries – including Haiti. Its expiration — set for September 30 of this year — would be a further blow to the economic redevelopment of Haiti. In addition to just renewing it, however, the Congress and administration must expand the CBI to remove tariffs on Haiti’s agricultural production, specifically sugar. Allowing these vital drivers of the Haitian economy to be competitive in its largest export market would go far in giving Haitians a chance at sustained economic growth.

The rebuilding of Haiti after such a devastating event will be a long and difficult process. Local factors (corruption, lack of infrastructure, poverty) and international circumstances (the global recession, lack of focus by the international community) could forestall recovery. But firm resolve behind a nation-building project is critical if Haiti is to stand again. These prescriptions for both relief and reconstruction offer Haiti a meaningful chance to overcome the worst of the disaster and give the Haitian people hope for a better tomorrow.

Download the report.

America Acts in Haiti

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

With a hat tip to Spencer Ackerman for flagging the video (and accompanying sentiment), scenes like this symbolize what America stands for:

Watch as LA County rescue workers pull a victim from the rubble; the crowd erupts with spontaneous applause and chants of U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

I worry that there’s a strain within progressive America that doubts our country’s place in the world. I worry that America’s actions over the last decade have irreparably damaged progressives’ image of America as a great nation that was conceived to do great things.

To be sure, the Iraq war has triggered worthy reflection on that point. But my uber-fear is that with President Obama’s decision to adopt a new strategy in Afghanistan, progressives’ degraded concept of America has been legitimized now that one of their own has allegedly–if falsely in my opinion–”followed in Bush’s footsteps.”

Not to trivialize the point by being colloquial, but with issues like Iraq, it is unfortunately and tragically true that America screws up sometimes, and royally so (and Massachusetts, don’t think I’m just looking at that ranch in Crawford). Let’s remember that though even gross misjudgments in policy may raise questions about what America is, the worst errors are ultimately set right. America will remain a great place that does wonderful and selfless acts of kindness. It does so for two reasons–because it can and because that what it was meant to do.

Rebuilding Haiti

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Scott and readers at TPM have suggested that the United States must assume nation-building efforts on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan in Haiti. Scott makes an excellent point that the silver lining of all this is that America’s humanitarian mission in Haiti is an opportunity to provide reconstruction assistance in a country where it’s welcomed by all. However, let’s keep in mind that American assistance will likely flow under the auspices of the U.N., so the rebuilding effort won’t provide the unfettered learning tool that Scott envisages.

That said, I’m nervous about the comparison drawn between Haiti and Iraq/Afghanistan. If the evocation of America’s other nation-building efforts is meant merely as a general comparison to signify the size of the U.S.’s contribution to Haitian reconstruction, stabilization, and eventual growth, then it’s right on. But the cynic in me worries that comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan are designed to elicit a direct contrast between very different missions. It’s as if some are almost daring the Obama administration to prove that America actually cares about a country that doesn’t immediately impact America’s national security (though if reports of mass refugee influxes prove accurate, then there is a decided self-interest as well).

Haiti is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. The circumstances of America’s involvement couldn’t be more different. Haiti is closer and smaller. It had a more stable government that could control its territory. Haiti’s geography and history of foreign occupation are less violent. Its social structures and norms couldn’t be more opposite… and on and on.

So let’s dispense with those comparisons as quickly as possible. The bottom line is that America’s contribution is, and should be, of historically large proportions. The reason for our involvement will be for no better or worse reason that what President Obama wrote:

[F]or a very simple reason: in times of tragedy, the United States of America steps forward and helps. That is who we are. That is what we do. For decades, America’s leadership has been founded in part on the fact that we do not use our power to subjugate others, we use it to lift them up—whether it was rebuilding our former adversaries after World War II, dropping food and water to the people of Berlin, or helping the people of Bosnia and Kosovo rebuild their lives and their nations.

And that’s all that matters.

Haiti, Nation-Building, and Soft Power

Monday, January 18th, 2010
Scott Winship



Scott Winship is research manager of the Pew Economic Mobility Project and a recent graduate of Harvard's doctoral program in social policy. The views he expresses do not represent those of Pew.

by Scott Winship

I am minimally qualified to comment on the crisis in Haiti, but one of Talking Points Memo‘s readers has what sounds to me like an important perspective on American involvement in reconstructing the country over the coming years (not months). Since Haiti is in our backyard, the reader says, we will have to assume nation-building efforts on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan if Haiti is not to devolve into chaos.

I’m sure Jim will have much sharper thoughts on all of this, but I’ll just throw out there the suggestion that the great tragedy before us presents at least one silver lining — it gives us an opportunity to gain valuable experience in nation-building, and to do so in a context where our help is viewed gratefully rather than resentfully.

If soft power and nation-building are to become increasingly important in foreign policy to avoid the prospect of failed states (or to address actually existing failed states), then the United States must not only repair its image as a hegemonic bull in a china shop, but it must show that we can actually produce an unambiguously good reconstruction. Simply, we need to be trusted and seen as effective. I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that we’re not exactly effusing these qualities today when it comes to our nation-building efforts.

Of course, our efforts could go badly in Haiti, which would be another setback for us. But what alternative do we have than to hope for the best?

Shadi Hamid on the “Cairo Conundrum”

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

A great new piece from Shadi Hamid in the latest Democracy: A Journal of Ideas on “The Cairo Conundrum” — the seeming paradox between peace and stability in the Middle East. Hamid examines American policy towards Egypt, arguing convincingly:

[T]he pursuit of peace came to depend on prevailing authoritarian structures. Unless autocracy can be made permanent–and there is little reason to think that it can–this state of affairs is unsustainable. If Obama wishes to repair relationships with Middle Eastern governments, then he may, in the process, alienate the other key constituency he seemed to be speaking to [in Cairo] on June 4: the millions of everyday Arabs and Muslims hoping for more freedom and democracy.

He offers a dual-track approach to break the longstanding American mindset that democracy and stability in Egypt are a zero-sum game. The first track is “positive conditionality” — offering even more aid to Egypt, provided the government meets a series of democratization benchmarks. Should it fail in the first year, the money would be denied but rolled over into an accumulating fund. The entire amount would remain available once Egypt fulfilled the requirements; fail to do so, and the price of non-compliance would grow every year. The second track is “Islamic engagement” whereby the administration would facilitate political participation with moderate Islamist parties that renounce violence.

Hamid’s formula may not prove to be ultimately successful — after all it is quite possible that Egypt would be happy to accept ever-increasing American donations while feigning a reformist bent. But as long as the White House remains continually engaged across the spectrum of Egyptian politics, it is quite possible that Hamid’s formula of grassroots pressure married to large financial incentives could move Egypt along the path to democratic openness.