Shadow Government

Someone please give these candidates some (foreign) assistance

Last Thursday's 90-minute debate in South Carolina was the first time Republican candidates vying for the 2012 Presidential nomination focused specifically on foreign-policy and national security. It is of course true that Americans are more interested in issues that face them domestically; with unemployment still above 9 percent, an economy that is still sluggish, and a consensus that we are in for a slow recovery, how could they not be? But it is also true that the next president will be drawn into issues that affect us globally -- the uncertain outcome of the Arab Spring, weak democracies in Latin America, and development issues in Africa.

I was surprised that several candidates suggested that, each year, our foreign assistance budget start at "zero." Really?

The only candidate to respond in a way that I found realistic was Huntsman, who blasted his colleagues with "sound-bite" campaigning. I couldn't agree more.

During my time in the Bush administration, we stressed the importance of foreign assistance and the fundamental role it plays in laying the foundations for democracy, the rule of law, economic development, health interventions, building bridges, and promoting the ideals of freedom and liberty.

Here are several key quotes from President Bush's introduction to the 2006 National Security Strategy:

America now faces a choice between the path of fear and the path of confidence. The path of fear - isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment - appeals to those who find our challenges too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future generations less secure.

This is still true today. The presumptive leader of the United States needs to demonstrate his or her understanding that our country must continue to lead on the world stage. It is important that we as a nation (and our elected leaders) turn not to isolationism, even in rhetoric, but convey how we will continue to deal with global security and development challenges.

The path we have chosen is consistent with the great tradition of American foreign policy. Like the policies of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan, our approach is idealistic about our national goals, and realistic about the means to achieve them.

The introduction goes on to say that the United States should also continue to promote economic prosperity around the world and to support vibrant democracies.

How is this done?

Through U.S. foreign assistance programs implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. State Department, and myriad other government agencies.

Of course, there is a need to be more effective, coordinated and strategic in how we deliver this aid but I shall save that lecture for another post.

The point I want to make here is that candidates need to avoid shallow answers. None mentioned the role that foreign assistance has played since the Marshall Plan. None mentioned the 1982 speech President Reagan delivered in the Palace of Westminster when he launched the National Endowment for Democracy to foster democracy, free trade unions, and political parties.

Candidates missed an opportunity last week to explain to the general public the leadership role the United States must continue to play in the world we live in today. They were too afraid someone would ask, "Why are you spending money overseas and not at home?" None of them were prepared to discuss in simple terms the benefits we derive as a result of U.S. foreign assistance. I think the American public would continue to support foreign assistance programs if they knew the positive impact is has not just abroad, but in relation to our long-term national interests.

During my time in the administration we talked about this strategy and how it is founded on two pillars.

The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity - working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies. Free governments are accountable to their people, govern their territory effectively, and pursue economic and political policies that benefit their citizens. Free governments do not oppress their people or attack other free nations. Peace and international stability are most reliably built on a foundation of freedom.

The second pillar of our strategy is confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies. Many of the problems we face - from the threat of pandemic disease, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters - reach across borders. Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems. Yet history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to lead.

To be sure, we do need to reform how we distribute foreign assistance. We need to move away from large public announcements and get back to basics. We need to target aid where we know it will make a difference. We need to make our agencies work together in distribution of funds, and the list goes on.

Last Thursday candidates missed an opportunity to say how they would make foreign assistance more strategic to promote the values of freedom and democracy we hold so close to our hearts. Let us hope that those who seek the highest office in the world will also come to recognize the role that office plays in the development of freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Shadow Government

Three cheers for the Arab League

The Arab League has finally begun to take the well-being of Arab peoples as seriously -- more seriously -- than its cherished dream of Arab unity. The League negotiated with Syria's dictator to produce an agreement Assad would cease violence against the people of Syria. When Assad violated his side of the deal, the Arab League held him to account, decrying his continuing aggression. At Saturday's League meeting, they formally sanctioned Syria's leader for continued violence against the Syrian people and not honoring his promises of political dialogue and release of political prisoners. They called for a meeting of Syrian dissidents and urged consensus on them to more effectively pressure Assad. The Arab League set a clock ticking for Assad to comply; if he does not within four days, further political and economic sanctions will go into effect.

The only previous time the Arab League has been willing to call out a member government was after the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi as he closed in on Benghazi. Qaddafi was a special case, having attempted to assassinate heads of other Arab governments. And the Arab League was following a U.N. lead;  in taking action on Syria, the Arab League has led where Russia and China prevent condemnation at the United Nations.

These actions constitute an admirable strategy of escalating and increasingly public pressure by regional governments. The vote in the twenty-two member Arab League was 18 condemnations of Syria (only Yemen and Lebanon voted to shield Syria; Iraq abstained). Technically, League rules require unanimity. Yet, as NATO did during the Kosovo war, the Arab League found a way to express its will rather than let itself be hamstrung by technicalities.

The shame for Americans is that the Arab League, so long a regressive force in the politics of the region, has a better Syria policy than does the Obama administration. 3,500 Syrians have been killed by their government this year; during that time, our government has adjusted its position from considering Bashar al-Assad a reformer -- Secretary Hillary Clinton's memorable phrase -- to saying "he cannot deny his people's legitimate demands indefinitely." 

The "Obama Doctrine," as the White House has termed its choices on Libya, gives to Russia and China a veto -- literally -- on U.S. support for freedom movements and human rights activists. This is disgraceful. Without a U.N. Security Council Resolution, the Obama administration will not consider significant support to the Syrians engaged in a fight to protect themselves from a despot.

Clinton outlined the rationale for treating the Syrian case different from the Obama Doctrine: "our choices also reflect other interests in the region with a real impact on Americans' lives - including our fight against al Qaeda; defense of our allies; and a secure supply of energy." One might ask the Secretary of State which of these interests would be in conflict with working to rein in the barbarism of an enemy of the United States who fosters terrorism and has killed 3,500 Syrians this year alone. Adding insult to injury, Clinton gave this explanation in a speech on promoting democracy.

Where the Arab League has been negotiating with Bashir al-Assad to curb his predations against the people of Syria, the Obama Administration fecklessly repeats that Assad must step down. And this from a President that insisted he would negotiate with anyone.

After a brave start by Ambassador Robert Ford in Syria, the State Department has recalled him because Syria is dangerous. Less so to an U.S. ambassador than to the people he was bearing witness for, though, and who now have no potent symbol of America's support for their cause. 

Withdrawing our ambassador is, in fact, the sadly appropriate symbol of Obama administration policy toward Syria. They pretend engagement but are unwilling to run risks in support of freedom. Instead they pontificate piously from a safe distance while others undertake the difficult, honorable work of bringing despots to their knees.

How fortunate are the people of Syria that they have the governments of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League to stand up for freedom and universal human rights; what a pity the Obama administration will not.

President Obama's statement supporting the action of the Arab League says it all: "the Arab League has demonstrated leadership in its effort to end the crisis and hold the Syrian government accountable."