Doing Development: Who Should Lead the Charge?

Mar 30th, 2009 3:30 PM UTC
By Rena Pacheco-Theard

Recently I attended a U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing: “Striking the Appropriate Balance: The Defense Department’s Expanding Role in Foreign Assistance.” There is ongoing debate about the imbalance among the three Ds of U.S foreign policy: Defense, Diplomacy and Development, and how a lack of capacity and resources in other agencies has DoD taking on development activities that traditionally fell under the purview of the State Department and USAID. With the increasing attention on aid reform, the question of who should implement non-military U.S. foreign assistance is a key issue.

There were four witnesses representing different backgrounds, who provided testimony: General Michael Hagee (former commandant, Marine Corps), Nancy Lindborg (President, Mercy Corps), Ruben Brigety (Director of the Sustainable Security Program, Center for American Progress Action Fund), and Philip Christenson (former Assistant Administrator, USAID).

As background, the agencies traditionally charged with development efforts are severely understaffed and underfunded. In 2007, David J. Kilcullen, then a senior advisor to Gen. David Petraeus, remarked, “… the Department of Defense is about 210 times larger than USAID and State combined—there are substantially more people employed as musicians in Defense bands than in the entire foreign service.” Moreover, the total budget for USAID and State has never been over $40 billion (a paltry 6% of the $700 billion spent last year by the military). Recently, DoD has been taking on traditional civilian activities, including establishing institutions of governance, reviving market activity, and rebuilding infrastructure. Between 2002-2005, the percent of U.S. official development assistance (ODA) – which excludes the supply or financing of military equipment or services and use of military personnel to control civil disobedience – directed through the Pentagon surged from just under 6 percent to nearly 22 percent, and now accounts for about 16% of ODA.

In his introductory remarks, Chairman Berman noted, “… critics have argued that DoD’s role erases the distinction between military personnel and civilians carrying out similar development activities, ignores development best practices such as sustainability and effectiveness, and puts a military face on inherently civilian programs.” Nancy Lindborg seconded this idea, stating that military led efforts could be focused on short-term security objectives rather than long-term development strategies. Proponents of increased military involvement in foreign assistance cite DoD’s well-funded mandate, logistical assets, and global deployment as strengths that make them able to respond effectively.

Another issue was that of “non-permissive” environments, where the safety of civilian actors is of concern (ie: war zones). There was general agreement that that the military is best suited for on-the-ground support for these missions; Philip Christenson lamented the holing up of civilian actors in military zones where they were unable to perform the development work they were tasked with. However, the question of who should lead development efforts in more peaceful environments remained unsettled.

-Rena Pacheco-Theard

TAGS: Development Assistance, Policy News