Last week, President Obama unveiled his administration's global development policy. Much of the announcement focused on the reform of U.S. governmental systems and the strengthening of America's multilateral capabilities.
This Saturday, I'll be stepping off a plane in Dubai along with several dozen other Americans, on the way to Kabul for a mission to monitor elections for the Wolesi Jirga, Afghanistan's lower house of Parliament.
In the near future when I drive up to a village in Africa, although the roads may be bumpy, I will see a woman using a tablet PC powered by the latest renewable energy source. This is a vision of Technology that the administrator of USAID painted.
Not all natural disasters are created equally. It is the most random hooks that spark international response. And lack of international response in regionally sensitive areas are a breeding ground for terrorism.
When the US, the UK, or the Global Fund support NGOs to take on AIDS education, the contracts should be two-way agreements; you do the HIV prevention, and we watch your back and help protect you from those who might be angered.
Covert foreign state support for ostensibly independent journalism violates basic principles of the profession's integrity; even if the journalists who benefited from the grants may not have known of the State Department funding.
We recognize that Congress is faced with agonizing budget choices. However, we must object to cuts that weaken USAID and other agencies that make vital contributions to global development and our national security.
The United States is falling short in getting the most bang for its development buck. Even our best aid projects often fail to maximize the benefits for either effective development or national interests.
Presidential backing for a single bilateral trade agreement does not a policy make. The three-legged stool -- defense, diplomacy and development -- for promoting U.S. interests internationally is still looking pretty wobbly.