The abrupt dismantling of U.S. Agency for International Development has created many uncertainties in how the U.S. carries out international assistance and humanitarian relief. But it also offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set a new course with fresh ideas and new approaches.
The good news is that a number of efforts are already underway to “reform foreign assistance,” but it is essential to realize what’s called for is something more sweeping than we’ve produced in past reform efforts.
“Reform” implies a one-off project with a beginning and an end, when we need an entirely new framework that changes and evolves as the world does. “Assistance” presupposes America only offers funding when, in fact, we have so much more to share. American ingenuity is second to none, and we must capitalize on the flow of ideas and information and the best ways to break down barriers to private enterprise and investment.
Let’s not get caught up in acronyms and org charts — the “hardware” of foreign policy — when it’s a focus on the software that’s needed. Previous “reform” efforts wasted time with disputes over where offices and titles will fit into the schematics of bureaucracy, when we need a strategic approach with a clear vision statement on how and why we engage with the world and build from there.
In the first Trump administration, we proclaimed the very purpose of all foreign assistance should be ending its need to exist. When we encountered leaders and countries willing to take on policy reforms, we would walk with them on their “journey to self-reliance.” Our vision was for countries to go from being aid recipients to trade partners to fellow donors and contributors. Every leader I met during my travels was eager to embrace that vision as well.
To go along with that vision, we should build our new approach around the principle that private enterprise remains the greatest force on earth for lifting lives and building communities. That doesn’t mean merely turning to business to carry out government-designed orders — that’s contracting. We’ve been doing that for years.
What we really need is collaboration, where officials set forth broad goals and concepts, but then turn to entrepreneurs for their ideas on the best ways to get there. It means understanding business supply chains, distribution networks, and market strategies, and then looking for areas where strategic and economic interests align to incentivize effectiveness and innovation in ways that make resources go further.
Second, we must remember the importance of our presence overseas. During the first Trump administration, I often gave my USAID colleagues a reality check by saying, “Just so we’re clear, we don’t actually do development here in the Reagan Building. And we don’t do development anywhere in Washington, D.C. Development takes place out there, overseas, in countless communities large and small.”
Having a strong presence overseas advances American business opportunities around the world — a principle China has already learned. Beijing now has more diplomatic posts in the world than we do, and in particular, a larger diplomatic footprint in Africa. Every person they place with those posts is a Chinese voice in the field and a new channel for China to spot economic opportunities, press its interests and shape strategic relationships.
Finally, a new approach to wielding American soft power recognizes we are entering what the IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva has described as “an increasingly shock-prone world.” That’s not only true in terms of macroeconomics, but it applies with respect to development challenges as well. When we provide our humanitarian assistance, we should include elements that help those receiving relief become stronger and more resilient against future shocks and disasters, both man-made and natural.
American leadership has long made this world a better place. To be sure, not everything has gone right in our foreign assistance programs, and not every dollar has produced the hoped-for results, but the difference that initiatives like PEPFAR, Feed the Future and President Trump’s own Prosper Africa have made is nothing short of extraordinary. Thirty seven million lives saved since 2003 and closing 1,100 trade and investment deals in four years is not just impressive, but a strategically smart investment.
Programs like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and PEPFAR changed the way the world approaches key development and humanitarian challenges, and this moment calls for a whole new approach that’s at least as bold, accelerates progress, and serves all of America’s interests: humanitarian, strategic and economic.
Ambassador Mark Green was President Trump’s first term USAID administrator and President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to Tanzania. He was also a four-term congressman representing Wisconsin’s 8th District.
