The fight against global poverty has become a fight for global security. But after an awkward entrance into the 21st century, America must redefine its role in the world, including its relations with developing countries. The new administration has an opportunity to refashion its foreign assistance leadership, and with it the role of the United States in forging a new era of global development cooperation involving both industrial and developing countries.
On December 10, Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Colin Bradford offered a public memo to the president-elect with recommendations how to modernize U.S. aid efforts and address the global development challenges of the 21st century effectively and with accountability. Bradford was chief economist of USAID during the Clinton administration where he also had the lead role in U.S. coordination with other bilateral and multilateral donors. The memo is the fifth of 12 Brookings memos on the most crucial public policy priorities facing the new president.
A distinguished panel included Bradford and three former USAID administrators: J. Brian Atwood, dean of the Hubert H Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota; Peter McPherson, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; and Andrew Natsios, distinguished professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. George Ingram, vice president of the Academy for Educational Development and board member of the Center for US Global Engagement, moderated the discussion.
Former Administrator - U.S. Agency for International Development
Senior Fellow for International and Public Affairs - Thomas Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University
Distinguished Professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service
President, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
To subscribe or manage your subscriptions to our top event topic lists, please visit our event topics page.
At the end of the day, as we all know thorny national security issues don’t just involve the military; political-military considerations invariably bleed into them. If the senior military’s leadership views are going to be just constrained to military advice … who is thinking about issues from that broader perspective?