Guest Blog: And the Winners Are…The International Community and American Taxpayers

By Larwrence J. Halloran

Director of PSC's International Development Initiative

The Pulitzers weren’t the only prestigious awards handed out this week. Five PSC member companies were among 40 international development organizations recognized by DevEx as the most innovative in their field.

Results of a survey of thousands of development professionals from around the world honored Abt Associates, AECOM, Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte Consulting and Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) for their application of ground-breaking concepts and approaches against stubborn development challenges.

Guest Blog: Non-profits’ Faustian Bargain with the Taliban

By Lawrence J. Halloran

Director of PSC's International Development Initiative

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story* about non-profit aid groups “distancing themselves from the U.S.-led coalition” and cutting separate safe-passage agreements with the Taliban in Afghanistan exposed a dangerous naiveté among some humanitarian actors there who are complicit in appeasing a lethal enemy. I wonder how fast those same aid workers would cover the distance between themselves and the nearest NATO military unit when some of Mullah Omar’s men who didn’t get the memo open fire.

To pretend the Taliban is just another benevolent community organization looking to “register” foreigners for their mutual peace of mind ignores the Taliban’s bloody past and their brutal plans for all they subjugate, especially women. Too many dedicated professionals from aid development and other firms have already suffered tragic losses of life to conclude that anyone’s safety lies in such dangerous delusions.

And if the Taliban’s safe passage registration is “free” in terms of money or tactical military intelligence, it surely comes at the price of an explicit endorsement of the group’s goals and the tacit acknowledgement of their illegitimate governing authority. Why else would the local Taliban bureaucrat quoted by the WSJ welcome “unaligned” aid groups into areas he controls while he feels free to shoot at others doing essentially the same work on behalf of the U.S.-led coalition and the Afghan government?

When a congressional subcommittee found that transport contractors were paying insurgent militias for convoy protection for supplies for U.S troops, the practice was roundly denounced. The widely publicized October 2010 Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded it was important to address those “who act contrary to our interests and contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government.” Is it so different when a non-profit aid group pays the Taliban with its good name? Even when no money changes hands, letting the Taliban take tacit credit for the provision of medical supplies and other aid paid for by countries with soldiers in the field gives comfort to the enemy. Even the most expansive view of the humanitarian space between active combatants and innocent civilians does not have room for that indefensible double standard.

*Subscription required.

Guest Blog: Washington Post’s "Political Bookworm" argument about development assistance is full of holes

By Lawrence J. Halloran

Director of PSC's International Development Initiative

The Washington Post’s "Political Bookworm," Steven Levingston, should have burrowed a bit deeper before he published the Sept. 2 commentary by Rachel McCleary, a senior research fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

In her guest blog, McCleary claims U.S. humanitarian aid should be “reclaimed” from the pernicious influences of for-profit development firms. She argues that non-profit private voluntary organizations should deliver the bulk of U.S. development assistance because they are apolitical, impartial and transnational, “that is, not identified with national ideologies or driven by short-term policy agendas.” But she offers no proof to suggest for-profit firms are the opposite.

Nor does she address the more pertinent issue of performance. Nowhere in her piece does she argue that non-profits are more effective or cheaper at completing development projects than tax-paying U.S. development firms. In effect, McCleary demands a needless, ultimately counterproductive, choice between aid delivery actors based on a misreading of the facts and a misunderstanding of how indispensible both U.S. companies and non-profits are to achieving humanitarian and development goals under the most difficult conditions on earth. Her post is replete with inaccuracies and irrelevancies, like where an organization is headquartered and its headquarter's proximity to Congress, rather than where it does the work and what the work achieves.