Last month I started a thread about water as a foreign policy tool (27 April 2007), specifically oriented towards the EU, NATO, and USA efforts in Central Asia, especially Kazakhstan. Later, in another post, I will get to the South Caucasus where I have been working for almost five years on a NATO-OSCE funded project.
This post will deal with something else - the Water for the Poor Act, spearheaded by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). A recent post from Reuters-Africa described concerns by Blumenauer and other members of Congress that the Bush Administration is giving the act short shrift by not spending the money where it was intended. The act was passed in 2005 to ensure that long-term projects would provide water where it is needed most - places such as sub-Saharan Africa, which is in dire straits vis-a-vis water and will likely become worse off as the result of global warming.
Blumenauer told a hearing that the State Department and USAID misrepresented how they spent $200 million that was to be targeted to help places like sub-Saharan Africa, where Blumenauer stated that only $10 million was spent. The State Department used most of the funds for reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) said that a Water for the Poor act was passed, not a Water for the War act.
Congressman Blumenauer's testimony is at:
blumenauer.house.gov/watertestimony.doc
Reuters reported that Claudia McMurray of State and Walter North of USAID deflected the criticism. McMurray noted "The Water for the Poor strategy is a work in progress and I want to underline that." North countered that the current request by the Bush Administration, $71 million, is closer to the $200 million figure if you counted all the related programs.
Geoff Dabelko, a researcher with the nonpartisan Wilson Center, contends many current programs were relabeled to appear to conform to the law.
I have met Rep. Blumenauer, whose district is in the Portland area, and discussed water with him. He is dedicated to helping solve the persistent water and sanitation problems in the developing world and incorporating this strategy into USA foreign policy. He delivered an excellent speech on this topic to an American Water Resources Association (www.awra.org) meeting last January:
www.blumenauer.house.gov/issues/Issue.aspx?IssueID=7#wat
You will need to go to the aformentioned link, and click on where it says "Watch".
One thing that Claudia McMurray said resonated with me: "Even with a comprehensive U.S. water strategy, though, we must keep in mind that the United States alone cannot solve the global water problem." If she means meeting the Millennium Development Goals related to water, the USA could probably do it alone. It's estimated that it would take about $12-15 billion annually through 2015 to reduce by 50% the number of people who do not have access to safe water and sanitation.
How much are we spending in Iraq? Which do you think would be a better foreign policy strategy and enhance the USA's global reputation?
"It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." -- Confucius
Comments