A John Birch Society-sponsored sign (Credit: Wikimedia)

The John Birch Society, a nativist organization founded in the 1950s, is famous for opposing the Civil Rights movement and espousing other far-right views, including that President Eisenhower was a communist infiltrator and Nelson Mandela is “a communist terrorist thug.” The John Birch Society’s views are so far right, in fact, that even conservative icon William F. Buckley denounced the group as “idiotic” and “paranoid.”

Their longtime foe, the United Nations, in 1992 passed a series of non-binding recommendations related to developing resources in a way that can be sustained across generations. The phrase that these documents created — sustainable development — has become a code-word for right-wing black helicopter conspiracies.

By targeting these recommendations, the sinister sounding “Agenda 21,” the Birchers have found a way to promote their views under the guise of protecting the American people from the United Nations stealing away their property. Missouri became the latest state to pass just such a law on Wednesday, sending SB265 to Gov. Jay Nixon (D) for his signature. Under the provisions of SB265, the Missouri government is banned from passing any future laws that would fall under the scope of Agenda:

Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.

The Missouri draft closely mirrors draft anti-Agenda 21 legislation in Oklahoma that was pulled following a local scandal. ThinkProgress contacted the office of State Sen. Patrick Anderson (R) who sponsored the Oklahoma bill and was told that the language was based almost entirely on a law passed in Alabama. Jerry Bassett, the Director of the Alabama Legislative Reference Service, told ThinkProgress that while he could not tell us who the original drafter of the bill was, the member who brought it forward had the bill completely typed and ready when he did. Bassett also told ThinkProgress the original copy of the bill, still in the LRS’ files, has the words “Tea Party bill” written on it.
Read more

The Somali famine of 2011 was a massive, monstrous failure on the part of the international community at almost all levels. A new report released on Thursday indicates that the crisis took the lives of a far greater number than many experts predicted: Up to 260,000 Somalis died that year, over half of them children, largely due to the world’s slow response.

While it can’t be known for certain, a set of proposals from the Obama administration to completely revamp food aid might be able to prevent future tragedies of this scale from happening. Currently, U.S. law says that 85 percent of all international food aid must be purchased from the United States, then shipped from our shores to the country in need. Under the new format, introduced in President Obama’s FY 2014 proposed budget, the amount of food required to be produced in the United States would drop to 55 percent, with the rest of it being purchased from local sources through donated cash.

As Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, having the ability to buy more food locally could make all the difference in a humanitarian crisis — such as in Somalia — in getting food to those in need faster, while saving the United States money:

KERRY: By giving us the ability to modernize, including the flexibility to also procure food aid in developing countries closer to the crisis areas, not only do we feed more people, but we get food to malnourished people 11 to 14 weeks faster. So here’s the bottom line: This change allows us to do more, to help more people lift themselves out of hunger at a rapid pace without spending more money. I think that’s a great deal for the American taxpayer.

USAID Director Ravij Shah explained during his own appearance before Congress last week that under the new proposals as many as 4 million extra people would be reached per year without an increase in the foreign aid budget. Without the new system, Shah warned, about 150,000 children in Somalia would cease to receive food aid from the U.S. as other hotspots around the world consume the fifteen percent of food aid able to purchased locally. Such a decrease would prove devastating in the event of another massive crisis on the same scale as Somalia’s.

While a 2006 proposal to increase food aid flexibility to 25 percent failed, the odds are looking better for the new attempt. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) — the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee respectively — put out a letter supporting the initiative following the release of President Obama’s budget. Despite that, pressure is growing from agricultural interests such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and lawmakers from states with large farming populations to water down — or outright kill — the proposal.

CAP experts in a 2012 report called for the restructuring of the U.S.’ food aid program in a similar fashion to the method the administration is advancing. “At a minimum, we recommend that nonemergency food aid be exempt from both cargo preference and “buy American” requirements,” the report suggests, adding that “cost savings from these reforms would vary from year to year depending on fluctuations in food assistance. We estimate, however, that efficiency gains would range from $488 million to $628 million annually.”

(Photo Credit: Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images)

Friday marks 1,000 days until the end of 2014, the date when the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) — a set of eight goals designed to end extreme poverty — are scheduled to be met, starting a new ticking clock for global leaders.

CAP Chair John Podesta has served as a member of a High Level Panel charged with proposing what comes after the MDGs since 2012, when U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon appointed him to the spot. Since then, he and leaders from around the world have been working on composing that new framework, with the goal of presenting their findings by June. Podesta spoke about his experience with the panel thus far at a United Nations Foundation-hosted event on Friday, laying out what he hoped to see in the group’s final recommendations.

Throughout his talk, Podesta highlighted just how far the world has come since the original MDGs were developed in 2000, citing the shift from a world easily classified into Global North and South, or developed and developing countries. Instead, the world now includes developing countries like Brazil and India who have large populations who require assistance, but are themselves donors and political forces. These changes, according to Podesta, require a new way of considering development and sustainable economic growth:

PODESTA: We know now that sustainable economic growth is not simply about increasing the size of national economies but about shaping enduring systems and institutions that respect the rights of individuals and give them the tools they need to help lift themselves out of poverty. Sustainable economic growth requires ensuring the poor have what I call “connectivity.” “Connectivity” broadly encompasses issues like access to health care, education, and job opportunities; connections to physical, social, and energy infrastructure; and the opportunity to actively participate in the civic and economic lives of their countries and to be recognized legally by their governments.

Podesta also rejected the idea that Americans don’t support the MDGs, despite foreign aid being the most-often maligned area of the budget. “[W]hen asked about targeted programs for health care, education, and poverty reduction, a very different picture emerges,” Podesta said. “And at the same time, Americans are personally supporting the development agenda in record numbers. American private giving to international development is far greater than that of any other country.” President Obama in his State of the Union address called for the U.S. to support ending extreme poverty within two decades, well in line with the MDGs goals.

Rather than laying out the specific points the Panel will put forward in May, Podesta instead informed the audience about the goals he hoped to see in the group’s final recommendation. “For example, I would like to see the High Level Panel embrace the existing G-8 and G-20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies,” Podesta said, noting that just 7 percent of $700 billion spent underwriting fossil fuels benefit poor households. He also called for efforts to reach zero net deforestation and zero net desertification, as well as efforts to dramatically reduce food waste, replenish fish stocks and sustain fisheries, improve energy efficiency and rely more heavily on renewable energy.

“We need to understand that ending extreme poverty and promoting sustainability are not at odds with each other but are indeed mutually reinforcing and beneficial,” Podesta declared, reinforcing the position he laid out in a white paper on development last year. Once the final report has been presented to Secretary-General Ban, the process of drafting a new set of goals will fall on the United Nations’ member states.

During last night’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama pledged that the United States would work towards ending extreme poverty around the world within the next two decades.

“[P]rogress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all,” Obama said standing before the combined Federal government. “In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day,” he continued, referring to the much cited World Bank definition of extreme poverty.

Obama then described exactly what ending such abject poverty would entail:

OBAMA: So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades: by connecting more people to the global economy and empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and helping communities to feed, power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation.

Obama’s declaration came amid a section of the speech talking up other, seemingly higher profile international issues — such as the use of targeted killing in the fight against Al Qaeda and warning North Korea against further provocations. The firmness of the statement, however, stood out as the first time that a President has directly set such a target during a State of the Union Address.

Obama’s commitment echoes the eight principles in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), set forth by the United Nations in 2000. The MDGs have managed several successes since their implementation, including cutting global extreme poverty in half ahead of schedule. Other goals, including reducing the number of urban-dwellers living in slums and improving access to clean water, have been met early as well.

Many goals, however, will remain incomplete when the 2015 deadline set for many of the MDGs is reached. CAP Chair John Podesta was named to be a part of the High-Level Panel on Development, charged with charting a post-2015 course for development, by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last August. The panel has met several times already, discussing a wide range of issues, including those in the President’s call to action. Podesta has written a white paper detailing possible approaches to connect the poorest of the poor to the global economy and give the poor the tools they need, like access to education and health care, to contribute to the development of their countries. The Panel is due to present their findings to the Secretary-General by June.

By Sarah Margon

Earlier today, President Obama unveiled his Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa (PDF), a blueprint for how the administration plans to do business on the continent. Coming somewhat late in the game with only six months left in his term and possibly released to combat today’s Washington Post exposé about the special operations shadow war in Africa, the strategy commits the administration to engage more actively with African partners by setting forth four objectives for U.S. engagement. These pillars include strengthening democratic institutions, spurring economic growth, trade, and investment, advancing peace and security and promoting opportunity and development. The strategy builds on the president’s 2009 speech in Ghana and highlights many of the administration’s accomplishments.

Notably, a closer read underscores the absence of many new policies. The revived focus on Africa – and the ability to take stock what’s been accomplished – is important, but the main policy agenda closely mirrors the one Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson articulated many times over the last three and a half years. That’s probably a good thing, as it shows a commitment to consistency and will helpfully showcase the importance of the region – at least for a few days.

There is, however, one new initiative worth flagging: a commitment to help U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa. The administration will develop a “Doing Business in Africa Campaign” to assist U.S. businesses in identifying investment and engagement opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa. This goes beyond the mandate of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which creates concrete incentives for African countries to implement economic and commercial reform policies, and tangentially benefits the private sector.

With seven out of ten of the world’s fastest growing economies in Africa and the Commerce Department scaling back its presence there, such an initiative could make a welcome contribution to strengthening economic growth over the long term – particularly if the private sector invests and engages with an eye toward strengthening regulatory regimes, enabling fair labor practices, and strengthening the rule of law. There’s been a troubling gap in this area for quite some time, so much so that in late March, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chris Coons (D-DE) and John Boozman (R-AR) sought to pick up some of the slack in this area by introducing legislation that would, among other things, strengthen opportunities to for U.S. investment throughout the continent.

Democratic investment, engagement with young leaders, conflict prevention, greater regional security cooperation, and security sector reform are also highlighted as cornerstone issues. Unfortunately there is only a small – but still important – nod to strengthening civilian capacity in the security realm, a vital component for progress in many African countries where undisciplined and unaccountable militaries still tend to be more the rule than exception. Finally, Obama’s vision reiterates a commitment to smart, sustainable development models by linking to the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and recommitting to a new and more effective operational model for doing business.

All in all, the President’s strategy makes for a welcome summary of status quo policy priorities in the region. If only it had come a few years prior.

More than seventy retired military officers wrote a letter to Congress urging that the body not cut the budget for non-military means of executing U.S. foreign policy. The letter, written under the auspices of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s (USGLC) national security advisory group, spoke out against “disproportionate cuts” that would cut civilian programs while boosting military spending, calling on Congress to ensure that “civilian programs have the resources needed to maintain the hard-fought gains of our military.”

The letter (PDF) defending the so-called international affairs budget that covers non-military spending went on:

Development and diplomacy keep us safer by addressing threats in the most dangerous corners of the world and by preventing conflicts before they occur. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other civilian-led programs are especially critical at a time when we are asking them to take on greater responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Addressing today’s challenges with civilian tools costs far less than it does to send in the military in dollars and, more importantly, in terms of the risks to the lives of our men and women in uniform. At just over one percent of federal spending, the International Affairs Budget is a strong return on our investment.

The letter comes just a week after Republican Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a budget that called for the international affairs spending to be slashed by 11 percent, or $6 billion, while boosting military spending by at least $8 billion. Ryan’s budget document took shots at the administration, noting in one section that Obama “has chosen to subordinate national security strategy to his other spending priorities.” Speaking to U.S. News and World Report, Russell Rumbaugh, a former senior Senate Budget Committee aide now with the Stimson Center, said:

This reflects more an ideological statement than any real discussion about what the international budget levels should be.

An Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran summed up the Republican plan: “They cut every tool in the president’s toolbox that isn’t a gun,” said Michael Breen, who works with the Truman National Security Project, recounting how it was a foreign language-enabled diplomat — not their own weapons — that once helped him and fellow soliders get out a jam.

The ostensible aspirations of the Ryan plan, meanwhile, are shared by the USGLC letter signatories, who wrote that they “recognize that we must reduce our nation’s debt.” Yet, with non-military spending such a relatively small piece of the pie and capable of a “strong return” on the investment, the ex-military leaders urged Congress to “support a strong and effective International Affairs Budget and oppose disproportionate cuts to this vital account.”

Projected global population growth from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2040 will lead to a dramatic rise in demand for resources. Population growth and a mushrooming global middle class will, by 2030, require a 50 percent increase in food production, 45 percent more energy, and 30 percent more water, according to a new report released by the United Nations.

The report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,” [PDF] explores the dramatic increases in demand for natural resources facing the world in coming decades and concludes that the current trajectory for global development is unsustainable [PDF]:

We can no longer assume that our collective actions will not trigger tipping points as environmental thresholds are breached, risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities. At the same time, such thresholds should not be used to impose arbitrary growth ceilings on developing countries seeking to lift their people out of poverty. Indeed, if we fail to resolve the sustainable development dilemma, we run the risk of condemning up to 3 billion members of our human family to a life of endemic poverty.

The U.N. report finds that a renewed political commitment to sustainable development pays dividends in the long-term but faces short-term political challenges. The authors argue that economic policymakers fail to see sustainable development as an increasingly crucial component of global economic development. They write:

Most economic decision makers still regard sustainable development as extraneous to their core responsibilities for macroeconomic management and other branches of economic policy. Yet integrating environmental and social issues into economic decisions is vital to success.

The U.N.’s “High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability,” which issued the report, calls on the international community to form a “new political economy” for sustainable development that “recogniz[es] that in certain environmental domains, such as climate change, there is ‘market failure’, which requires both regulation and what the economists would recognize as the pricing of ‘environmental externalities’, while making explicit the economic, social and environmental costs of action and inaction.”

While the panel finds that the current problems resource and population challenges can be fixed with sound public policy, they conclude that major reforms of the global economy must be undertaken quickly. “Tinkering on the margins will not do the job,” they write. “The current global economic crisis …offers an opportunity for significant reforms.”