SIS in the News 3/25-4/1

*Clicking on the headlines listed brings you to the full text of the article (below).
*Clicking on the paper clip redirects you to the original online content or additional attachments (photos, PDF scans of original newsprint).
Disclaimer: Material supplied may be used for internal review, analysis or research only. Any editing, reproduction, publication, rebroadcast, public showing or public display is forbidden and prohibited by copyright laws.

Total Clips: 89

Outlet		Date	News Type
Development; SIS (3)
Collegiate Presswire	DH Capital Strengthens Team With the Addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge	03/30/2011	Release Reprint
pr-usa.net	DH Capital Strengthens Team With the Addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge	03/27/2011	Release Reprint
Kansas City Star - Online	For Blue Valley candidates, funding is a top issue	03/26/2011	Brief Mention
SIS (86)
WNYC-FM	The Nation: Taking Aim At The Military Budget	03/31/2011	Quote
Miami Herald - Online, The	Carter aide: Gross didn't know he was taking US-financed equipment to Cuba	03/31/2011	Quote
Catholic Online	Only 15 nations contributing to military action in Libya	03/31/2011	Quote
NPR	The Nation: Taking Aim At The Military Budget	03/31/2011	Quote
Groong	Syria: The Sectarian Genie Is Out of the Bottle	03/30/2011	AU Author
Lance, The	Symposium to study state of North American auto industry	03/30/2011	Brief Mention
Nation - Online, The	Jimmy Carter: Lift Trade Embargo Against Cuba	03/30/2011	Brief Mention
AlterNet	We Spend More Than 1 Trillion on Defense -- It's Time to Take Aim at Our Military Budget	03/30/2011	Quote
Inter Press Service - Online	Washington's Patchwork Policy on Democracy	03/30/2011	Quote
Washington Post - Online	U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya	03/30/2011	Quote
Huffington Post, The	Surviving Between Two Cultures	03/29/2011	News Brief
Episcopal Life - Online	House of Bishops Daily Account, March 28	03/28/2011	Brief Mention
Nonprofit Quarterly, The - Online	Republicans Propose Devastating Cuts to Development Aid	03/28/2011	Quote
Marketplace - Online	Obama defends U.S. role in Libyan no-fly zone	03/28/2011	Radio Interview
mountainrunner.us	Academia and Public Diplomacy: a new relationship	03/27/2011	Brief Mention
Sify	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/27/2011	Quote
pr-usa.net	Mideast Upheaval: What It Means for the U.S. and Israel	03/27/2011	Release Reprint
MSNBC Live - MSNBC	Conflict Situation in Libya	03/27/2011	TV Appearance
Yahoo! Canada	As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget axe	03/26/2011	Quote
Kuwait Times - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach advances	03/26/2011	Quote
Gazette Extra! - Online	BLOG on BLOGS – What is a BLOG? WHY?	03/25/2011	Brief Mention
Evening Sun - Online, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Pantagraph - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WAOW-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KWWL-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Daily Journal	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KTVN-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Times-News - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Huffington Post, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KTTC-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Palm Beach Post - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Lancaster Online	As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget ax	03/25/2011	Quote
Orangeburg Times and Democrat	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Courier, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WHEC-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WHIZ-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Firedoglake	Bahrainis March Again Despite Brutal Crackdown; Demand Civil Rights, Democracy \| Firedoglake	03/25/2011	Quote
Yahoo! News	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WSVN-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Boston Herald - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WAVE-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Tuscaloosa News - Online, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Boston Globe - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Journal Gazette - Online Bureau, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WLBT-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
FindLaw: for Corporate Counsel	Cuba's Castro: I quit as party chief 5 years ago	03/25/2011	Quote
KSBY-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
UPI.com	Jim Rogers on Whether a US Dollar Collapse is Imminent, and His Top Buy Right Now	03/25/2011	Quote
WHDH-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Prince Albert Daily Herald	As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget axe	03/25/2011	Quote
WEHT-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KFVS-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WECT-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WWL-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
TheStar.com.my	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WBAY-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KSLA-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
WMBF-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Seattle Times - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KWTV-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Washington Post - Blogs	As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget ax - The Washington Post	03/25/2011	Quote
Bradenton Herald - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Jakarta Post	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KLTV-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Valley News Live - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Greeley Tribune, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
St. Paul Pioneer Press - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
FOXNews.com	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
TimesDaily - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Midland Reporter - Telegram - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KGWN-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Corvallis Gazette-Times	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KLKN-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Journal Times - Online, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KOB-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Santa Maria Times	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Casper Star-Tribune - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
KSTC-TV - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Public Opinion	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Daily News - Online, The	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
MyNorthwest.com	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Hanford Sentinel	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Beaumont Enterprise - Online	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Yahoo! Malaysia	US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows	03/25/2011	Quote
Voice of America Radio Network - New York Bureau	Situation and Outlook in Libya	03/25/2011	Radio Interview
No Category Defined(0Clips)


DH Capital Strengthens Team With the Addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge 03/30/2011 Collegiate Presswire	Return to Top
NEW YORK, NY and BOULDER, CO--(Marketwire - March 24, 2011) - DH Capital, LLC, an investment banking firm serving companies in the Internet infrastructure and communications sectors, is pleased to announce the addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge as a Vice President. Ms. Schenesky-Stronge brings more than 10 years of experience with a combination of financial and industry expertise that will strengthen DH Capital's position as the leading investment bank serving the Internet infrastructure sector. "Aleetalynn is a terrific addition to the DH Capital team," stated Adam Lewis, Managing Director of DH Capital. "Her wealth of experience will benefit our clients and the execution of our transactions. The addition of Aleetalynn to the DH team further emphasizes our firm's commitment to be the leading advisor to the Internet infrastructure sector." Prior to joining DH Capital, Aleetalynn was a Senior Equity Analyst at Tier1 Research, where she provided advisory services and insight to financial firms with respect to public Internet infrastructure companies and merger and acquisition activity in the sector. While at Tier 1, Aleetalynn worked closely with dozens of Internet infrastructure companies along with the growing list of financial institutions following the sector. At DH Capital, Aleetalynn will be an integral part of the execution and research team. "DH Capital's reputation in the industry attracted me to the opportunity," said Ms. Schenesky-Stronge, "I am pleased to be joining such a strong group of professionals that have built a successful investment banking firm." Prior to Tier1, Aleetalynn was a Wall Street research analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston's Equity Research Group for Telecommunications covering large cap, public companies, and emerging telecom services. Aleetalynn has also held research positions with Telegeography and ITC where she conducted primary research on developing telecom markets. Aleetalynn holds a MA in International Affairs from American University in Washington, D.C. and a BA in Political Science from Elizabeth City State University in North Carolina. About DH Capital, LLC DH Capital is a private investment banking partnership serving companies in the Internet infrastructure and communications sectors. Headquartered in New York City with offices in Boulder, Colorado, the firm's principals have extensive experience and proven abilities in capital formation, finance, research, business development, and operations. DH Capital provides a full range of advisory services to companies and financial institutions, including mergers and acquisitions, private capital placements, financial restructuring, and operational consulting. DH Capital has completed M&A transactions and private capital placements totaling more than $3 billion in value. For additional information about DH Capital, please contact us at 212-774-3720 or visit our website at http://www.dhcapital.com.

DH Capital Strengthens Team With the Addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge 03/27/2011 pr-usa.net	Return to Top
DH Capital, LLC, an investment banking firm serving companies in the Internet infrastructure and communications sectors, is pleased to announce the addition of Aleetalynn Schenesky-Stronge as a Vice President. Ms. Schenesky-Stronge brings more than 10 years of experience with a combination of financial and industry expertise that will strengthen DH Capital's position as the leading investment bank serving the Internet infrastructure sector. "Aleetalynn is a terrific addition to the DH Capital team," stated Adam Lewis, Managing Director of DH Capital. "Her wealth of experience will benefit our clients and the execution of our transactions. The addition of Aleetalynn to the DH team further emphasizes our firm's commitment to be the leading advisor to the Internet infrastructure sector." Prior to joining DH Capital, Aleetalynn was a Senior Equity Analyst at Tier1 Research, where she provided advisory services and insight to financial firms with respect to public Internet infrastructure companies and merger and acquisition activity in the sector. While at Tier 1, Aleetalynn worked closely with dozens of Internet infrastructure companies along with the growing list of financial institutions following the sector. At DH Capital, Aleetalynn will be an integral part of the execution and research team. "DH Capital's reputation in the industry attracted me to the opportunity," said Ms. Schenesky-Stronge, "I am pleased to be joining such a strong group of professionals that have built a successful investment banking firm." Prior to Tier1, Aleetalynn was a Wall Street research analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston's Equity Research Group for Telecommunications covering large cap, public companies, and emerging telecom services. Aleetalynn has also held research positions with Telegeography and ITC where she conducted primary research on developing telecom markets. Aleetalynn holds a MA in International Affairs from American University in Washington, D.C. and a BA in Political Science from Elizabeth City State University in North Carolina. About DH Capital, LLC DH Capital is a private investment banking partnership serving companies in the Internet infrastructure and communications sectors. Headquartered in New York City with offices in Boulder, Colorado, the firm's principals have extensive experience and proven abilities in capital formation, finance, research, business development, and operations. DH Capital provides a full range of advisory services to companies and financial institutions, including mergers and acquisitions, private capital placements, financial restructuring, and operational consulting. DH Capital has completed M&A transactions and private capital placements totaling more than $3 billion in value. For additional information about DH Capital, please contact us at 212-774-3720 or visit our website at http://www.dhcapital.com.

For Blue Valley candidates, funding is a top issue 03/26/2011 Kansas City Star - Online MATT CAMPBELL	Return to Top
There are two contested seats on the Blue Valley School Board. Position 1 Beth Brandel is challenging incumbent Pam Robinson for this seat, representing the northeastern part of the district. Brandel says the district needs to be more fiscally responsible and that spending money does not necessarily mean better results. She said enrollment numbers do not justify opening the new Aubry Bend Middle School. Brandel does not support removing the state cap on local school taxation to supplement state aid. The cap perhaps could be raised but should not overburden taxpayers or business, she said. Robinson says her experience as a classroom teacher, a school board member for eight years and an official of the Kansas Association of School Boards makes her best able to serve Blue Valley. Robinson cites high student test scores as evidence that the district is providing an excellent education despite budget challenges. Robinson supports removal of the local funding cap because of unfunded mandates the district has to comply with. Position 2 Stacy Obringer-Varhall is challenging incumbent Tony Thill for this seat, representing the northwestern part of the district. Obringer-Varhall has extensive volunteer experience in local PTA and other school projects and organizations. She said she was not running because of perceived problems but because she wants to help make the district better. Obringer-Varhall wants the district to continue to expand educational opportunities beyond the classroom, such as the Center for Advanced Professional Studies. Obringer-Varhall supports raising the local funding cap but not its complete removal. But she wants to see what the state Legislature does this session. Thill cites his four years on the school board and his business experience as reasons to return him to the post. Thill said budget constraints are the district's biggest challenge. He wants to avoid cuts in the classrooms and to support teachers. He said the district must look at alternate funding sources for extracurricular activities. Thill supports removal of the local funding cap and said the whole state educational funding system needs a thorough review. Beth Brandel Website 47 Address: 5444 W. 153rd Terrace, Leawood. Occupation: Director of business operations and planning, Johnson County Wastewater Education: Pittsburg State University, BBA and MBA. Previous elected office: None Website: www.bethbrandel.org Pam Robinson Age: 55 Address: 14116 Meadow Lane, eawood Occupation: Blue Valley Board of Education Education: Creighton University, BS in education Previous elected office: school board member since 2003 Website: www.pamrobinson.org Stacy Obringer-Varhall Age: 38 Address: 9632 W. 116th Place, Overland Park Occupation: Homemaker and school volunteer Education: American University, Washington, D.C., BA in international studies Previous elected office: None Website:www.stacyforbv.org Tony Thill Age: 45 Address: 7905 W. 131st Place, Overland Park Occupation: President of board, NOVA Center Education: University of Kansas, BS in business administration Previous elected office: School board member since 2007 Website: midwestdemocracy project.org/candidates /tony-thill/ To reach Matt Campbell, call 816-234-7745 or send email to mcampbell@kcstar.com.

The Nation: Taking Aim At The Military Budget 03/31/2011 WNYC-FM	Return to Top
Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor to The Nation. For the first time since the end of the cold war, there's a real possibility that the post-9/11 fever that sent U.S. military spending shooting upward will break and that the Pentagon's budget will fall sharply. But it won't be easy. On the surface, it might not seem as if cuts are in the offing. After thirteen consecutive years of growth, between 1998 and 2011, spending on the military has reached an all-time high, and for 2012 Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking Congress to authorize yet another increase, seeking $553 billion, plus an additional $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $671 billion. Not only is the White House seeking more money; Congress — even with the deficit-obsessed, Tea Party/Republican majority in the House — has so far refused to wield the budget ax against the Defense Department. Yet longtime analysts say a confluence of events has emerged that will change that. "Five years from now, we'll turn around and the defense budget will be a lot lower than we thought it was going to be five years ago, and we'll look back and say, Wow," says Gordon Adams, a Stimson Center fellow and American University professor who's been analyzing military spending for four decades. That's not because the military-industrial complex is ready for cuts. The so-called Iron Triangle, the powerful nexus that includes the Pentagon, military contractors and lobbyists, and hawks on the Congressional armed services committees, will resist cuts every step of the way. "If you leave it to the Iron Triangle, it won't come down," says Adams. "But it will come down, and what will drive it are the outside variables, which create a tidal wave that hits defense spending." What's creating that wave, say Adams and other experts, are two intersecting currents. A politics of debt and deficit reduction has taken hold in Washington, tied to an economic crisis that has convinced many that the United States can no longer afford an oversized Pentagon. And for the public, the decade-long trauma of 9/11, which fueled the "war on terror," has finally begun to ease. War-weary Americans have turned decisively against the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, according to polls, voters support cuts in military spending. All that creates space on Capitol Hill to take on the Iron Triangle. Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the liberal Center for Defense Information and editor of the new book The Pentagon Labyrinth, points to major studies by think tanks and task forces calling for sweeping military cuts as a sign that things are changing. "We're in a period of a shift in tectonic plates when it comes to the defense budget," he says. In 2010 a series of high-powered reports called for big cuts in military spending, with each projecting reductions of 15-20 percent of the Pentagon budget. In June the Sustainable Defense Task Force, organized by Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul, outlined a plan to cut $960 billion between 2011 and 2020, including cuts in the nuclear arsenal, troop deployments in Europe and Asia, the size of the Navy, a wide range of costly weapons systems and reforms in military pay scales and the Pentagon's healthcare system. In September the libertarian Cato Institute published a report, "Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint," that outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years, including a one-third reduction in the troop strength of the Army and Marines. In November a debt-reduction task force organized by the centrist, establishment-oriented Bipartisan Policy Center released a plan, "Restoring America's Future," that proposed a five-year freeze in Defense Department spending at current levels and then a cap on future growth, which would save $1.1 trillion over a decade. But the most startling report of all was released in December by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, created by President Obama and chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as President Clinton's White House chief of staff. Though it fudged the numbers a bit, making it hard to pin down how far its proposed cuts would go, the panel's reductions in military spending could amount to as much as $650 billion to $1 trillion over ten years. "The Simpson-Bowles commission came up with nearly a trillion dollars in cuts, and nobody blinked an eye," says Wheeler. Well, almost nobody. A coalition of hawkish think tanks — led by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative outfit led by William Kristol of The Weekly Standard — lambasted the Simpson-Bowles report as a mortal threat. The coalition, Defending Defense, has trotted out claims about China's military power, the threat of radical Islam and the need to maintain US hegemony worldwide in its effort to rally support for the military establishment. They're alarmed at the sudden erosion of support for the Pentagon in the Republican Party — not only among libertarian, often isolationist Tea Party types but among traditional Republicans, too. According to Capitol Hill lobbyists and think-tank military analysts, a contingent of Republican stalwarts — including Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo, both of whom served on the Simpson-Bowles panel, along with two senators from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson — are open to arguments about hefty military cuts. And GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, an ultraconservative who serves on the Budget Committee, cited what he calls the debt "crisis" to suggest that it's time to hack away at Pentagon outlays. "I'm saying the message is clear that we need to do some things now, and the Defense Department can't be absolved from those challenges," he said in early March. On the outside, a passel of conservative activists, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David Keene of the American Conservative Union, co-wrote a letter urging Congress not to exempt the Pentagon when looking to save money [see Dreyfuss, "GOP Fires at the Pentagon," Feb. 14]. Despite their bravado, Kristol et al. may realize that, increasingly, defending defense is a hopeless task. The Pentagon budget has grown so apocalyptically that an emerging coalition of deficit hawks, liberals who back an expanded social safety net and stimulus spending for job-creating projects, antiwar activists and traditional conservatives who resent the neoconservative uber-hawks ought to be able to force reductions. According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military's base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more thanâ€¨$1 trillion a year. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the regular military budget, not including the add-ons, has doubled from a low of about $360 billion in 1998 to more than $739 billion in 2011. It's so much money that, as the Bipartisan Policy report points out, by 2009 US spending on military research and development alone, about $80 billion, surpassed China's entire military budget by more than $10 billion. The budget for the US Special Forces alone is greater than the total military spending of nearly 100 countries; overall, the United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Proposals to cut the military always start with personnel. Although many assume that the Pentagon spends most of its money on wars and war matériel, from jet fighters to aircraft carriers, the biggest chunk of the budget is for administration, overhead, salaries and benefits, which make up about 42 percent. So bringing down costs can't be done without massive cuts in the number of troops. The Bipartisan Policy Center calls for a reduction of 275,000, including 92,000 in the Army and Marines added during the buildup, 80,000 from deployments in Europe and Asia and 100,000 more from noncombat, infrastructure jobs held by uniformed personnel at the Pentagon. According to estimates from the Frank/Paul task force, over the next decade the United States could save $347 billion by reducing its military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third ($80 billion), rolling back the amount of ground forces ($147 billion), reforming the military pay structure, reforming Tricare (the generous healthcare program for military retirees) and reducing money for recruiting ($120 billion). Another $217 billion could be saved between 2011 and 2020 by reducing the Navy fleet from 286 ships to 230 ($127 billion), retiring two aircraft carriers and two naval air wings ($50 billion), reducing procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and retiring two Air Force tactical fighter wings ($40 billion). Another $22 billion could be saved by canceling or delaying purchases of the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the KC-X aerial refueling tanker. Broadly speaking, public opinion no longer favors military spending. Support for the war in Afghanistan, which absorbs $10 billion a month, has dropped off a cliff, with two-thirds of Americans saying the war is no longer worth fighting. Other polling shows that when asked to choose between cuts in Pentagon spending and undermining the social safety net, the public chooses cutting the Pentagon. A March poll revealed that 51 percent favor reductions in military spending versus just 28 percent who would cut Medicare and Medicaid and 18 percent who'd cut Social Security. And those numbers ignore the fact that for the most part, as Wheeler argues, the public is blissfully unaware of how enormous the Pentagon budget is. He cites other polling to show that the carefully tended myth, fed by hawks, of an underfunded Pentagon has confused many voters. "Fifty-eight percent of Americans know that Pentagon spending is larger than any other nation, but almost none know it is up to seven times that of China," Wheeler wrote recently. "Most had no idea the defense budget is larger than federal spending for education, Medicare or interest on the debt." Read the rest of Robert Dreyfuss's article at The Nation. Copyright 2011 The Nation. To see more, visit http://www.thenation.com/.

Carter aide: Gross didn't know he was taking US-financed equipment to Cuba 03/31/2011 Miami Herald - Online, The	Return to Top
Posted on Thursday, 03.31.11 Gross case An aide to former President Jimmy Carter said Alan Gross, the U.S. contractor jailed in Cuba, did not know he was carrying equipment financed by the United States. Carter in Cuba for meetings with Raúl, Ortega Carter plans trip to Cuba at government's invite Carter plans trip to Cuba at government's invite Carter meets with Fidel Castro and dissidents in Cuba Carter to meet with dissidents while in Cuba By Frances Robles And Juan O. Tamayo NEW YORK -- The U.S. government contractor jailed in Cuba for bringing satellite phones to Jewish groups claims he was unaware that he was carrying equipment financed by the United States, a former top aide to President Jimmy Carter said Thursday. Former National Security Adviser Robert Pastor, who served as the White House's point man on Cuba, accompanied Carter on his trip to Havana this week. The former president met with both the Castro brothers as well as Alan Gross, an American development worker who was sentenced to 15 years in prison after getting caught smuggling sat phones, which he claimed were to provide Internet to Jewish groups. “We did meet with Gross. He claims not to know he was bringing equipment from the U.S. government,” Pastor told a Cuban conference audience at the Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies at the City University of New York. “The facts are simply not all that clear, and this is coming from someone who has spoken to all sides of this, often.” Carter also met with Jewish group leaders, who claimed they knew nothing about Gross or his phones, said Pastor, now a professor at American University in Washington. Gross' trial was closed to the media, and Pastor's comments marked the first time anyone indicated that the long-time development worker — considered a “mercenary” by the Cuban government — was unaware of the nature of his work. Pressed for details after his speech, Pastor said he regretted “getting into that level of detail.” “I did not speak to him. I do not feel authorized to say what he said,” Pastor said in an interview. Gross, Pastor said, hopefully will not serve as long a term in prison as the “Cuban Five” intelligence agents imprisoned in the United States — 13 years. “A case could be made that a humanitarian gesture after 13 years in prison should be seriously considered” by the Obama administration, he said. He added that both Havana and Washington made it clear they were not interested in a prisoner swap. Havana is worried about “future Alan Grosses” as the Obama administration has not scrapped the U.S. Agency for International Development program that funded his trip. Gross' wife Judy and the company that sent him, Development Alternatives Inc., could not be reached for comment late Thursday. Carter, his wife Rosalynn and his retinue spent nearly six hours — including dinner — with the 79-year-old Raúl Castro, who replaced brother Fidel, at first temporarily and then officially, after Fidel suffered a nearly fatal health crisis in 2006. “He is secure in his position and aware of his age and limited time to undertake reforms that he's now convinced are needed to improve the economy,'' Pastor said. The reforms include a significant expansion of private businesses, profound cuts in government subsidies and other measures expected to be taken up at a congress of the ruling Communist Party that starts April 16. Pastor is too optimistic because Castro will never surrender his political controls or his anti-Washington bent, said Jaime Suchlicki, head of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. “Yes he's undertaking limited reforms, but he's not going to dismantle communism or create a capitalist society,'' Suchlicki said. “There will be no political opening and his government will remain repressive and anti-American.”

Only 15 nations contributing to military action in Libya 03/31/2011 Catholic Online	Return to Top
'Coalition of the willing' smaller than any major multilateral operation since end of the Cold War The military action Libya by the United States and its allies has been a very limited one. According to some statistics, U.S. President Barack Obama's "coalition of the willing" is the smallest of any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War. Only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to a military contribution to the war in Libya. LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - In a compilation of the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the past 20 years. It has been shown that 32 countries participated in the 1991 Persian Gulf War; 24 countries participated in the 1995 Bosnia mission; 19 countries participated in the 1999 Kosovo mission; 48 nations participated in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and 40 countries participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In stark contrast, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to a military contribution to the war in Libya. Experts stress that all of these military interventions happened in different contexts. They also added that the reason Obama's Libya war coalition has less international involvement than all the others was due to his administration's behavior in the lead-up to the war, its approach to multilateralism, the speed at which it was put together and the justifications for the war itself. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the administration's effort to build the coalition was hampered by its stated desire to hand off the leadership of the Libya intervention to NATO. "Obama, in his deference to [getting out of the lead], has not only wanted other countries to do as much as they could, he has essentially forgone his responsibility to build the coalition," he said. The mission in Libya is smaller in scale than those in Iraq or Afghanistan. A no-fly zone doesn't require as many countries as a full-on invasion, O'Hanlon says. However, the relatively few Arab countries contributing military assets, which are only three so far, could pose a problem for the mission's legitimacy. According to David Bosco, an assistant professor at American University, although the Libya intervention was endorsed by the Arab League, the endorsement doesn't require any Arab countries to contribute materially to the effort. "At a certain point, the administration is going to have to decide whether just to say this is a coalition of willing countries," he said. "That's not the end of the world." Keywords: Libya, U.S., military cooperation, Arab nations

The Nation: Taking Aim At The Military Budget 03/31/2011 NPR	Return to Top
Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor to The Nation. For the first time since the end of the cold war, there's a real possibility that the post-9/11 fever that sent U.S. military spending shooting upward will break and that the Pentagon's budget will fall sharply. But it won't be easy. On the surface, it might not seem as if cuts are in the offing. After thirteen consecutive years of growth, between 1998 and 2011, spending on the military has reached an all-time high, and for 2012 Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking Congress to authorize yet another increase, seeking $553 billion, plus an additional $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $671 billion. Not only is the White House seeking more money; Congress — even with the deficit-obsessed, Tea Party/Republican majority in the House — has so far refused to wield the budget ax against the Defense Department. Yet longtime analysts say a confluence of events has emerged that will change that. "Five years from now, we'll turn around and the defense budget will be a lot lower than we thought it was going to be five years ago, and we'll look back and say, Wow," says Gordon Adams, a Stimson Center fellow and American University professor who's been analyzing military spending for four decades. That's not because the military-industrial complex is ready for cuts. The so-called Iron Triangle, the powerful nexus that includes the Pentagon, military contractors and lobbyists, and hawks on the Congressional armed services committees, will resist cuts every step of the way. "If you leave it to the Iron Triangle, it won't come down," says Adams. "But it will come down, and what will drive it are the outside variables, which create a tidal wave that hits defense spending." What's creating that wave, say Adams and other experts, are two intersecting currents. A politics of debt and deficit reduction has taken hold in Washington, tied to an economic crisis that has convinced many that the United States can no longer afford an oversized Pentagon. And for the public, the decade-long trauma of 9/11, which fueled the "war on terror," has finally begun to ease. War-weary Americans have turned decisively against the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, according to polls, voters support cuts in military spending. All that creates space on Capitol Hill to take on the Iron Triangle. Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the liberal Center for Defense Information and editor of the new book The Pentagon Labyrinth, points to major studies by think tanks and task forces calling for sweeping military cuts as a sign that things are changing. "We're in a period of a shift in tectonic plates when it comes to the defense budget," he says. In 2010 a series of high-powered reports called for big cuts in military spending, with each projecting reductions of 15-20 percent of the Pentagon budget. In June the Sustainable Defense Task Force, organized by Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul, outlined a plan to cut $960 billion between 2011 and 2020, including cuts in the nuclear arsenal, troop deployments in Europe and Asia, the size of the Navy, a wide range of costly weapons systems and reforms in military pay scales and the Pentagon's healthcare system. In September the libertarian Cato Institute published a report, "Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint," that outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years, including a one-third reduction in the troop strength of the Army and Marines. In November a debt-reduction task force organized by the centrist, establishment-oriented Bipartisan Policy Center released a plan, "Restoring America's Future," that proposed a five-year freeze in Defense Department spending at current levels and then a cap on future growth, which would save $1.1 trillion over a decade. But the most startling report of all was released in December by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, created by President Obama and chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as President Clinton's White House chief of staff. Though it fudged the numbers a bit, making it hard to pin down how far its proposed cuts would go, the panel's reductions in military spending could amount to as much as $650 billion to $1 trillion over ten years. "The Simpson-Bowles commission came up with nearly a trillion dollars in cuts, and nobody blinked an eye," says Wheeler. Well, almost nobody. A coalition of hawkish think tanks — led by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative outfit led by William Kristol of The Weekly Standard — lambasted the Simpson-Bowles report as a mortal threat. The coalition, Defending Defense, has trotted out claims about China's military power, the threat of radical Islam and the need to maintain US hegemony worldwide in its effort to rally support for the military establishment. They're alarmed at the sudden erosion of support for the Pentagon in the Republican Party — not only among libertarian, often isolationist Tea Party types but among traditional Republicans, too. According to Capitol Hill lobbyists and think-tank military analysts, a contingent of Republican stalwarts — including Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo, both of whom served on the Simpson-Bowles panel, along with two senators from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson — are open to arguments about hefty military cuts. And GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, an ultraconservative who serves on the Budget Committee, cited what he calls the debt "crisis" to suggest that it's time to hack away at Pentagon outlays. "I'm saying the message is clear that we need to do some things now, and the Defense Department can't be absolved from those challenges," he said in early March. On the outside, a passel of conservative activists, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David Keene of the American Conservative Union, co-wrote a letter urging Congress not to exempt the Pentagon when looking to save money [see Dreyfuss, "GOP Fires at the Pentagon," Feb. 14]. Despite their bravado, Kristol et al. may realize that, increasingly, defending defense is a hopeless task. The Pentagon budget has grown so apocalyptically that an emerging coalition of deficit hawks, liberals who back an expanded social safety net and stimulus spending for job-creating projects, antiwar activists and traditional conservatives who resent the neoconservative uber-hawks ought to be able to force reductions. According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military's base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more thanâ€¨$1 trillion a year. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the regular military budget, not including the add-ons, has doubled from a low of about $360 billion in 1998 to more than $739 billion in 2011. It's so much money that, as the Bipartisan Policy report points out, by 2009 US spending on military research and development alone, about $80 billion, surpassed China's entire military budget by more than $10 billion. The budget for the US Special Forces alone is greater than the total military spending of nearly 100 countries; overall, the United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Proposals to cut the military always start with personnel. Although many assume that the Pentagon spends most of its money on wars and war matériel, from jet fighters to aircraft carriers, the biggest chunk of the budget is for administration, overhead, salaries and benefits, which make up about 42 percent. So bringing down costs can't be done without massive cuts in the number of troops. The Bipartisan Policy Center calls for a reduction of 275,000, including 92,000 in the Army and Marines added during the buildup, 80,000 from deployments in Europe and Asia and 100,000 more from noncombat, infrastructure jobs held by uniformed personnel at the Pentagon. According to estimates from the Frank/Paul task force, over the next decade the United States could save $347 billion by reducing its military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third ($80 billion), rolling back the amount of ground forces ($147 billion), reforming the military pay structure, reforming Tricare (the generous healthcare program for military retirees) and reducing money for recruiting ($120 billion). Another $217 billion could be saved between 2011 and 2020 by reducing the Navy fleet from 286 ships to 230 ($127 billion), retiring two aircraft carriers and two naval air wings ($50 billion), reducing procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and retiring two Air Force tactical fighter wings ($40 billion). Another $22 billion could be saved by canceling or delaying purchases of the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the KC-X aerial refueling tanker. Broadly speaking, public opinion no longer favors military spending. Support for the war in Afghanistan, which absorbs $10 billion a month, has dropped off a cliff, with two-thirds of Americans saying the war is no longer worth fighting. Other polling shows that when asked to choose between cuts in Pentagon spending and undermining the social safety net, the public chooses cutting the Pentagon. A March poll revealed that 51 percent favor reductions in military spending versus just 28 percent who would cut Medicare and Medicaid and 18 percent who'd cut Social Security. And those numbers ignore the fact that for the most part, as Wheeler argues, the public is blissfully unaware of how enormous the Pentagon budget is. He cites other polling to show that the carefully tended myth, fed by hawks, of an underfunded Pentagon has confused many voters. "Fifty-eight percent of Americans know that Pentagon spending is larger than any other nation, but almost none know it is up to seven times that of China," Wheeler wrote recently. "Most had no idea the defense budget is larger than federal spending for education, Medicare or interest on the debt." Read the rest of Robert Dreyfuss's article at The Nation.

Syria: The Sectarian Genie Is Out of the Bottle 03/30/2011 Groong	Return to Top
by Dr. Josef Olmert, Adjunct Professor, American University's School of International Service Posted: 03/28/11 12:24 PM ET In the last 4 decades, it had been common knowledge that the Alawi community numbering about 15% of the population was the dominant power in Syria, due to its over-representation in the armed forces and the Ba'ath Party. This was the result of developments starting with the French Mandatory regime in Syria, which favored the non-Sunni minorities, and encouraged their enlistment to the armed forces. Many among the minorities, particularly Alawis, took advantage of this opportunity, and used military service as a vehicle through which they climbed up the social ladder. The Ba'ath Party was another such vehicle, as it offered members of the minority communities -- particularly Alawis, Druze and Greek Orthodox Christians -- the opportunity to get away from the religious ghetto enforced upon them by the majority Sunni-Arab population of Syria. Thus, the combination between the army and the party became the key to understanding Syria's modern history, and with it the role of the Alawis. The famous Iraqi scholar, Abbas Kelidar wrote years ago, that the Sunnis of Syria feel that control over the country is their natural, unchallenged right. But for most of Syria's modern history it was not to be. What adds insult to injury, is the fact that they are ruled by the Alawis of all minorities. A British consular report from the 1870's about Syria, stated "they hate each other... Sunnis boycott the Shi'ites... both resent the Druze... all despise the Alawis." This was an attitude deeply ingrained among so many Sunnis, because the greatest Syrian Sunni scholar, Ibn Tayimiyya, issued a ruling in the early 14th century, forbidding his followers from marrying Alawis as they were worse infidels than the Jews and Christians. No wonder, that the Alawis always felt that they had to deal with a problem of legitimacy, so far as the Sunni majority is concerned. Officially, in the Ba'ath paradise that exists in Syria, if we are to believe the official propaganda, there is no sectarian problem. All the Syrians are happy members of the Arab Syrian community, and sectarian affiliation is never mentioned in official Syrian documents, including the census figures. Go and tell it to the Sunni majority, particularly those residing in the ill-fated city of Hammah, a traditional center of Sunni opposition to the regime, which was attacked twice by the security forces in 1964/5 and in 1981/2. The second earned the unpalatable title of Majazarat Hammah (the Hammah massacre). The greatest nightmare of the besieged Assad regime is a repetition of the sectarian tension and violence which characterized the period leading to the great Hammah Massacre, but it seems that the monster of sectarianism reared its head, and the nightmare is starting to materialize. The riots in the port city of Latakiyya, a mixed Sunni-Alawi community, in the center of the Alawi-dominated region of Syria, clearly indicate that things are fast getting out of control. As riots started there, the authorities denied their very existence, then they reported that 2 were killed, and later admitted that there were 12 fatalities. Other sources report that the actual number of casualties was much higher. Interestingly enough, the official communiqués referred to unknown armed gangs which opened fire on innocent civilians, a strange language which is reminiscent of the terminology used by the regime in the past, when reporting sectarian riots. The Latakiyya carnage instilled a sense of déjà vu in Syria, whose population is fully aware of how quickly sectarian conflicts can spread, and how ferocious they can be. The regime must be aware of the fact that opposition sources in Syria keep referring to the support that Assad receives from Iran and the Lebanese Hezballah terror group. There is no independent confirmation to these reports and their veracity is questionable, but the opposition has a point trying to prove the non-Sunni character of the regime. A full-fledged sectarian conflict in Syria will be disastrous to the country, as it will involve other minority groups as well, and it also has the potential to spread to neighboring Lebanon. In fact, Syrians living in Lebanon started demonstrating against President Assad. They were not members of the Alawi community of northern Lebanon. The Alawis are on edge, the regime is increasingly nervous and the slogans in the street demonstrations assume a sectarian tone. The genie is out of the bottle. It will be very difficult to put it back.

Symposium to study state of North American auto industry 03/30/2011 Lance, The	Return to Top
University of Windsor Christopher Sands, a senior fellow at both the Center for North American Studies at American University, and the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, will deliver a keynote address to open the 21st annual Wayne State – Windsor Symposium on Thursday, March 31, at the University of Windsor. Dr. Sands will speak on “Seven Trends that Transformed the North American Auto Industry – And What They Mean for Canada and the United States,” in keeping with the theme of this year's conference: “International Competition, Regulatory Coordination, and the Future of the Auto Industry in North America.” It is open to the campus community and runs from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in room 203, Toldo Health Education Centre. Other presentations include Political science professor Stephen Brooks (Windsor), What's Old and New in Canada-U.S. Relations Business professor John C. Taylor (Wayne State), U.S.-Canada Trade and Security: A Balanced State? Law professor Maureen Irish (Windsor), Trade and Regulatory Convergence in NAFTA and the EU Caroline Gawlik of the Detroit Regional Chamber, Developing a Bi-National Logistics Hub Bill Anderson, Ontario Research Chair in Cross-Border Transportation Policy, Prospects for the Future of Cross-border Automotive Integration Business professor Tony Faria (Windsor), North America in the Global Automotive Market: Future Investment, Production and Employment Business professor Pete Mateja (Windsor), The Upfitter Market: An Overview of The Industry and Its Future Engineering professor Jennifer Johrendt (Windsor), Auto Industry-Academic R&D in Canada Richard Chasdi of Wayne State's Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, The Security Challenge – Are We Prepared? No registration is required, but organizer Anna Lanoszka asks those planning to attend lunch to notify her at alanos@uwindsor.ca. Find more information, including a detailed program, on the symposium Web site.

Jimmy Carter: Lift Trade Embargo Against Cuba 03/30/2011 Nation - Online, The Peter Kornbluh	Return to Top
“I hope we can contribute to better relations between the two countries,” Jimmy Carter said describing his mission in visiting Havana this week. At a remarkable press conference as he left to return to the United States today he issued a powerful, resounding, call for major changes in US policy toward Cuba. Peter Kornbluh directs the Cuba Documentation Project and the Chile Documentation Project at the National Security... By prosecuting Luis Posada on charges related to his acts of terrorism, the United States is repudiating a dark past that its own Cold War officials and covert operatives set in motion. The Cuban exile has a long record of terror, but his trial, starting today, is on lesser charges. Briefing reporters at the Palacio de Convenciones in Havana, Carter touched on virtually every key aspect of US-Cuban relations: the embargo, the case of imprisoned AID contractor Alan Gross, the Cuban Five, Cuba's inclusion on the terrorism list and the need for greater freedoms—not only for Cubans but for American citizens who are restricted from traveling to the island. “I think one serious mistake that my country continues to make is the trade embargo,” Carter stated bluntly. The economic restrictions on commerce were “damaging to the well-being of every citizen in Cuba,” and “impeded rather than assisted” reforms that he hoped would be made on the island under Raul Castro's leadership. “We should immediately lift the embargo,” Carter said, as well as all restrictions on travel to Cuba. When the Carter trip was announced last week, many analysts believed he intended to bring imprisoned AID contractor Alan Gross back to the United States. Arrested in December 2009, Gross was prosecuted and convicted earlier this month for illegally distributing satellite communications gear to religious groups inside Cuba—part of a US government “democracy-promotion” program intended to undermine the Cuban regime. According to State Department officials, his arrest, conviction and sentence of fifteen years in prison has become a major stumbling block in improving US relations with Cuba. But Carter made it clear that the Cuban government had warned him in advance not to expect Gross to be freed at this time. After visiting Gross at an undisclosed location this morning, Carter addressed the need for him to be released “because he is innocent of any serious threat to the Cuban people.” Gross's conviction should be overturned by Cuba's Supreme Court on appeal, Carter forcefully opined, or Raúl Castro should pardon him, or soon release him to his family on humanitarian grounds. In perhaps his boldest—and riskiest—statement as a former US president, Carter also called for the release of the so-called Cuban Five, a handful of Cuban counterterrorism agents arrested by the FBI and convicted of spying against violent exile groups and other US targets in 1998. Carter noted that the five agents had been in US prisons for more than a dozen years and characterized their further incarceration as “unwarranted.” In response to a question posted by The Nation about why Cuba remains on the State Department's list of nations that support terrorism, Carter was unequivocal: Cuba's inclusion on the list was “completely unfounded” and based on “untrue allegations” that Cuba was harboring international terrorists from the FARC in Colombia and separatist Basque group ETA from Spain. Indeed, to build a case to take Cuba off the list, Carter met in Havana with diplomats from both Spain and Colombia who said they welcomed Cuba's policy of accepting the FARC and ETA members, as it facilitated communications between those groups and those governments. In a significant revelation, Carter told the press that US and Cuban intelligence were currently “cooperating” in counterterrorism efforts against Al Qaeda. “I think we should take Cuba off the terrorism list,” Carter stated bluntly. Accompanied by his wife, Rosalyn, American University professor and former Carter White House aide Robert Pastor, Dr. Jennifer McCoy, director of the Carter Center's America's program, and Dr. John Hardman, president of the Center, Carter's three-day trip was skillfully organized to give him maximum credibility as well as substantive political cover in pressing for changes in relations on both sides. Repeatedly during the press conference he called for respect for human rights and full freedoms for the Cuban people. This morning he met the internationally popular Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez as well as the recognized human rights activist Elizardo Sánchez Santa Cruz. Monday he visited Cuba's only Jewish community center in Havana. During his three days in Cuba, he also conferred with diplomats from other nations who have full relations with Havana. In a remarkable gesture to the importance the Cuban government attaches to the case of the Cuban Five, Carter visited two mothers and three wives of the detained Cuban agents. This morning Carter met with Fidel Castro, whom he characterized as “an old friend.” But his most important meeting was Tuesday night with Cuban President Raúl Castro. The six-hour summit started with chit-chat in a salon of the Palacio de Convenciones, and then moved to a relaxed dinner at Café del Orient—one of Cuba's pre-eminent restaurants. After dinner, Castro was seen walking Carter and his wife back to their hotel in Old Havana. In a significant gesture, President Castro bid Carter goodbye at the airport, and told the press that he was sending a message to Obama with him that Cuba desired normal relations with Washington—as equals and without conditions. In 2002 when Carter became the first and only former US president to visit Havana, he briefed President George Bush when he returned. (Bush tightened restrictions on travel as he began his 2004 re-election bid, and essentially called for the Cuban people to rise up and overthrow Castro.) Today Carter made it clear that he would be briefing President Obama on this trip as well and would suggest to him a variety of steps the president could take to improve ties. He noted that there would be “confidential matters” he would discuss with Obama, inferring that there were back-channel aspects to his meetings with Cuban President Raúl Castro. Shortly after his inauguration in 1977, Carter issued a secret presidential decision memorandum on changing Cuba policy. “I have determined that we should attempt to normalize our relations with Cuba,” it stated. “When I was president I did the best I could to improve diplomatic relations,” he recalled, although his administration never achieved the full rapprochement with Cuba he envisioned. More than three decades later, Jimmy Carter remains clearly committed to that elusive goal.

We Spend More Than 1 Trillion on Defense -- It's Time to Take Aim at Our Military Budget 03/30/2011 AlterNet Robert Dreyfuss	Return to Top
The United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Is there hope for a saner military budget? Petitions by Change.orgStart a Petition � The following article first appeared in the Nation Magazine. For more great content from the Nation, sign up for their For the first time since the end of the cold war, there's a real possibility that the post-9/11 fever that sent US military spending shooting upward will break and that the Pentagon's budget will fall sharply. But it won't be easy. On the surface, it might not seem as if cuts are in the offing. After thirteen consecutive years of growth, between 1998 and 2011, spending on the military has reached an all-time high, and for 2012 Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking Congress to authorize yet another increase, seeking $553 billion, plus an additional $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $671 billion. Not only is the White House seeking more money; Congress -- even with the deficit-obsessed, Tea Party/Republican majority in the House -- has so far refused to wield the budget ax against the Defense Department. Yet longtime analysts say a confluence of events has emerged that will change that. “Five years from now, we'll turn around and the defense budget will be a lot lower than we thought it was going to be five years ago, and we'll look back and say, Wow,” says Gordon Adams, a Stimson Center fellow and American University professor who's been analyzing military spending for four decades. That's not because the military-industrial complex is ready for cuts. The so-called Iron Triangle, the powerful nexus that includes the Pentagon, military contractors and lobbyists, and hawks on the Congressional armed services committees, will resist cuts every step of the way. “If you leave it to the Iron Triangle, it won't come down,” says Adams. “But it will come down, and what will drive it are the outside variables, which create a tidal wave that hits defense spending.” What's creating that wave, say Adams and other experts, are two intersecting currents. A politics of debt and deficit reduction has taken hold in Washington, tied to an economic crisis that has convinced many that the United States can no longer afford an oversized Pentagon. And for the public, the decade-long trauma of 9/11, which fueled the “war on terror,” has finally begun to ease. War-weary Americans have turned decisively against the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, according to polls, voters support cuts in military spending. All that creates space on Capitol Hill to take on the Iron Triangle. Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the liberal Center for Defense Information and editor of the new book The Pentagon Labyrinth, points to major studies by think tanks and task forces calling for sweeping military cuts as a sign that things are changing. “We're in a period of a shift in tectonic plates when it comes to the defense budget,” he says. In 2010 a series of high-powered reports called for big cuts in military spending, with each projecting reductions of 15–20 percent of the Pentagon budget. In June the Sustainable Defense Task Force, organized by Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul, outlined a plan to cut $960 billion between 2011 and 2020, including cuts in the nuclear arsenal, troop deployments in Europe and Asia, the size of the Navy, a wide range of costly weapons systems and reforms in military pay scales and the Pentagon's healthcare system. In September the libertarian Cato Institute published a report, “Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint,” that outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years, including a one-third reduction in the troop strength of the Army and Marines. In November a debt-reduction task force organized by the centrist, establishment-oriented Bipartisan Policy Center released a plan, “Restoring America's Future,” that proposed a five-year freeze in Defense Department spending at current levels and then a cap on future growth, which would save $1.1 trillion over a decade.

Washington's Patchwork Policy on Democracy 03/30/2011 Inter Press Service - Online David Elkins	Return to Top
WASHINGTON, Mar 30, 2011 (IPS) - While a NATO-led coalition continues to enforce a no-fly zone in a Libya that seems to be on the brink of catastrophe, the Barack Obama administration has yet to formulate a set of guiding principles in dealing with ongoing protests throughout the region in countries like Bahrain. In a nationally televised defence of his administration's Libya policy on Monday, President Obama stood by many of the promises made in his 2009 Cairo speech a pledge to support those in the Arab world who seek more pluralistic, democratic forms of government. "I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one's own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people," he said. Despite this rhetoric, some analysts see Obama's approach to the uprisings in the region not as conforming to a broad strategic vision, but as hinging on concessions to regional partners' "red lines" for reforms as in Bahrain, where U.S. ally Saudi Arabia fears that a more politically inclusive regime will tempt Iran to expand its sphere of influence. In the case of Bahrain, the Obama administration has taken a decidedly different approach than in Libya or even Egypt. Despite the Bahraini government's crackdown on civilians and popular calls for political reform, including representative governance, the U.S. has acceded to the Khalifa regime's minimal concessions and taken an ambiguous position on the presence of Saudi troops in the country, which critics say has only exacerbated sectarian tensions. Sectarian fault lines From the outset, demonstrations in Sunni-governed, majority- Shia Bahrain were avowedly non-sectarian in character, but the narrative shifted away from the domestic political sphere and became one of sectarian conflict when Saudi troops, the majority of whom are Sunni, crossed the causeway on Mar. 14 with a mandate from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ostensibly to protect the regime's infrastructure, but in what came across as a reinforcement of the al-Khalifa monarchic rule. As a result of the Saudi response to escalating tensions in Bahrain, and Washington's indecisiveness on the matter, Bahrainis' popular perceptions of U.S. policy regarding the uprisings in their country may be souring. "Bahrain never had a sectarian problem, Sunni and Shia having been living beside each other for years," Husain Abdulla, director of Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, told IPS. "I'm very concerned that feelings of anti-Americanism might rise in Bahrain," he added. "[The Bahraini people had] looked on the U.S. as someone who always applied minor pressure on the government." Now, as Bahraini citizens watch images of U.S. and NATO aircraft patrolling the skies from Benghazi to Tripoli with a mandate to protect the Libyan people, they see potentially hostile GCC troops in their streets, seemingly with Western blessing, Abdulla said. Adding to this aggravation of sectarian fault lines is the supposedly looming threat of an increasingly influential Shia-led Iran. The Persian boogeyman "The government has used the sectarian card several times when they have been pressured to reform," Abdulla said. "The al-Khalifa has used Iran as the boogeyman for the West." "It is not clear that the Bahraini authorities are interested in national dialogue at this point," American University Professor Kristin Diwan added. "They are stressing that security and stability come first. They are deepening the campaign of arrests. They are clearly building a case that the arrested activists are associated with Iran and thus delegitimising their standing as interlocutors." Days before the GCC intervention, U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, after meeting with Crown Prince Hamad al- Khalifa, mentioned the possibility of Iranian meddling if the regime didn't enact sweeping reforms. "[T]here is clear evidence that as the process is protracted, particularly in Bahrain, the Iranians are looking for ways to exploit it and create problems," he said. "The best way to limit Iranian influence in the Gulf is to fully integrate Shia citizens within their respective countries," Diwan argued. "This is becoming impossible as Gulf monarchies unleash sectarian rhetoric to confront their domestic challenges." "Iran certainly had influence amongst some Bahraini Shia movements in the years following the Islamic Revolution, and inspired many," Diwan noted. "But the focus since then has moved strongly toward the national, not transnational, political arena. I do worry that there may be a move back toward transnational influence if the political reform process is frozen and the Shia are not brought back into a strengthened parliament." Putting principles into practice Distilling U.S. policy into purely strategic or military terms such as satisfying the demands of longtime allies or the protection of U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and its ability to project force in the region does not bode well for popular perception among Bahraini citizens, who wish to see the U.S. as a reliable partner in pushing for real reform. While the flood of pro-democracy activism in the region has tested Obama's ability to translate good-intentioned principles into practice, the vexing nature of values versus interests continue to dominate discussions over policy, such as with the recent intervention in Libya, where the administration insists that Muammar Gaddafi must step down. "The U.S. would like to have a stable Bahrain in which the Shia are given certain rightsbut at the same time I don't think the U.S. would like to see the toppling of this regime," Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University Bernard Haykel told IPS. For some regional observers, the historical clichés of U.S. double standards in the Middle East thus ring true today. In his speech, President Obama argued that, given developments in the Middle East in the past few months, the better strategy moving forward would be a flexible one. But as the window of opportunity for a national dialogue closes in Bahrain, it may already be too late to rectify the perceived absence of U.S. support for democratic reform in the country, and make all but impossible what the U.S. barely averted in Egypt falling on the wrong side of the reform.

U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya 03/30/2011 Washington Post - Online	Return to Top
By Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy, Wednesday, March 30, 11:41 PM President Obama has touted his emphasis on multilateralism in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, but — for political, operational and legal reasons — his “coalition of the willing” is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War. 31 Comments * Weigh In * Corrections? The Cable compiled a list of the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the past 20 years: the 1991 Persian Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to a military contribution to the war in Libya. Experts quickly point out that all of these military interventions happened in different contexts. However, they added that the reason Obama's Libya war coalition has less international involvement than all the others was also because of his administration's behavior in the lead-up to the war, its approach to multilateralism, the speed at which it was put together, and the justifications for the war itself. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the administration's effort to build the coalition was hampered by its stated desire to hand off the leadership of the Libya intervention to NATO. “Obama, in his deference to [getting out of the lead], has not only wanted other countries to do as much as they could, he has essentially forgone his responsibility to build the coalition,” he said. The mission in Libya is, by definition, smaller in scale than those in Iraq or Afghanistan, and a no-fly zone doesn't require as many countries as a full-on invasion, O'Hanlon pointed out. However, the relatively few Arab countries contributing military assets — three so far — could pose a problem for the mission's legitimacy. Although the Libya intervention was endorsed by the Arab League, the endorsement doesn't require any Arab countries to contribute materially to the effort, said David Bosco, an assistant professor at American University. “At a certain point, the administration is going to have to decide whether just to say this is a coalition of willing countries,” he said. “That's not the end of the world.” Bright idea The State Department has found a way to save energy, save money and rehabilitate federal prisoners all in one fell swoop. Soon, a portion of the energy that keeps the lights on in Foggy Bottom will come from solar panels built by prison inmates in New Jersey. “The Department of State had a signing ceremony that basically contracted the State Department with Baltimore's Constellation Energy, to enter into an agreement to procure renewable electricity from Constellation Energy through the Federal Prison Industry's contracting expertise,” said Marguerite Coffey, director of the State Department's Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation. “It was a very, very well-attended event.” Coffey, who is also executive secretary of the department's Greening Council, said the goal was to advance President Obama's pledge to reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent by 2020. Will Congress follow State's cost-cutting, energy-saving example and start buying renewable power created through prison labor? WTO battle The government of Georgia is in a position to block Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, a top goal of the U.S.-Russia reset policy. The Georgians say they are willing to strike a deal with Russia — but only if Moscow abides by WTO rules on trade and customs policy, positions that would require Russian concessions in its conflict over the occupied territories, according the president of Georgia. In an exclusive interview with The Cable, President Mikheil Saakashvili said that, after a lot of stalling and hand-wringing, negotiations between Tbilisi and Moscow over the latter's desire to join the WTO had begun. As a WTO member, Georgia has veto power over any additions to the organization. Saakashvili said it was too early to tell if the Russians were negotiating in good faith or willing to make real concessions. “It's up to the Russians to show that they can go to flexible and compromise solutions,” he said.

Surviving Between Two Cultures 03/29/2011 Huffington Post, The	Return to Top
I never imagined that living in a different culture would be that challenging. I remember two weeks ago, during Orientation Week for the new Atlas Corps international Fellows -- including myself -- American University Professor Gary Weaver spoke for three hours about American culture. He led an incredibly intriguing discussion about the disparities between American culture and the varying cultures of the Atlas Corps Fellows. Professor Weaver made an interesting comparison between the "to be" culture -- in which the value of an individual is based on his/her essence and being and not on his/her achievements -- and the "to do" culture -- in which an individual's value is based on his/her material achievements and professional success. We shared quite a few laughs on the stereotypical differences between our cultures and the American culture. At the time, I had no idea how challenging it would be to adapt to a new culture. I thought it would be fun to discover how we all differ, and I enjoyed making funny comparisons between young Americans and myself. But I didn't know then that these cultural differences would sometimes create barriers between us, preventing an easy flow of communication and making me question my values and my significance as a person. This challenge is exactly what I experienced the other day during a quick conversation with my work colleagues. We were at the Grad Nation Summit, which addressed the issue of high school dropouts in the U.S. and potential solutions. Since I was working in educational development back in Egypt, it was a great opportunity for me to learn about this issue in the U.S. and to think about how to transfer effective American practices to Egypt. But something during these Summit discussions alarmed me. At first, I couldn't quite pinpoint the source of alarm. So, I listened and started taking notes during the discussions. I found that many of the conversations revolved around the U.S. as a nation and its rank among other countries regarding the percentage of graduate students. I also found that much emphasis was placed on formal education and quantitative measurements of professional success. Then, the most alarming event occurred: one successful American college student mentioned that she was intimidated to sit at a table with Ph.D holders. Later, I had a one-on-one discussion with this student to ask her to elaborate on her feelings. I also shared with her how disappointed I was with the situation. She confirmed that this is just how the American culture is. It's based on personal achievement, material success, and individual competition. At the organization where I worked in Egypt, competition was an unacceptable word; it entailed selfishness and a willingness to step on others in order to succeed. Instead, we focused on group success, teamwork, and responsibility towards one another. Educational achievement was measured by personal fulfillment rather than material indicators, at least in the non-formal sector. As long as you were happy, satisfied, and lived with dignity, it typically didn't really matter what certificates you held. Making this comparison between cultures helped me realize that success is relative and varies across cultures. I'm not in a position to say my culture is better than another other culture, and I understand that the feelings I have right now may change. But during the Summit, I couldn't stop myself from thinking about the true meaning of freedom. Is a person really free if he/she lives in a highly competitive environment that pressures him/her to follow one set of standards? Back in Egypt, I had a set of rules, but a different kind. Since I'm coming from a "to be" culture, a lot of emphasis was placed on who am I supposed to be and what stereotypes am I expected to follow. Being a young Coptic Christian woman in an older, masculine, Muslim society was not easy. This culture defined the role I was expected to play and the rules I was expected to follow. Again, I questioned the true meaning of freedom in my country. During the summit, and for the first time since I arrived in D.C., I experienced the motto of Atlas Corps: "Change your perspective. Change the world." I haven't changed the world yet, but I certainly changed my perspective. Mirette Bahgat is a 2011 Atlas Corps Fellow with more than five years of experience in the nonprofit sector, specializing in community development in Egypt.

House of Bishops Daily Account, March 28 03/28/2011 Episcopal Life - Online	Return to Top
[Episcopal News Service] The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church is meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina from March 25 to March 30. The following is an account of the activities for Monday, March 28. Following Morning Prayer and Bible study, the session was opened by emcee for the day Bishop Julio Holguin of the Dominican Republic. The topic for the day was: Who is my neighbor? Islam and Christianity. Bishop Skip Adams of Central New York set the tone for the day and spoke about the realities of Muslims living in our society. He referred to practical, theological and religious aspects. Presenters for the day were: The Rev. William L. Sachs, Ph.D, executive director of the Center for Interfaith Reconciliation in Richmond, Virginia, author and parish priest. Author and leading authority on Islam in America, Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University in Washington DC. Eliza Griswold, author of the book The Tenth Parallel, an examination of Christianity and Islam in Africa and Asia. Sachs talked about the global clash of religions and way of life, referring to the "Clash of Civilizations" that has occurred since 9-11-01. He noted that the day's goal was to examine the complexities between Islam and Christianity occurring throughout the world, and to see who is our neighbor today Among the points that Ahmed cited was that most converts to Islam are women. In talking about Islam, he said, "We share Jesus. We look at him differently but we share Jesus." He presented an overview of statistics and information about Muslims in the USA and the rest of the world. Griswold has travelled to areas "where Christianity and Islam meet." She said much of the divide of the "Christian south and Muslim north" is based on weather patterns, land, and trade routes, noting that "Islam spread through trade and marriage." She noted that faith and foreign policy are often intertwined in other countries. Local identity and global identity are interlinked. The noon Spanish Eucharist, in commemoration of Bishop James Theodore Holley, the first bishop of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, was celebrated by Bishop David Alvarez of Puerto Rico. Preacher was the Rev. Simone Bautista of the Diocese of Washington, a chaplain for HOB. In the afternoon, the conversation about Islam and Christianity continued with Bishops Joe Burnett of Nebraska and Tom Shaw of Massachusetts telling of activities in their dioceses. Burnett presented a film and spoke about the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska, a five-year initiative calling for the sharing of a campus for an Episcopal Church, a Muslim mosque, a Jewish synagogue and a shared, multi-service educational building. The project is "on the verge of taking giant steps forward." Shaw talked about the Boston cathedral opening its basement to allow space for Muslims to adhere to their prayer order. He shared that he met a Muslim man who has prayed at the Cathedral since before September 11, 2001, and how the community felt protected in the aftermath. The bishops discussed three questions: The last two promises of the baptismal covenant ask us to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves; and to strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being. How might these promises be fulfilled in efforts to deepen relationships with members of other faith traditions, particularly Islam? Given the fact that polls show a sharp increase in prejudice toward Islam and persons of Islamic faith in this country, what specific steps might you take in your diocese to combat this prejudice, and also to support, affirm and partner with other faith traditions, especially Islam, in a way that would further God's mission in the world? How can we "seek and serve Christ in all persons" in such ways that would lead us to understand increasing religious diversity as a gift and a promise, rather than as a threat or a challenge? Various bishops shared experiences from their own dioceses. Media Briefers for March 28 were: Bishop Jim Curry of Connecticut; Bishop Mike Klusmeyer of West Virginia; and Bishop Paul Lambert of Dallas.

Republicans Propose Devastating Cuts to Development Aid 03/28/2011 Nonprofit Quarterly, The - Online rick cohen	Return to Top
rick cohen March 24, 2011; Source: Associated Press \| According to AP, "U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles . . . as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax." There are lots of reasons for being concerned about the proposed cuts in the budget of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and other aid programs – the budget approved by Republicans includes slashing disaster assistance by 49 percent, aid to refugees by 39 percent, and assistance for financial institutions such as the World Bank by 44 percent – but using development aid to compete with China's burgeoning influence isn't one that quickly comes to mind. The Republicans appear to be unmoved by America's historic role of using its wealth through foreign aid to address the problems of the poor. In recent hearings, House members appeared fixated not on the big issues of development aid, but on minutia such as a USAID expenditure of $100,000 for “eco-friendly motorized cycles.” Finding discussion of the importance of helping the poor to be unpersuasive with the budget cutters, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others are using the competition-for influence argument. In a nutshell, they hope to convince the House to maintain foreign aid, not because it's good for the world's poor, but because if America's commitment to development aid slips, we will lose our influence among developing nations to the likes of China. Deborah Brautigam of American University says that U.S. development assistance in 2009 (apparently grants and loans) was $28.8 billion compared to an estimated Chinese aid amount of $3.1 billion. But perhaps the competitive field is for influence in Africa. U.S. government aid to Africa was $7.2 billion compared to only $1.4 billion from China, but China provides an additional $6 billion in export credits and commercial loans in Africa. Will the competition argument win over recalcitrant Republicans taking aim at this nation's comparatively (in GDP terms) tiny commitment to development aid?—Rick Cohen

Obama defends U.S. role in Libyan no-fly zone 03/28/2011 Marketplace - Online	Return to Top
President Barack Obama will speak tonight about the government's involvement in Libya, as critics raise questions on the financial and political costs of the offensive. U.S. President Barack Obama. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) UPDATED REPORT: JEREMY HOBSON: President Obama will speak tonight about the situation in Libya. And he's expected to answer Congressional critics who want more consultation and communication about how much the no fly zone is costing U.S. taxpayers. Our Washington Bureau Chief John Dimsdale is with us live to talk about all this. Good morning John. JOHN DIMSDALE: Hey Jeremy. HOBSON: So is the money likely to be a big focus of tonight's speech? DIMSDALE: Yeah, absolutely. The president is going to have to answer critics who wonder what has the U.S. gotten itself into. Members of Congress, who come back in session today, say that, 'Hey, we've been making real tough choices to trim spending, but you Mr. President, without getting our approval, have made what seems like an open-ended commitment to spend more money on yet a third military front.' Here's Republican Senator Richard Lugar on 'Meet the Press' yesterday. RICHARD LUGAR: But who knows how long this goes on? And furthermore, who has really budgeted for Libya at all? HOBSON: And John, how might the President answer those questions? DIMSDALE: Well, he'll say that military action is going quickly, successfully relatively cheaply. But then there's also the question of what sort of goal he has in mind in a post-Gaddafi Libya. Budget analyst Gordon Adams at American University says there will have to be some sort of financial help for the new government. GORDON ADAMS: I would expect then some more normal kind of assistance package to come forward. But I don't see it as stabilization, reconstruction, long term occupation kind of exercise. That would be a lot more expensive. And the President will also have to answer what will be the cost to the U.S. if other nations in the Middle East -- Yemen, Jordan, Syria -- also require western help to protect civilian protesters from their governments. HOBSON: Marketplace's John Dimsdale in Washington, thanks John. DIMSDALE: My pleasure. ORIGINAL REPORT: JEREMY HOBSON: President Obama will speak tonight about the situation in Libya. And he's expected to answer Congressional critics who want more consultation and communication about how much the no-fly zone will cost U.S. taxpayers. Our Washington Bureau Chief John Dimsdale is with us live to talk about all this. Good morning John. JOHN DIMSDALE: Good morning Jeremy. HOBSON: So it does seems like, with the situation in Libya, the focus is turning the budget. DIMSDALE: Yeab, both republicans and democrats are asking some really pointed questions. For example on 'Meet the Press' yesterday, Senator Richard Lugar, who's the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that it makes no sense for Congress to be cutting budget items and making tough decisions to cut the deficit, while the White House continues to spend money in Libya. RICHARD LUGAR: But who knows how long this goes on? And furthermore, who has really budgeted for Libya at all? I have not really heard the administration come forward saying that we're going to have to devote these funds, folks. And therefore something else will have to go or it simply adds to the deficit. HOBSON: And John, President Obama is speaking tonight. How might he answer that kind of criticism? DIMSDALE: Well, he'll probably downplay the cost. He'll say, yes, at the beginning there were some very expensive operations -- moving navy ships and planes into position. And firing several hundred of those Tomahawk missles at nearly $1 million each. But he'll say those operations were successful, but for the most part they're over. With other countries now sharing the costs in the future -- the U.N., Arab League has asked for this, NATO is now running the entire undertaking -- he'll argue this has been very cost effective. HOBSON: Marketplace's John Dimsdale in Washington, thanks John. DIMSDALE: Thanks.

Academia and Public Diplomacy: a new relationship 03/27/2011 mountainrunner.us	Return to Top
There was something new at the 2011 International Studies Association conference in Montreal, Canada: a working group on public diplomacy. Organized by Craig Hayden, assistant professor at American University, and co-chaired by Kathy Fitzpatrick, professor at Quinnipiac University, it was a unique discussion to create a community of scholars across the many disciplines that comprise “public diplomacy.” Keynotes were given by Matt Armstrong and Maureen Cormack, Executive Assistant in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Congratulations to Craig for a terrific, productive and long overdue working group. I'll leave it to the participants to highlight the discussions of the day. Hopefully we will see more of this type of event to increase collaboration, understanding, and relevancy of public diplomacy within and with academia.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/27/2011 Sify	Return to Top
d faces cuts as China's reach grows U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

Mideast Upheaval: What It Means for the U.S. and Israel 03/27/2011 pr-usa.net	Return to Top
AMBASSADORS MICHAEL OREN, DENNIS ROSS TO ADDRESS ADL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ATTN: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS PRESS AND PHOTO ADVISORY COVERAGE INVITED PRESS CREDENTIALS REQUIRED *RSVP REQUIRED* WHO: Anti-Defamation League (ADL) WHAT: ADL National Leadership Conference WHERE: The Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C. WHEN: Sunday, April 3 – Tuesday, April 5, 2011 ADL leaders from across the country will gather for briefings from key government leaders, policymakers, ambassadors and opinion-makers during the ADL Shana Amy Glass National Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. THE FOLLOWING EVENTS WILL BE OPEN TO THE MEDIA: SUNDAY, APRIL 3 7:30 P.M. The Meaning of the U.S.-Israel Friendship Today GRAND BALLROOM Ambassador Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the United States 8:00 A.M. GRAND BALLROOM Advancing U.S. Policy in a Changing Middle East Ambassador Dennis Ross , Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region, National Security Council 8:30 A.M. Despots & Democracy: Taking Stock of the Mideast Upheaval GRAND BALLROOM Martin Indyk, Senior Advisor to Special Envoy for Middle East Peace; Vice President & Director of Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution Elliott Abrams , Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Washington Post Moderator: Ron Kampeas , Washington Bureau Chief, Jewish Telegraphic Agency 10:30 A.M. CONCURRENT SESSIONS: CHINESE Strategic Threats from Iran & Its Proxies Patrick Clawson , Research Director & Director of the Iran Security Initiative, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Barbara Slavin , Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council and Author of "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation" Andrew Srulevitch, ADL Director of European Affairs SENATE Confronting Discrimination in America Chai R. Feldblum , Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Julie Fernandes , Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice Hilary O. Shelton , Washington Bureau Chief, NAACP Michael Lieberman , Director, ADL Civil Rights Policy Planning Center PENNSYLVANIA Tweeting Toward Democracy: Confronting Hate & Spurring Change Timothy Sparapani , Director of Public Policy, Facebook Sarah Labowitz, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State Steve Sheinberg , ADL Associate Director, Civil Rights RHODE ISLAND Maintaining Church-State Separation: Old Flashpoints, New Battles Mazen Basrawi , Counsel, Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy , President, Interfaith Alliance Jill Morrison , Senior Counsel with Health and Reproductive Rights, National Women's Law Center Deborah Lauter , ADL Civil Rights Director GEORGIA ROOM A Global Approach to Combating Anti-Semitism, Hate Crime & Discrimination Hannah Rosenthal , Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, U.S. Department of State Elisa Massimino , President and Chief Executive Officer, Human Rights First Michael Salberg , ADL Director of International Affairs 1:00 P.M. Presentation of the ADL Klinghoffer Award to GRAND BALLROOM Stuart A. Levey , Former Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence; and to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Accepted by: David S. Cohen , Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury 2:30 P.M. When Free Speech Turns Foul: Incivility & Political Gridlock in America EAST AND STATE Donna Brazile , Founder and Managing Director of Brazile & Associates LLC, On-air Contributor to CNN and ABC News David Frum, Editor, Frum Forum; Former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush 6:30 P.M. Advancing Civil Rights and Equality: How Far We've Come – and How Far We Need to Go GRAND BALLROOM Representative John Lewis (D-GA) Responding: Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice Professor Akbar S. Ahmed , Professor and Chair of Islamic Studies, American University Winnie Stachelberg , Senior Vice President, Center for American Progress 8 A.M. Views from Capitol Hill GRAND BALLROOM Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen , (R-FL), Chair, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Representative Steny Hoyer , (D-MD), House Minority Whip 12:30 P.M. Partnering to Stand Up Against Bullying GRAND BALLROOM Kevin Jennings , Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools Alice Cahn , Vice President, Social Responsibility, Cartoon Network Noopur Agarwal , Director of Public Affairs, MTV David Waren , ADL Director of Education EDITORS NOTE: Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, will be available for interviews by appointment. Contact ADL's Media Relations Department at (212) 885-7749 or e-mail adlmedia@adl.org for more information. Contact: E-mail: adlmedia@adl.org

Conflict Situation in Libya 03/27/2011 MSNBC Live - MSNBC	Return to Top
Professor Hillary Mann Leverett discussed the military conflict in Libya as a guest on MSNBC. *Video attached.

As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget axe 03/26/2011 Yahoo! Canada	Return to Top
By Matthew Pennington, The Associated Press \| The Canadian Press – Thu, 24 Mar, 2011 8:06 PM EDT WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the axe. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defence." Delivering the goods will be a problem as pressure grows to reel in the government's deficit — forecast at $1.5 trillion this year — much of it financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — of the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 per cent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 per cent and aid to refugees by 39 per cent. The Democrat-led Senate this month rejected the bill, but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighbourhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman. Aid accounts for only about 1 per cent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a dent in the deficit, which could require lower spending on defence and programs for the elderly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001 — and its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil, to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. "As aid budgets are constrained in the West, China's is rising." In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. But U.S. aid to an increasingly prosperous east Asia has dwindled over the years, eclipsed by the needs of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Major environmental programs in Indonesia and Pacific islands could now be hit.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach advances 03/26/2011 Kuwait Times - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON: US efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key pla nk of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." Delivering the goods will be a problem as pressure grows to reel in the government's deficit - forecast at $1.5 trillion this year - much of it financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. It's not clear in the current environment whether the US will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - of the kind that burnished US standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democrat-led Senate this month rejected the bill, but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the US Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for US. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the US is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep Dana Rohrabacher. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep Gary Ackerman. Aid acco unts for only about 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a dent in the deficit, which could require lower spending on defense and programs for the elderly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the US official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001 - and its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil, to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the US But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. "As aid budgets are constrained in the West, China's is rising." In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. But US aid to an increasingly prosperous east Asia has dwindled over the years, eclipsed by the needs of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Major environmental programs in Indonesia and Pacific islands could now be hit. - AP

BLOG on BLOGS – What is a BLOG? WHY? 03/25/2011 Gazette Extra! - Online JOHN EYSTER	Return to Top
Noting various comments from readers of my WE THE PEOPLE blog, I want to communicate with readers about the definitions & purposes of blogs with focus on my WE THE PEOPLE blog. This WE THE PEOPLE blog was launched in July 2009. This blog was to focus on politics – public policy issues, politicians, government structure & process. Yes, ALL THINGS POLITICAL! I value highly the privilege of sharing information and perspective with commentary via my WE THE PEOPLE blog. THANK YOU to the Gazettextra.com management! THANK YOU to you, the READERS, of my WE THE PEOPLE blog! THANK YOU to you, the writers of comments on my WE THE PEOPLE blog! I will read with MUCH interest your comments on this post re. BLOGS in general and this WE THE PEOPLE blog. THANKS! This WE THE PEOPLE blog was launched in July 2009 as an experiment by Gazettextra.com management with “COMMUNITY BLOGS.” The idea was to enlist local people to be VOLUNTEER (NO PAY! Not one red cent in spite of the comments!) bloggers who would NOT be officially part of Bliss Communications. The “Community Blogs” would be editorially totally independent with the blogger responsible for her/his “community blog.” (Again - this is THE TRUTH in spite of comments!) On the basis of my background as a Political Scientist with a long-time mission for democracy/civics education, I was asked whether I would launch a “community blog” which would focus on politics – public policy issues, politicians, government structure & process. Yes, ALL THINGS POLITICAL! I welcomed the opportunity to be a GUINEA PIG. I value highly the privilege of sharing information and perspective with commentary via my WE THE PEOPLE blog. THANK YOU to the Gazettextra.com management! THANK YOU to you, the READERS, of my WE THE PEOPLE blog! THANK YOU to you, the writers of comments on my WE THE PEOPLE blog! I will read with MUCH interest your comments on this post re. BLOGS in general and this WE THE PEOPLE blog. THANKS! When I asked the Gazettextra.com website management for a “solid definition of a blog,” I got the following incisive response, “A solid definition of a blog? I'll come up with one if you could provide me with the meaning of life :)” TRUE, VERY TRUE! The manager astutely noted, “It depends on the application. In your case, I think we could define a blog as a platform to discuss issues related to a specific topic.” I agree! The response concluded, “Is that too simple?” Well? I do think we ought to give additional attention to the definition, concept and purpose of a BLOG. As you know, I turned to WIKIPEDIA to get a basic broad discussion. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article, “Blog.” The article starts with a basic definition, “A blog (a blend of the term web log) is a type of website or part of a website. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.” Good basic information. The Gazettextra.com blogs provide for COMMENTS and Wikipedia reports, “Most blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.” TRUE! We gain perspective as to the various purposes/motivations for blogs, “Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting). Microblogging is another type of blogging, featuring very short posts.” I was stunned when I read the Wikipedia report as to the number of public blogs, “As of 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs in existence.” I wonder what that number is as of TODAY – Friday, the 25th of March 2011. What do YOU think? Since my WE THE PEOPLE blog is designed to be a POLITICAL SCIENCE blog, let's take a look at the definition of POLITICAL SCIENCE written for students taking an introductory US/American Government & Politics course at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill “Writing in Political Science” – “Defining politics and political science.” I encourage you to read the whole handout which has basic information about the social science of POLITICAL SCIENCE. The handout hits the nail on the head with its definition of politics and political science, “At its most basic level, politics is the struggle of ‘who gets what, when, how.' This struggle may be as modest as competing interest groups fighting over control of a small municipal budget or as overwhelming as a military stand-off between international superpowers. Political scientists study such struggles, both small and large, in an effort to develop general principles or theories about the way the world of politics works.” My academic background is Political Science. Originally, my focus was on the sub-field of “International relations” as an undergraduate student at The School of International Relations at The American University in Washington, DC. That field is defined by the “Political Science” handout (cited above), “International Relations investigates relations among nation states and the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as international actors such as terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multi-national corporations (MNCs).” As part of my undergraduate study, I spent a year in NORWAY studying and teaching. WHY NORWAY? Personally – I had numerous experiences which tied me with NORWAY and wanted to live in the Norwegian culture learning its language and getting better acquainted with its peoples. Academically – NORWAY is the home country selected by Alfred Nobel to award the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! Again and again I have to alert the media and others that NORWAY awards the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! ALL OTHER NOBEL PRIZES are awarded by SWEDEN. So, NORWAY is the home of the NOBEL PEACE INSTITUTE. I wanted to study the public policy issue of “PEACE.” The Nobel Peace Institute has one of the BEST libraries in the whole wide world on “PEACE.” So, I chose to study there. After attending the International Summer School of the University of Oslo taking INTENSIVE Norwegian, I had gained a basic fluency in NORWEGIAN. I can attest that it is much more comfortable to live in NORWAY if one speaks NORWEGIAN. Yes, almost every single NORWEGIAN does speak ENGLISH, so one does NOT need to speak NORWEGIAN to enjoy visiting NORWAY. I needed to be able to read and speak NORWEGIAN for my research. It is also true that MOST of the literature re. “peace” is in ENGLISH or another major world language, e.g., French, German. I was invited to teach “American Civilization,” a very general course for folkehogskole (usually translated “junior college”) students. It was to be taught in ENGLISH, but I quickly found that being able to use NORWEGIAN made the environment the more productive. I also taught ENGLISH. In that course, I learned that I needed to help my students with formal NORWEGIAN as they were learning ENGLISH. That teaching involvement was VERY satisfying and fulfilling for me. NOW, I still have healthy friendships with several of my students in NORWAY. Graduate studies moved me to Wesley Theological Seminary on the campus of The American University in Washington, DC where I focused on “Christian Social Ethics.” This is the study of Christian ethics as related to public policy. As part of that experience, I worked for the United Methodist General (national) Board of Christian Social Concerns which was headquartered in The Methodist Building on Capitol Hill across the street from the US Supreme Court. Very interesting and valuable experience! (Most readers already know that I am an ordained clergyperson. I was originally ordained in the United Methodist Church and then transferred to the United Church of Christ. I served the Emerald Grove Congregational United Church of Christ east of Janesville for twenty-three (23) years retiring from that congregation in October, 1995.) The meaningful and satisfying experience of teaching in NORWAY moved me to graduate studies at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater where I focused on education earning the Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.). I was assigned to PARKER HS, Janesville for my Internship with the Humanities Team (Charlie Roberts and Jay Voss were the teachers). After my internship, I was hired by Principal Hugh Horswill and my education career was at PARKER HS, Janesville. I retired from the classroom in June 2000 after a very satisfying and fulfilling career as a classroom teacher. The vision I had when I joined the faculty at PARKER HS was a political science field study in Washington, DC. With the enthusiastic support of Principal Horswill, I was able to start the WASHINGTON SEMINAR the spring of 1973. That Seminar was on Field Study for the 39th time (1973 – 2011) earlier this month under the leadership of JOE VAN ROOY, teacher with STAN MILAM as consultant. (I trust WE THE PEOPLE blog readers have noted that JOE VAN ROOY was awarded a KOHL TEACHING FELLOWSHIP by the Herb Kohl Education Foundation, Inc. this year. CONGRATS & COMMENDATION to JOE! THANKS for your conscientious commitment to WASHINGTON SEMINAR through the 11 years as Director of WASHINGTON SEMINAR, JOE!) After retirement from the classroom at PARKER HS, June 2000, I spent a couple months leading two (2) tours and then personally visiting and traveling in NORWAY. Later that year, I was hired as the LEGISLATIVE LIAISON of the School District of Janesville. Through the 8 years of that experience (I retired in June 2008), I gained real experience of the hardball politics in our WI State Government. I told my boss, Superintendent Tom Evert, several times that I should have been LEGISLATIVE LIAISON before becoming AP US Government & Politics teacher at PARKER HS. I learned a lot more about the REALITIES of HARDBALL politics in Madison. I did learn that the bottom-line in WI state politics is: MONEY! Follow the money!!!! Live and learn. I did miss the dynamics of the classroom, so when asked about teaching Political Science at UW-Rock County when an instructor was needed for the "American Government & Politics" course, I enthusiastically accepted. I've been teaching for the Political Science Department of our UW-College system since then. Right now, I teach on the Waukesha campus and I am teaching "American Government & Politics." My experience and involvements were the basis on which the management of the Gazettextra.com website invited me to experiment with a “community blog” focused on politics. I am VERY GLAD I accepted. It is with ENTHUSIASM that I look forward to completing my third year of BLOGGING this coming July 2011. I am in agreement with and an advocate of “Blogger's Code of Conduct” (published in the Wikipedia article cited above, "Blog") – here it is with my comments: NOW, I look forward to YOUR comments about BLOGS and BLOGGING and my WE THE PEOPLE blog. Here we go… Mr. E.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Evening Sun - Online, The MATTHEW PENNINGTON Associated Press	Return to Top
WASHINGTON—U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid—the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia—could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard—cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending—such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget—and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated—it does not publish comparable figures—at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply—it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion—compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Pantagraph - Online	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WAOW-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KWWL-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Daily Journal	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KTVN-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Times-News - Online	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Huffington Post, The MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid – the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia – could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard – cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending – such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget – and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated – it does not publish comparable figures – at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply – it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion – compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KTTC-TV - Online	Return to Top
Cheetah cub from Jacksonville Zoo in Florida adopted by theme park, raised by hand More>> Inmates churn out bread for NYC jail system More>> Expert: Michigan population drop linked to Detroit exodus More>> A look at how Japanese radiation concerns are effecting one California grocery. More>> US pressures allies to take lead in Libya mission by weekend; Clinton says Gadhafi must quit More>> John Travolta, Madonna and Rosie O'Donnel. mourn the loss of Elizabeth Taylor. More>> WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Palm Beach Post - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget ax 03/25/2011 Lancaster Online	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid -- the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia -- could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard -- cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending -- such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget -- and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated -- it does not publish comparable figures -- at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply -- it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion -- compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. ©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Orangeburg Times and Democrat	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Courier, The	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WHEC-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
(AP) WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WHIZ-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bahrainis March Again Despite Brutal Crackdown; Demand Civil Rights, Democracy \| Firedoglake 03/25/2011 Firedoglake Siun	Return to Top
In the days since the crackdown on the Bahraini protesters last week in which at least 15 activists were killed by security forces and over 100 are still missing, the monarchy has continued it's brutal repression: Ski-masked soldiers in Humvees and police have blocked off roads leading into Shiite areas, scaring many people into staying home, employers said. Opposition leaders have been arrested and held without charge, and others are rounded up nightly, human rights groups said. Read any of the twitter feeds of the pro-democracy activists and you read each day of new abuses - or read the appeals from all the major global The United Nations warned on Thursday of "shocking and illegal" abuses in Bahrain where the US-backed Sunni Muslim rulers are waging a bloody crackdown on Shi'ite-led protesters. like this: Abdeljalil Alsingace, a blogger and head of the human rights office of the Haq Movement for Liberty and Democracy, a pro-democracy and civil liberties group, was picked up on 16 March, reports the Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of PEN International, which is urging people to send letters to demand his release. A family member of Alsingace told the IFEX Clearing House that Alsingace was basically kidnapped: he was dragged away in the night without proper clothes, his glasses, or a means to walk since he needs crutches or a wheelchair. His daughters woke up with several guns pointed at their heads, and feared he would be shot dead in front of them. AngryArabiya who we've been following, went to a police station to try to locate her uncle who was arrested two days ago by security forces. Her experience was chilling: @angryarabiya my uncle has 4 kids, his youngest, Ruqaya is arnd 6 & hasn't stopped crying since his arrest. Who points a gun @ a 6 yr old child?! #bahrain my uncles wife: "after they arrested my husband they pointed guns @ me in my children n started beating me." #bahrain #feb14 my uncles wife: "They punched & kicked me, n pulled me from one room 2 another with gun pointed @ me, looking 4 my nephew." #bahrain #feb14 we have no news of where my uncle could be, they took him, beat up his wife, messed up his house, and slashed all the tires in his car keep wonderin where my uncle is now, is he hurt? is he hungry or thirsty? is he blindfolded & handcuffed? will they let him sleep 2night? When she went and asked police about his whereabouts. . . [ policeman turned to the other police & said very loudly "Theres a lot of rape going arnd these days" they started laughing #bahrain Police then told me, military has ur uncle. why dont u go check with them and started laughing. #bahrain #feb14 I was in the police station for more than an hr, most of the time they're looking for all my info on their computers. #bahrain #feb14 Just going to a police station is an act of heroism in Bahrain these days but her response was that of many in Bahrain who continue to work for civil rights: This has been a horrible day, 2 say the least. will protest 2morrow with my bros. Everyday they convince us more why they must be overthrown Today there are new peaceful demonstrations planned will see new demonstration in defiance of the government's emergency orders. No one is sure what the reaction will be but the danger is clearly high. While the Bahraini activists continue to practice nonviolent resistance to the regime, the Obama administration still refuses to back this civil rights movement - and instead plays along with the monarchy's false claims of Iranin involvement. Kristin Smith Diwan of American University in a very helpful The Council of Foreign Relations good background piece on Bahrain notes: What has happened, though, is that to relieve the pressure of the democratic uprising, both the Bahraini ruling family and now Saudi Arabia are spreading fears about Iran. The Iranian scare talk - which ignores the fact that the protesters were not aligned with Iran - as noted even by our own government, looking for excuses for its refusal to even call for an end to the Saudi intervention. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday warned Iran to stop meddling in Bahrain and other Arab states in the Gulf by trying to advance its agenda in neighbouring countries. "The US has an abiding commitment to Gulf security… and a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behaviour in the region," she said. "We share the view that Iran's activities in the Gulf, including its efforts to advance its agenda in the neighbouring countries undermines peace and stability," she said. While Obama and Clinton continue to side with the repressive monarchy, the people of Bahrain refuse to back down: Describing the crowd of mourners at the funeral of Bahia al-Aradi, " the first woman killed after [the king's] crackdown against the opposition a week earlier." The mourners at al-Aradi's funeral vowed not to give up their political battle. Women wept and men beat their chests as they accompanied the body toward the American Mission Hospital for burial. "The government has humiliated us enough," said Najeeba al-Zaki, a mother of four. "It is time for this to end. We will not stop pressing for our demands." You can stand with Najeeba and her sisters and brothers in Bahrain by signing Amnesty International's petition which calls for an independent investigation of the "the killings and attacks on protesters and the assaults on health and medical workers," protection for peaceful protests and the release of political prisoners. The petition can be signed here. And you can call the White House (202-456-1111) and make it very clear that we expect President Obama to support the civil rights movement of the Bahraini people. Brutal Bahrain Crackdown: "Security Forces" Attack Protesters and Hospitals At Least One Killed as Bahrain Police Attack Sleeping Protesters Clinton Plays Iran Card, Winks, While Bahrain Arrests and Beats Human Rights Activists Psychologizing Bruce Ivins: Who are the Amerithrax Behavioral Analysis Experts? Crisis in Japan Breaking news and updates on the ongoing crisis in Japan. On Wisconsin and Beyond The war on the working class rages in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and more. Middle East Popular Uprisings Coverage of protests in Libya, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and more Saturday, March 26, 2011 5:00pm Eastern Chat with Nathan Hodge about his new book. Hosted by Joshua Foust. Sunday, March 27, 2011 5:00pm Eastern

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Yahoo! News MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WSVN-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON -- U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid -- the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia -- could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard -- cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending -- such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget -- and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated -- it does not publish comparable figures -- at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply -- it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion -- compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Boston Herald - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. Senior Obama administration officials will visit Boston next week for a roundtable... BEIJING — China called Tuesday for an immediate cease-fire in Libya where the... WASHINGTON — For two years, the Obama administration has had a relationship...

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WAVE-TV - Online	Return to Top
That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Tuscaloosa News - Online, The MATTHEW PENNINGTON Associated Press	Return to Top
Washington news U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Boston Globe - Online Matthew Pennington	Return to Top
WASHINGTON—U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid -- the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia -- could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard -- cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending -- such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget -- and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated -- it does not publish comparable figures -- at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply -- it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion -- compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Journal Gazette - Online Bureau, The MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
National Weather Service WASHINGTON – U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. NATO's limited role in command of the no-fly zone over Libya doesn't allow the U.S. to make a quick exit from the costly military operation as the Obama administration had wanted. In a story March 24 about Ralph Nader's call for eliminating college athletic scholarships and replacing them with need-based financial aid, The Associated Press reported that the Drake Group, a college athletic watchdog organization, favors banning US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WLBT-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Cuba's Castro: I quit as party chief 5 years ago 03/25/2011 FindLaw: for Corporate Counsel PAUL HAVEN Associated Press	Return to Top
HAVANA (AP) - Fidel Castro's surprise announcement that he stepped down as head of the Communist Party five years ago - despite widespread belief he remained in charge - marks the bizarre end of an era for a nation, and a man, whose fates have been intertwined for more than half a century. The 84-year-old revolutionary icon made the revelation Tuesday - with word of the resignation thrown in as an aside halfway through an opinion piece that otherwise focused on President Barack Obama. The declaration raises fundamental questions about just how much power Fidel has been wielding behind the scenes since his 2006 illness, and to what extent his 79-year-old brother has had freedom to make his own decisions as he pushed the country to enact sweeping economic reforms. It also gives the Castros an opportunity to tap a possible future successor with their naming of a new party No. 2 - one without their famous last name. They might select from a cadre of younger leaders who could carry the fiscal changes forward, and perhaps even reboot relations with the United States. Alternatively, the brothers could look to the past by promoting a loyal-but-weathered veteran of the revolution that brought them to power in 1959. The answer will likely become apparent through a high-level game of musical chairs that Fidel's departure will engender in the upper reaches of the Communist Party hierarchy during a crucial Communist Party Congress next month. In Tuesday's opinion piece, Castro said that when he got sick in 2006, "I resigned without hesitation from my state and political positions, including first secretary of the party ... and I never tried to exercise those roles again." He said that even when his health began to improve, he stayed out of state and party affairs "even though everyone, affectionately, continued to refer to me by the same titles." In the opinion piece, Fidel indicated that, with or without formal titles, he will always be an intellectual force in the revolution, a refrain he has uttered several times in recent years. "I remain and will remain as I have promised: a soldier of ideas, as long as I can think and breathe," he writes. The article, which was published on the state-run Cubadebate website overnight and in newspapers Tuesday morning, caught many people by surprise. "It's incredible. Nobody can believe it," said Magaly Delgado, a 72-year-old Havana retiree who was clutching a copy of Granma, the Communist Party daily. "I always thought he was still in charge. ... He never said he had resigned." The Cuban government had no immediate comment on the revelation, which appeared to tweak history. Fidel stepped down in 2006 due to a serious illness that almost killed him. In an official proclamation released on July 31, 2006, he provisionally delegated most of his official duties to his brother - including the presidency and head of the party. In February 2008 he announced he was officially stepping down as president, and Raul Castro was formally picked to succeed him by the country's parliament a few days later. But no reference was made to Fidel leaving his party post, and Cuban officials and ordinary people have referred to him as the party leader ever since. Even after the announcement, the Communist Party website on Tuesday listed Fidel as first secretary, with Raul as second secretary. It is widely expected that Raul will formally be named to the top spot at the April congress, and analysts say the choice of second secretary will say a lot about how the brothers envision a transition to an eventual post-Castro era. "They could send a startling message by picking somebody young or out of the party, or somebody whose name is not easily recognized," said Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and longtime adviser on hemispheric affairs. "Most people would guess, however, that they will pick ... an octogenarian who fought in the revolution." While the government historically has focused on the day-to-day running of the country, the party is tasked with guiding the Cuban people on their path to communism. In practice, no major policy can be passed without the party first agreeing. There are a scattering of young leaders including Lazaro Exposito, the fast-charging Communist Party chief in Santiago de Cuba, and Lazara Lopez Acea, the 47-year-old top party leader for Havana, as well as Bruno Rodriguez, the 53-year-old foreign minister, and Marino Murillo, the 50-year-old economy minister. But none appears ready to step into such a high-profile role, and neither Fidel nor Raul has ever indicated publicly that one is favored over the others. Since taking office, Raul has also elevated a number of generals to high-ranking jobs at state-run entities, but they are technocrats largely unknown to the public. Some young politicians might be reluctant to step into such a senior position, conscious that the career path of those who have flown too high, too fast, has usually been short. In 2009, Raul suddenly fired two of the island's rising political stars: Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, then 43, and Vice President Carlos Lage, who at 57 was relatively youthful given the advanced ages of most government officials. Both were captured on a secret video tape drinking whiskey and joking about the country's old leaders. "The truth is Raul's experience with young leaders hasn't been very good these past few years, so I think he will name a historic figure," said Eduardo Bueno, a professor of international relations at Mexico's Iberoamerican University. "That said, if the younger generation could take a step forward it would be a great signal, including for Raul, that things are finally moving and the country's long paralysis is over." The safest choice for the No. 2 party spot would probably be Jose Ramon Machado Ventura, a strict disciplinarian of unquestioned loyalty who has been with the Castros since their guerrilla days in the Sierra Maestra mountains and once extracted a bullet from Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's foot. Machado Ventura, 80, is already Raul Castro's first vice president and holds several other key posts in the government. Another old-timer who could get the nod is Ramiro Valdes, 78, who is vice president of Cuba's supreme governing body, the Council of State, and oversees the crucial ministries of telecommunications and construction from a new position carved out for him in January. But neither choice is likely to shake things up politically, or result in improved relations with the United States, which has maintained an economic embargo on Cuba for 48 years. Bilateral ties have plunged into a deep freeze recently due to the conviction earlier this month of U.S. contractor Alan Gross, who received a 15-year prison sentence for bringing satellite equipment into the country illegally. A congressional staffer involved in U.S.-Cuba relations said Fidel's official departure from the party will not lead, at least in the short term, to improved relations with Washington. "It will not have much of a political impact on bilateral relations because Raul has the same last name," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. He said it would take the death of one or both of the two brothers to change perceptions in the United States. "His stepping down will be a watershed on the island, for sure, and it will be seen as such by most in Washington," he said. "But some people will still say Fidel is calling the shots, whether or not it is really the truth anymore." However the party shake-up plays out, it is likely to leave Raul with more room to transform the island's ever-weak economy. The Communist Party Congress at which Fidel's successor is likely to be picked has been called to set a new economic path for the country, one which Raul has been pushing since he took office. Many of the changes Raul has already embraced, like allowing Cubans to go into business for themselves, rent homes and even hire employees, have long been anathema to his brother. There has been speculation - impossible to confirm in Cuba's hermetically sealed political culture - that Raul Castro would have moved the reforms along faster if not for his older brother's larger-than-life presence and continued influence behind the scenes. Tomas Bilbao, the executive director of the Washington-based nonprofit Cuba Study Group, which supports increasing economic and academic exchanges with the island, said the impact of Fidel's resignation cannot be overstated. "I think it's significant because if nothing else it's Fidel Castro sending a clear message that his brother is in charge of the country," he said. "It's a big boost in credibility for Raul and the reforms he's trying to push." 2011-03-22 20:48:50 GMT Copyright 2011. The Associated Press All Rights Reserved.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KSBY-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated it does not publish comparable figures at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

Jim Rogers on Whether a US Dollar Collapse is Imminent, and His Top Buy Right Now 03/25/2011 UPI.com	Return to Top
by Jeff Clark, BIG GOLD What will happen to the U.S. economy and the dollar in the near term? Will inflation increase dramatically? What is the outlook for gold, and where should you put your money? BIG GOLD asked a world-class panel of economists, authors, and investment advisors what they expect for the future. Caution: strong opinions ahead... Jim Rogers is a self-made billionaire, author of the best-sellers Adventure Capitalist and Investment Biker , and a sought-after financial commentator. He was a co-founder of the Quantum Fund, a successful hedge fund, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI). Bill Bonner is the president and founder of Agora, Inc., a worldwide publisher of financial advice and opinions. He is also the author of the Internet-based Daily Reckoning and a regular columnist in MoneyWeek magazine. Peter Schiff is CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals ( www.europacmetals.com ) and host of the daily radio show The Peter Schiff Show ( www.schiffradio.com ). He is the author of the economic parable How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes and the recent financial bestseller The Little Book of Bull Moves: Updated and Expanded . He's a frequent guest on CNBC, Fox Business, and is quoted often in print media. Jeffrey Christian is managing director of CPM Group ( www.cpmgroup.com ) and a prominent analyst on precious metals and commodities markets. CPM Group produces comprehensive yearbooks on gold, silver, and platinum group metals, and provides a wide range of consulting services. Jeffrey published Commodities Rising , an investors' guide to commodities, in 2006. Walter J. "John" Williams , private consulting economist and “economic whistleblower,” has been working with Fortune 500 companies for 30 years. His newsletter Shadow Government Statistics (shadowstats.com) provides in-depth analysis of the government's “creative” economic reporting practices. Steve Henningsen is chief investment strategist and partner at The Wealth Conservancy in Boulder, CO, assisting clients interested in wealth preservation. Current assets under management exceed $200 million. Frank Trotter is an executive vice president of EverBank and a founding partner of EverBank.com, a national branchless bank that was acquired by the current EverBank in 2002. He received an M.B.A. from Washington University and has over 30 years experience in the banking industry. Dr. Krassimir Petrov is an Austrian economist and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Ohio State University. He was assistant professor in economics at the American University in Bulgaria, then an associate professor in finance at Prince Sultan University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is currently an associate professor at Ahlia University in Manama, Bahrain. He's been a contributing editor for Agora Financial and Casey Research. Bob Hoye is chief financial strategist of Institutional Advisors and writes Pivotal Events , a weekly market overview. His articles have been published by Barron's, Financial Post , Financial Times , and National Post . BIG GOLD: A lot of economists, including the government, believe the worst is behind us economically. Do you agree? If not, what should we be on the lookout for in 2011? Jim Rogers: It is better for those getting all the government largesse, but the overall situation is worse. More currency turmoil. State and local problems, plus pension problems. Bill Bonner: None of the problems that caused the crises in Europe and America have been resolved. They have been delayed and expanded by more debt and more money printing and will lead to more and worse crises. Deleveraging takes time. 2011 will, most likely, be a transition year... not unlike 2010. But the risk is that one of these latent crises will become an active crisis. Peter Schiff: To me, it's like watching someone walk into the same sliding glass door again and again. Wall Street must know by now that large infusions of liquidity from the Fed spur present consumption at the expense of investment for the future. We are an indebted family going out for an expensive meal to celebrate getting approved for a new credit card. It might feel good (at the time), but we're still simply delaying the inevitable. Jeffrey Christian: We believe the worst is behind us economically, in the short term. The recession ended in late 2009, and 2010 saw U.S. economic growth in line with what CPM had expected, but higher than the more pessimistic consensus had been. In 2011 we expect continued expansion. We think some economists and observers are too enthusiastic about economic prospects right now. For the U.S. in 2011, we are looking for real GDP of 2.5% - 2.8%, inflation to remain low, and for the economy to avoid deflation. Interest rates are expected to start rising, perhaps significantly in the second half of 2011. The dollar is expected to be volatile, rising somewhat against the euro but continuing to weaken against the Canadian and Australian dollars, the rupee, yuan, rand, and other currencies. European sovereign debt issues will continue to plague financial markets, but market reactions will be less severe than they were regarding Greece in April 2010. John Williams: An intensifying economic downturn – what formally will be viewed as the second dip of a double-dip depression – already has started to unfold. The problem with the economy remains structural, where household income is not growing fast enough to beat inflation, and where debt expansion – encouraged for many years by the Fed as a way to get around the economic growth problems inherent from a lack of income growth – generally is not available, as a result of the systemic solvency crisis. Accordingly, individual consumers, who account for more than 70% GDP, do not have the ability, and increasingly lack the willingness, to fuel the needed growth in consumption on which the U.S. economy is so dependent. Steve Henningsen: The governments worldwide (I don't pay much attention to economists) want us to believe that the worst is behind us because the financial system is built upon the foundation of trust and confidence. Both of these were battered badly when it was shown that much of the world's prosperity over the past few decades was simply a mirage that, once dispersed, left behind only debt with no means of future production. Now they want us to believe that they fixed the problem via more debt. What I will be watching for this year is sovereign and U.S. municipal debt corpses floating to the surface sometime in the months ahead. Frank Trotter: Right now I have a somewhat dark but not dismal outlook. I think that over 2011, we will continue to experience a Jimmy Carter-style malaise that combines continuing high unemployment, tentative business investment, rising prices, low housing numbers when looked at on an absolute basis, and creeping interest rates. As a very large mortgage servicer, we are not seeing significant improvements in payment patterns that would indicate the worst is fully behind us, and with mortgage rates moving upward, we see less ability for current mortgage holders to refinance and reduce payments. Krassimir Petrov: No, the worst is yet to come. No structural changes have been made, no problems have been fixed. Printing money, a.k.a. Quantitative Easing, is a quick fix that has postponed the problem, yet also made it a lot worse. I would say that we are still in the early stages of the crisis and have another 4-8 years to go. Bob Hoye: The worst of the post-bubble economic adversity is not behind us. BG: Price inflation is creeping up, but the enormous amount of money printing hasn't really hit the system yet. Does that happen in 2011, further down the road, or not at all? Jim Rogers: It is happening. The U.S. and CNBC lie about it. Most other countries do not lie and acknowledge it is worsening. Bill Bonner: Most likely, substantial consumer price inflation will not show up in 2011. The explosion of money printing is being contained by the bomb squad of deleveraging. That will probably continue in 2011. But not forever. Peter Schiff: 2010 was the year that China began cutting back its Treasury purchases in favor of gold, hard assets, and emerging market currencies. The Fed has stepped in as a major purchaser of Treasuries. This represents a new phase on the path to dollar collapse, and it will manifest in 2011 in the form of more "unexplainable" inflation – as we are now seeing in the prices of everything from corn to gasoline. Jeffrey Christian: We are now beginning to see some increases in monetary aggregates, suggesting that some of the monetary accommodations are beginning to filter into the economy. We expect this trend to accelerate over the course of 2011. This will bring some increase in inflation, but we expect the major manifestation will be through higher U.S. Treasury interest rates as the Fed and Treasury seek to sell bonds to sterilize the inflationary implications of the monetary easing and to finance ongoing massive federal deficits. John Williams: The problems of the money creation will become increasingly obvious in exchange-rate weakness of the U.S. dollar. Related upside pricing pressure already is being seen on dollar-denominated commodities such as oil. There is high risk of consumer prices rising rapidly before year-end 2011, setting the stage for a hyperinflation. The outside date for the onset of a U.S. hyperinflation is 2014. Steve Henningsen: My guess is further down the road, as the deleveraging cycle continues with deflationary-housing winds in our face and the banks still hoarding money like my 9-year-old daughter stockpiles American Girl doll paraphernalia. I still expect inflation to continue in areas such as energy, bread, circuses, and whatever else provides sustenance to the Romans – I mean people. Frank Trotter: Most research has shown that over time the increase in money supply is not a short-term economic stimulus, but rather has a moderate effect in the 18- to 36-month range. In addition, this theory contends that a growth in the monetary base – which is what has happened so far – only increases economic activity when accompanied by a decent multiplier; this is not occurring. The real risk is that with rising rates and continued soft economy, the Fed will feel obliged to continue to QE3, QE4, and so on, all of which may have a significant inflationary impact. I am more concerned about general price inflation here in the U.S. and the potential it has to reduce global growth. Krassimir Petrov: This is a tough one. I would have thought that price inflation would have been raging by now, but this is obviously not the case. I have the feeling that 2011 will be a repeat of early 2008, with commodity prices (CRB) making new all-time highs. A falling dollar will trigger a rush into commodities as a hedge against inflation. I am really tempted to make a totally outrageous forecast that oil could make a run for $200 as QE3 unleashes another dollar scare, or maybe even a dollar crisis. Bob Hoye: Massive "printing" has been widely publicized and is "in the market." BG: The U.S. dollar ended 2010 about where it started; does it resume its downtrend in 2011, or are fears about its demise overblown? Jim Rogers: No, but further down the road. Bill Bonner: No opinion. But there is more risk in the dollar than potential reward. Peter Schiff: It's hard to pinpoint exactly when the dollar will collapse, but it will take a miracle to avoid that outcome in the near term. It really depends on when the creditors of the United States realize that they are not going to get their principal returned to them in real terms, but rather in grossly devalued dollars. We have already seen the average duration of U.S. Treasury debt drop below that of Greece. No one wants to buy a 30-year bond with negative real interest rates as far as the eye can see. Jeffrey Christian: We expect the dollar to be volatile against most currencies in 2011, but that its demise has been prematurely predicted. The dollar may move sideways to slightly higher against the euro, yen, and pound, while continuing to deteriorate against the Canadian and Australian dollars, the rupee, yuan, rand, and other emerging economy currencies. John Williams: There remains high risk of a dollar selling panic unfolding in the year ahead, as the U.S. economy tanks anew, as the Fed continuously expands its easing, and as dollar holders dump the U.S. currency and dollar-denominated paper assets. Such would be a precursor to the inflation problem. Steve Henningsen: Similar to my thoughts last year, I still believe the dollar is headed down long-term, but it could bounce around over the next year. If sovereign debts become a problem again, like I think they will later this year, then everyone will go running back to “Mother Dollar” once again for one last hug before she lies back down on her sickbed. Frank Trotter: As the economy waffles and the global investing community's attention is drawn from one crisis to the next, I expect the U.S. dollar to bounce up and down in the current range. After that, however, my analysis suggests that measured by the key factors of fiscal and monetary policy, combined with a significant trade deficit, the U.S. does not look as good as our major trading partners, and I thus expect the dollar to decline, perhaps significantly, in the intermediate term. Big geopolitical events may accelerate this or create a flight to U.S. dollar quality, so hold on to your hats. Krassimir Petrov: I think the dollar resumes lower. I expect QE3 and QE4 – a dollar-printing fest that will eventually sink the dollar. Sure, all fiat currencies are in deep trouble and prone to overprinting, but the reserve status of the dollar actually makes it more vulnerable now. Whether the dollar sinks against other currencies is a fool's game not worth playing. It is like being in the hospital, where all patients are suffering from cancer, and trying to guess who will feel best at the end of next year, or trying to guess who will succumb first. That's why it is so much safer to play the dollar against gold. Bob Hoye: Fears of the dollar's demise have been widely discussed and are "in the market." The dollar, itself, will not be repudiated – just the mavens that have been "managing" it. BG: Gold has risen 10 years in a row, so some are calling it a bubble, yet it's roughly $1,000 below its inflation-adjusted high. What's your outlook for the metal in 2011? Jim Rogers: It is hardly a “bubble” when very few own it still. Who knows? Overdue for a correction, but who knows? Bill Bonner: The smart money is in gold. It will stay in gold until the bull market that began 10 years ago finally reaches its peak. It is extremely unlikely that the top will come in 2011; it's probably years in the future. In the meantime, gold is bound to have a losing year or two. Don't worry about it. Buy gold. Be happy. Peter Schiff: The funny thing about a bubble is that when it's real, no one can see it. The same commentators who were blind to the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and now the Treasury bubble are quick to call gold a bubble. The truth is that many of them have a personal aversion to gold because they directly benefit from our fiat money system. Goldman Sachs was paid 100 cents on the dollar in the AIG bailout, which never would have happened in a gold-based system. It's a lot easier to print a billion paper dollars than dig up a million ounces of gold. Gold will continue to climb in 2011 as the currency war continues and investors continue to seek stability. Unless there is a major sea change in the way the U.S. does business, I think the gold trade is a safe one. Jeffrey Christian: A price of $1,550 is possible, although given the enormous investor buying pressure, prices could spike to almost anywhere. After that, we expect prices to fall back, initially to around $1,340 or $1,380. We expect gold prices to stay above $1,280 or so for most of 2011, and to average around $1,369 for the full year. John Williams: As the U.S. dollar increasingly is debased, and where gold tends to preserve the purchasing power of the dollars invested in it, the upside to gold in the year ahead is open-ended, restricted only by any limits to the massive downside potential for the U.S. dollar. Any intermittent gold price volatility, extreme or otherwise, will be short-lived. There is no bubble – only increasing weakness in the U.S. dollar – with the gold price fundamentally headed much higher in the years ahead. Steve Henningsen: I believe gold will once again prove the bubble-boys wrong and end the year positive (I have no idea by how much and don't really care). However, I think this year will be more volatile and that Gold Bugs better remain seated on the precious metals express or they might get squished. Frank Trotter: I still think that with price inflation on the rise and big political events occurring, there may be room to continue to rise. If stock markets take off, then there will be a reduction in appreciation or even a significant decline, but based on the factors I mentioned above, I don't see that as highly likely. Krassimir Petrov: Gold still has outstanding fundamentals. I believe that over the course of 2010, the fundamentals have strengthened significantly: (1) "No Exit [Strategy] for Ben" as he unleashed QE2, and will likely unleash QE3, QE4, etc., (2) no more central bank selling of gold, (3) more central banks become buyers of gold, and (4) trial balloons for a global gold-backed currency. I have no idea how people could even claim that gold is in a bubble – barely 1 out of 100 people have any idea about investing in gold. During the real estate bubble, every second person was involved in it. Maria "Money Honey" Bartiromo has yet to report from the COMEX gold pits; gold fund managers and analysts have yet to obtain rock-star status; and glamorous models are not yet dating the gold guys. Who is the Henry Blodget [co-host of Tech Ticker] of the gold sector, do we have one yet? Yes, gold will eventually become a bubble, but that feels 5-8 years away. Bob Hoye: In 2011, gold's real price will resume its uptrend. BG: What's your best investment advice for 2011? Jim Rogers: Buy the rmb [renminbi, the Chinese currency]. Bill Bonner: We are in a period much like the period following WWI, in which the great debts and losses of the war had to be reckoned with. It is an era of great risk. The U.S. faces many of the same challenges faced by Germany and England after WWI. Like England, it has huge debts. It is a waning imperial power. And it has the world's reserve currency. And like Germany, it is attempting to fix its problems by printing more money. This is not a good time to be long either U.S. stocks or U.S. bonds. Peter Schiff: Don't be suckered into the idea that recovery is just around the corner. The current climate is like living in a hurricane or earthquake zone; it's important to stay vigilant because you never know when disaster will strike. Physical gold is the financial equivalent of a flashlight, first-aid kit, and store of canned goods. It's a basic way to protect yourself from any eventuality. From there, if you're looking for returns, there are plenty of foreign markets with strong fundamentals, as well as commodities that feed those markets. Investing in the U.S. is now driven largely by force of habit. It's a habit you should resolve to break. Jeffrey Christian: Do not invest based on what you believe, but on what you know. Gold is a market, like other markets. It rises and falls. You probably want to stay long gold on a long-term basis, but may want to cull the weaker gold assets from your portfolio in the first quarter, and put some hedges in place to protect a long-term core long gold position against the potential of significant price weakness over the next two years or so. Such a period of weakness would be an excellent time to add to one's gold assets. John Williams: As an economist, I look for the U.S. dollar ultimately to lose virtually all of its current purchasing power. Accordingly, for those living in a U.S. dollar-denominated world, it would make sense to move to preserve wealth and assets over the long-term. Physical gold is a primary hedge (as is silver). Holding some stronger currencies outside the U.S. dollar, as well as having some assets outside the United States, also may make sense. Steve Henningsen: Dramamine (for volatile markets), a stash of cash (for potential investment opportunities), and move some of your assets offshore if you haven't already. Frank Trotter: My advice is first to look at the other side of your balance sheet – the liability and risk equation – before seeking out absolute gains. What are your goals, what resources do you already have to meet those goals, and what events (health, income stream, upheavals) might impact these risks? Place some assets to hedge these risks directly, then look to diversify globally into markets with higher growth potential than we see here at home, and that may balance your global purchasing power risk. Almost like a religion, we have had the phrase "Stocks are the only legitimate hedge against inflation" beaten into our heads. I say, look at assets that define inflation like commodities and currencies and evaluate where these fit into your risk portfolio. Krassimir Petrov: Last year I recommended silver, and I would stick to silver again, despite the phenomenal run in 2010. Then it gets tricky. I usually don't recommend diversification, but now I would again recommend a broad portfolio of commodities. Investing in 2011 should be easy: stay out of real estate, out of bonds, out of fiat currencies, and out of stocks; stay fully invested in commodities, overweight gold and silver. What to watch in 2011: stay focused on the sovereign debt crisis and bond yields. Spiking yields will trigger the next stage of the crisis. Bob Hoye: Once past the early part of 2011, the best returns are likely to be obtained from the junior gold exploration sector. [These world-class experts are right to bank on gold and silver – because the U.S. dollar keeps losing more and more of its value. Watch this eye-opening video on how China and Russia are plotting to dump the dollar… why you should be worried… and what to do about it.] noreply@blogger.com (Brett Owens)

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WHDH-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON -- U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid -- the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia -- could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard -- cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending -- such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget -- and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated -- it does not publish comparable figures -- at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply -- it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion -- compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. (

As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget axe 03/25/2011 Prince Albert Daily Herald	Return to Top
Published on March 24, 2011 Published on March 24, 2011 Topics : The State Department , Center for Global Development , House of Representatives , China , United States , Latin America WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the axe. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defence." Delivering the goods will be a problem as pressure grows to reel in the government's deficit — forecast at $1.5 trillion this year — much of it financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — of the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 per cent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 per cent and aid to refugees by 39 per cent. The Democrat-led Senate this month rejected the bill, but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighbourhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman. Aid accounts for only about 1 per cent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a dent in the deficit, which could require lower spending on defence and programs for the elderly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001 — and its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil, to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. "As aid budgets are constrained in the West, China's is rising." In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. But U.S. aid to an increasingly prosperous east Asia has dwindled over the years, eclipsed by the needs of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Major environmental programs in Indonesia and Pacific islands could now be hit.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WEHT-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KFVS-TV - Online	Return to Top
3-legged miniature horse fitted with prosthetic leg made by Texas company, takes off running WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WECT-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WWL-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 TheStar.com.my	Return to Top
WASHINGTON: U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." Delivering the goods will be a problem as pressure grows to reel in the government's deficit - forecast at $1.5 trillion this year - much of it financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - of the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democrat-led Senate this month rejected the bill, but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman. Aid accounts for only about 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a dent in the deficit, which could require lower spending on defense and programs for the elderly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001 - and its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil, to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. "As aid budgets are constrained in the West, China's is rising." In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. But U.S. aid to an increasingly prosperous east Asia has dwindled over the years, eclipsed by the needs of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Major environmental programs in Indonesia and Pacific islands could now be hit. - AP

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WBAY-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KSLA-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 WMBF-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Seattle Times - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. WASHINGTON — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. "Revelations" dance residency Members of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater teach dance to students at Denny Middle School as well as two other Seattle schools in the week leading up to their performances of "Revelations" on March 25 through 27 at The 5th Avenue Theatre.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KWTV-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

As America competes with China for global influence, US foreign aid programs face budget ax - The Washington Post 03/25/2011 Washington Post - Blogs	Return to Top
That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. SuperFan SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams. If your comments or those of another user measure up, please Fact Checker Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker. If your comments or those of another user measure up, please Washingtologist Washingtologists consistently post thought provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area. If your comments or those of another user measure up, please Post Writer This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer. Post Forum Post Forum members consistently offer thought provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs. If your comments or those of another user measure up, please U.S. Postal Service announces sweeping job cuts, district office closures More HouseH R 1076 March 17, 2011 More HouseH R 1076 March 17, 2011 SenateOn the Nomination March 17, 2011 More SenateH J RES 48 March 17, 2011 More SenateS 493 March 16, 2011 BillH R 1076 (Title not available.) More BillH R 861 (Title not available.)

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Bradenton Herald - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Jakarta Post Matthew Pennington	Return to Top
US efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics,as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Central Asia an Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." Delivering the goods will be a problem as pressure grows to reel in the government's deficit - forecast at $1.5 trillion this year - much of it financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the US will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - of the kind that burnished US standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democrat-led Senate this month rejected the bill, but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the US Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for US nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the US is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman. Aid accounts for only about 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a dent in the deficit, which could require lower spending on defense and programs for the elderly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the US official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001 - and its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil, to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the US But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. "As aid budgets are constrained in the West, China's is rising." In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. But US aid to an increasingly prosperous east Asia has dwindled over the years, eclipsed by the needs of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Major environmental programs in Indonesia and Pacific islands could now be hit.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KLTV-TV - Online	Return to Top
Cheetah cub from Jacksonville Zoo in Florida adopted by theme park, raised by hand More>> Inmates churn out bread for NYC jail system More>> Expert: Michigan population drop linked to Detroit exodus More>> WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Valley News Live - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Greeley Tribune, The MATTHEW PENNINGTONAssociated Press	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 St. Paul Pioneer Press - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON Associated Press	Return to Top
WASHINGTON—U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid—the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia—could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard—cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending—such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget—and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated—it does not publish comparable figures—at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply—it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion—compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 FOXNews.com	Return to Top
WASHINGTON – U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 TimesDaily - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Midland Reporter - Telegram - Online	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KGWN-TV - Online Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Corvallis Gazette-Times	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KLKN-TV - Online	Return to Top
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid - the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia - could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard - cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending - such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget - and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated - it does not publish comparable figures - at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply - it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion - compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Journal Times - Online, The	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KOB-TV - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
(AP) WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Santa Maria Times	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Casper Star-Tribune - Online	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 KSTC-TV - Online	Return to Top
(AP) WASHINGTON - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Public Opinion MATTHEW PENNINGTON Associated Press	Return to Top
WASHINGTON—U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid—the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia—could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard—cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending—such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget—and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated—it does not publish comparable figures—at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply—it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion—compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Daily News - Online, The	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 MyNorthwest.com MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration. (Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Hanford Sentinel	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid _ the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia _ could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard _ cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending _ such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget _ and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated _ it does not publish comparable figures _ at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply _ it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion _ compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Beaumont Enterprise - Online MATTHEW PENNINGTON	Return to Top
MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Updated 02:42 a.m., Friday, March 25, 2011 WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

US foreign aid faces cuts as China's reach grows 03/25/2011 Yahoo! Malaysia	Return to Top
U.S. efforts to counter China's growing influence in the developing world are a likely casualty of the budget battles dominating Washington's politics, as chunks of the foreign aid program face the ax. That could hurt not just the world's poor, but America's reach in emerging markets where China has ramped up investment and provided easy credit. The Obama administration has sought to step up its engagement in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America. Development aid is a key plank of its strategy. The State Department argues it is "as central to advancing America's interests as diplomacy and defense." But that aid, like all federal spending, is under pressure as lawmakers debate how to reel in the government's deficit, forecast at $1.5 trillion this year. Much of the red ink is financed by China. "Since World War II, the world has looked to the United States for leadership in poverty reduction," said Sarah Jane Staats of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. "It's not clear in the current environment whether the U.S. will be able to do that." Even funds allotted for emergency humanitarian aid — the kind that burnished U.S. standing after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia — could be slashed. The Republican-led House voted last month to cut federal spending by $60 billion for the budget year ending in September in a bill that would have hit foreign aid particularly hard — cutting disaster assistance by 49 percent. Funds for international financial institutions like the World Bank would have been cut by 44 percent and aid to refugees by 39 percent. The Democratic-led Senate this month rejected the bill but cuts appear inevitable. The two chambers must reach a compromise on spending to avoid a government shutdown. Rajiv Shah, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told a recent congressional hearing that the House-proposed cuts would be "absolutely devastating." He said his agency's disaster funds were paying for U.S. nuclear experts to help Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami that has left several reactors at risk of meltdown. But Republicans derided USAID and grilled Shah on specific spending — such as $100,000 to support eco-friendly motorized cycles and $4 million in child health aid for China. They say the U.S. is borrowing 40 cents on every $1 it spends. "We can't give away money we don't have," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Democrats say America can't afford not to. "If there's one thing we should have learned in 9/11 it's that if we don't visit bad neighborhoods, then they come to visit you," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget — and even deep cuts would not make a major dent in the deficit. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has cited the competition for global influence as she argues against aid cuts. The United States still far exceeds China in providing grants and low-interest loans in the developing world. In 2009, the U.S. official development assistance was $28.8 billion. China's is estimated — it does not publish comparable figures — at about $3.1 billion, according to Deborah Brautigam, a foreign aid expert at American University. But China's aid has increased sharply — it gave just $300 million in 2001. Its influence on developing economies extends much further through its provision of easy credit to governments, often in return for exports of natural resources such as oil to finance badly needed infrastructure development or to buy Chinese products. Brautigam estimates that in 2009, China's official aid to Africa was about $1.4 billion — compared with $7.2 billion from the U.S. But China also provides about $6 billion annually in export credits and commercial loans in Africa, while its state and private enterprises have netted tens of billions in telecommunication, construction and engineering contracts. "Western nations are still more influential in Africa, but the gap is narrowing," said Benedicte Vibe Christensen, a development and economy specialist. In the Asia-Pacific, there is more suspicion among nations of China's intentions because of its aggressive claims on disputed territories. Asian governments have welcomed increased engagement by the Obama administration.

Situation and Outlook in Libya 03/25/2011 Voice of America Radio Network - New York Bureau	Return to Top
Professor Emilio Viano discussed the situation and outlook in Libya on Voice of America Radio. *audio attached.