Former USAID Leaders Under Republican and Democratic Presidents Oppose Dismantling Organization

 CNN posted on 5 February 2025 an article titled "Republican and Democratic Former USAID Leaders Speak Out against Trump's Attempts to Dismantle Agency" by Jennifer Hansler.

Five former leaders of the US Agency for International Development have spoken out against the Trump administration's attempts to dismantle the humanitarian agency and called on Congress "to swiftly protect the Agency's statutory role."  

The five former administrators are Samantha Power (Biden administration), Gayle Smith (Obama administration), Andrew Natsios (George W. Bush administration), Brian Atwood (Clinton administration), and Peter McPherson (Reagan administration).

Comment:  A notable absentee from this list is Mark Green, who served as USAID administrator during the first Trump administration.  

Q & A from McClatchy Nairobi bureau chief on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's trip to Africa

Below is the transcript of my Q&A with Shashank Bengali, McClatchy Nairobi bureau chief, on July 30, 2009, which resulted in the article I mentioned in this post. UPDATE 8/4: Bengali has posted on the story on his blog Somewhere in Africa. SB: What’s the main message the Obama administration and Clinton are trying to send with this trip? Amb. Shinn: The main purpose is to underscore, following the President’s visit to Ghana earlier in July that the Obama administration is interested in strengthening relations with sub-Saharan Africa. A continuing subtext will be, as the President said before the Ghanaian Parliament, that Africa’s future is up to Africans. The administration is placing more responsibility on Africans themselves for resolving their problems and improving economic development. Having said that, I believe the Secretary’s visit will produce some “good cop” rhetoric to offset the “tough cop” remarks of the President. SB: Some activists have criticized the Obama administration for not making Africa a top priority, citing a lack of engagement on Somalia, Congo and other trouble spots. Are those criticisms founded? Will Clinton’s tour address those concerns? Amb Shinn: First, we need a reality check. Africa has never been a top priority of any American administration. After four years of the Obama administration I believe that Africa will have been given more attention than has been the case with any previous American administration. But it will still not reach a top foreign policy priority. Europe, Asia and Latin America are all economically more important. Europe has close cultural and historical ties. Latin America is geographically closer. Even the Middle East and South Asia are strategically more important. It is necessary to keep Africa in perspective. Africa is becoming more important. About 20 percent of America’s imported oil comes from the African continent. Is it any surprise that Secretary Clinton is visiting Nigeria and Angola, two major oil exporters to the United States? Some 12 percent of the American population has African origins and the father of the American President was, of course, a Kenyan. There may be an added focus on this connection between the United States and Africa. I would argue that the Obama administration, which has only been in office for six months, has been exceedingly active in two of Africa’s major conflicts—Sudan and Somalia. I have not seen much activity on the Congo, but believe this will soon change. Finally, by definition activists criticize. If they didn’t, they would no longer be activists. SB: What’s the significance of Clinton’s meeting with Somali President Sheik Sharif Ahmed? [Pictured below, BBC] Won’t it merely underline Sharif’s ties to the West, which his opponents already criticize? Amb. Shinn: The most vocal opponents of President Ahmed are the extremist al-Shabaab and a few allied organizations. The United States and most of the rest of the world has no interest in catering to their concerns. The United Nations, African Union, Arab League, Organization of Islamic Congress and virtually the entire international community support the Somali Transitional Federal Government led by President Ahmed. I don’t believe there is any apprehension about alienating his extremist opponents. You can expect that Secretary Clinton will strongly support President Ahmed. SB: Do you anticipate any major headlines coming out of the trip? Amb. Shinn: This is an interesting question. Most probably there will be some headlines. I have the impression that the Obama administration wants to change the approach to food security in Africa. Candidate Obama talked about a “green revolution” in Africa during the presidential campaign. The U.S. secretary of agriculture will accompany the secretary of state to Kenya. There could be a major initiative announced on food security and support for African agriculture. On a bilateral level, there may be a resuscitation of the binational commission with South Africa. This existed during the presidency of Bill Clinton but disappeared under President Bush. I suspect either a binational commission or something similar will be revived. Secretary Clinton is a personality in her own right. Most of the “headlines” may be of the human interest and anecdotal variety. Actually, I hope this is not the case. This trip should emphasize policy and substance. SB: What is one country that you think Clinton should visit, but isn’t? Amb. Shinn: There are actually three candidates, but First Lady Hillary Clinton visited two of them — Senegal and Tanzania — in 1997. I can understand why she chose different countries, except for South Africa, on this itinerary. That leaves one major omission in my view — Ethiopia, the second most populous country in Africa and a close ally of the United States. Although Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Ethiopia in 2007, this would be a good occasion to underscore the importance the United States attaches to Ethiopian civil society, human rights and a good electoral process in 2010. In addition, Secretary Clinton could express appreciation to Ethiopia for support on regional conflicts and countering extremism.

My talk at Indiana U. on China in Africa

Indiana University, Bloomington, recently posted a transcript of my remarks at its March 6 - 7 China in Africa symposium, co-sponsored by its East Asian Studies Center's African studies program (site) and its Center for International Business Education and Research (site). My talk was titled "Comparing Engagement with Africa by China and the United States." Here's the conclusion:

Since the mid-1990s, China has made an all out effort to gain favor in Africa. It has had considerable success and in some countries Chinese influence now surpasses that of the United States. The second term of the Clinton administration significantly increased the attention it gave Africa but was not able to increase significantly financial support for the continent. The Bush administration tripled the amount of aid to Africa, but did not increase the personal contact or attention. The net result so far this decade is that China has advanced its interests in Africa to a greater extent than the United States has done. The global financial crisis will adversely affect both China’s and the United States’ ability to enhance relations with Africa. The United States still has more resources than China but China is in relatively better economic shape following the financial meltdown. If current trends continue, China may have the short-term advantage in Africa.

The entire presentation can be accessed here, in PDF format.