Robert Mayer has a post on the CADHRA proposed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). The full text can be found here, but the gist is that,
Under CADHRA, all non-humanitarian assistance to each government covered under the legislation would be conditioned on the President certifying that the country is making “substantial, sustained and demonstrable progress toward democratization and full respect for human rights.” U.S. assistance would be reduced by 33% for each year a positive determination cannot be made. In the third year, all aid to that government would be discontinued, unless the President restores 33% on national security grounds. Assistance can be restored over a three-year period if a country is certified to be making progress on democratization and human rights. The ban on non-humanitarian aid would include military assistance.
And it should be clarified that military assistance is defined in the act as everything–training, transport, support, materiel, etc.–except for that which is related to the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
The act also would authorize at least $15,000,000 per year for RFE/RL and VOA to increase their broadcasting in local languages to Central Asia.
The gradual reinstatement of aid idea is an interesting one. I actually think that gradual increasing of aid for achievement of agreed-upon benchmarks makes more sense than providing the big aid package that gets yanked away because expectations are not being met. And this leads me to one of my complaints about the act. What does “substantial” mean? It is awfully subjective and gives slightly more than absolutely no guidance to making judgments on progress.
Perhaps my skills at reading legislation are leaving me, but I am having a hard time telling what the 33% is. Is it 33% of the allocation for the year in question? Is the 66% in the second year 66% of the previous year’s allocation of 66% of the current year’s allocation? Any clarification would be welcome.
I do quite like though that this act would require the President as opposed to the Secretary of State to make the certification decision. It certainly would reduce the possibility that different bureaucracies will pursue their own foreign policies.
This is kind of unrelated, but this statement from Smith is interesting.
Comments on this entry are closed.