USAID hunts for terrorists…under the duvet

Abstract

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had its genesis in the noble ideals that underpinned the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. Since its founding in 1961, USAID has provided humanitarian, economic, and development assistance, in more than 100 developing countries. Because it exists in part to support the foreign policy interests of the USA, tensions in its missions are inherent, making the agency something of a permanent political football, despite a large contingency of dedicated employees.Recently, the agency announced that it was implementing a Partner Vetting System, in which all organisations applying for USAID funding would be required to submit detailed personal information on every one of its employees, and possibly on the recipients of aid. Some of the required information includes name, date and place of birth, social security or other government-issued identification information, telephone numbers, email addresses, nationality, citizenship, and profession. The ostensible reason? To ensure that no USAID funds are being used to support terrorists or terrorist activities. The information would be supplied directly by the people involved, apparently in the belief that terrorists will voluntarily supply truthful identifying information to the US Government.Aid groups have protested that the programme imposes undue burdens and will adversely affect their work. President of DKT International, Philip D Harvey, said the proposal reflects the paranoia of an administration that “sees a terrorist under every bedcover”.Is there any evidence that such vetting is effective? Just as one example, the intelligence available on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks suggests that reams of data do not result in effective analysis and plans. To its credit, USAID has said its proposal might be modified, as well it should be. The partner vetting plan, as proposed, is a piece of unworkable nonsense. The money spent on the plan would be far better put towards the real, often admirable, work of USAID. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had its genesis in the noble ideals that underpinned the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. Since its founding in 1961, USAID has provided humanitarian, economic, and development assistance, in more than 100 developing countries. Because it exists in part to support the foreign policy interests of the USA, tensions in its missions are inherent, making the agency something of a permanent political football, despite a large contingency of dedicated employees. Recently, the agency announced that it was implementing a Partner Vetting System, in which all organisations applying for USAID funding would be required to submit detailed personal information on every one of its employees, and possibly on the recipients of aid. Some of the required information includes name, date and place of birth, social security or other government-issued identification information, telephone numbers, email addresses, nationality, citizenship, and profession. The ostensible reason? To ensure that no USAID funds are being used to support terrorists or terrorist activities. The information would be supplied directly by the people involved, apparently in the belief that terrorists will voluntarily supply truthful identifying information to the US Government. Aid groups have protested that the programme imposes undue burdens and will adversely affect their work. President of DKT International, Philip D Harvey, said the proposal reflects the paranoia of an administration that “sees a terrorist under every bedcover”. Is there any evidence that such vetting is effective? Just as one example, the intelligence available on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks suggests that reams of data do not result in effective analysis and plans. To its credit, USAID has said its proposal might be modified, as well it should be. The partner vetting plan, as proposed, is a piece of unworkable nonsense. The money spent on the plan would be far better put towards the real, often admirable, work of USAID.