|
NTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SPENDING IN THE 2005
APPROPRIATIONS BILL: WINNERS AND LOSERS
On November 20, Congress completed the appropriations process for 2005. There
were some big losers and a few winners. U.S. contributions to UN
peacekeeping missions and President Bush’s Millennium Challenge Account both
received far less than the President requested. HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis funding was one of the few areas that received more than the
administration requested, but the majority of this money is dedicated to the
President’s unilateral AIDS initiative, PEPFAR, rather than to the Global
Fund.
+ FULL STORY
CONGRESS CUTS ANTI-TERROR, DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO KEY
ALLIES OVER ICC EXEMPTIONS
The omnibus appropriations bill expected to gain House approval by early
December contains a controversial amendment that will impose further
sanctions on countries that have ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC)
treaty. The amendment, originally included in the House version of the
foreign aid spending bill in July, would prohibit assistance from the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) for countries that have refused to sign a
“bilateral immunity agreement” to shield U.S. citizens and certain foreign
nationals from transfer to the ICC for investigation or prosecution for
atrocities or genocide. The funds affected include support for
anti-terrorism activities, peace building, democratization and counter-drug
initiatives.
+
FULL STORY GLOBAL FUND ANNOUNCES NEW ROUND
OF FUNDING DESPITE U.S. OPPOSITION
On November 18 the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria
announced that it would begin accepting proposals for a fifth round of
funding in March. Approval of the new round of funding came despite
opposition from several donor countries, including the United States. The
decision followed a two-day, closed door meeting of the Global Fund’s Board
in Arusha, Tanzania, attended by Presidents Mwai Kibaki of Kenya, Yoweri
Museveni of Uganda and Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania.
Opponents, including the Bush administration, argued that the three-year old
Global Fund should delay issuing new grants because of insufficient
contributions. “Let’s get the financial house in order before we make new
obligations,” an administration official was quoted as saying.
U.S. opposition drew criticism from treatment activists, who argued that any
delay would cost lives. In addition, the activists pointed out that
postponement would be counterproductive, since in previous rounds donors did
not begin to commit money until well after the grant approval process was
begun.
+ FULL STORY Updated
November 29, 2004 |
