It's a schadenfreude spree . . .

One of the things I learned about at the meeting I facilitated is the US government's "F Process," which is consolidating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.  This move is intended to bring greater coherence to US foreign policy.  (I wrote a bit about it here, when plans were announced last year.)  This process is changing the funding environment for international development.  (For an interesting perspective on the impact of internal changes, see this speech by the US Ambassador to Cambodia - I can't decide whether it's amusing or lame. I guess a lot depends how it was delivered.)

For example, the government wants to fund projects that intend to improve governance and democracy.  So a funding proposal from an education project that works to strengthen national curricula and school systems would probably be more favorably received by the government than one for a project that targets communities in a more limited area.   This is important information to know if you're creating proposals for government funding.  The discussion was somewhat overshadowed, however, by news that the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Randall Tobias, had suddenly resigned the week before, creating some question about how the details of the "F Process" might change under new leadership.

Why the sudden resignation?  This is where the hypocrisy gets awfully rich.  See, back in 2005 (even before the F Process began), the government decided that a coherent policy approach to human trafficking required organizations receiving US government funding for anti-trafficking or anti-HIV efforts to affirm, in writing, that they have an organizational commitment or policy stating that the organization does not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.  But the language is kind of fuzzy about what promoting, supporting and advocating entail.  It seems fairly obvious, for example, that an organization that supports the unionization of people working in prostitution need not apply for funding.  But what about an organization that works to increase HIV awareness and protection for people working in prostitution without condemning that work or actively trying to remove people from prostitution?  That's not so clear.  And in analyzing the policy, Susan Cohen saw a broad-based and coercive anti-prostitution campaign in the making:

NGOs must oppose prostitution and sex trafficking (but no other kind of trafficking) whether they promote condom use among sex workers or whether they work only in hospitals to prevent HIV transmission from pregnant women to newborns. In other words, in order to join the U.S. anti-HIV/AIDS effort, all NGOs must formally enlist in the U.S. government's antiprostitution campaign.

What does seem pretty clear, at least to me, is that patronizing a service that sells sex would at least be "supporting" prostitution, if not promoting or advocating it.  Right?  So it's pretty appalling that the person who is ultimately in charge of enforcing this policy - that would be the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Ambassador Randall Tobias - turned up on the list of clients of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Palfrey.  Tobias claims that no sex took place, only massages, and that he stopped using Palfrey's service in favor of one "with Central Americans."  (It makes me feel extra squeamish when I try to figure out why Tobias would highlight the regional origins of his masseuses, and what the media emphasizing this quote are trying to do - that's getting into a knot of sexual and racial politics that I don't have the space to unpick properly in this post.)  Anybody buying his story?

And in other notable resignations, Paul Wolfowitz has announced his resignation after his questionable actions in obtaining a job and pay raise for his partner, who had to leave active service at the World Bank when Wolfowitz was appointed to head it.  Wolfowitz's hobby horse during his leadership of the World Bank was an anti-corruption campaign in which he tried to stop Bank aid to some impoverished countries because he argued that their deeply corrupt governments, not poverty, were the countries' biggest obstacle to development.  Ironic that a conflict of interest case would bring down a staunch advocate of corruption. 

Of course, the World Bank, massive bureaucracy that it is, is hardly a model of perfect systems and highly effective governance - even the panel reviewing Wolfowitz's case acknowledged that the guidance he was given was less than perfectly clear.  And had Wolfowitz had a different agenda, and the United States a different foreign policy stance, it's possible that his claims that he was operating in good faith might have been accepted.  But, as the New York Times points out, "Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first," an approach that did not sit well with the Bank's governing board.  And if you're going to pursue an unpopular approach with entrenched interests in a powerful institution, you'd best be sure your conduct is above reproach.

I find it grimly amusing that two Bush appointees have gone down within weeks of each other for shady behavior contradictory to the policies they espoused in their professional lives.  Beyond that, though, I think these resignations point to the difficulty of dealing with complex problems with narrowly-focused approaches.  Wolfowitz getting tripped up demonstrates just how easy it is to engage in corrupt behavior, particularly in the absence of strong systems and structures to provide guidance and accountability.  And Tobias's situation points up the difficulty in effecting the broad-based behavioral changes that would have to be behind any effort to end the sale of sexual services.  When the man who is ultimately responsible for enforcing a policy requiring organizations overseas to not support prostitution is purchasing sexual services himself, it seems clear to me that policy language alone is not going to get at the changes in attitudes and behaviors that would be needed to undermine all the various factors that support prostitution as a social institution.  I don't hold out a lot of hope for change at either the World Bank or USAID, really, but I do rather enjoy seeing policies I think are shortsighted contribute to the downfall of their proponents.