Hobbling USAID could worsen conflicts and cost US more, former ambassador says

Yahoo

21-03-2025

The former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said a vacuum of U.S. leadership could allow nations like China to play a larger role in global affairs which would be detrimental to American security and interests in the world.
She also said the hobbling of "soft-power" approaches like the USAID food program will worsen conflicts and ultimately cost the country more in defense spending.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield will speak at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison April 1 where she'll share insights from her experience in foreign policy and how it applies to modeling respect and compromise in policy making. The event is free and open to the public.
Thomas-Greenfield most recently served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under the Biden Administration. She has a served under both Republican and Democratic administrations in a variety of roles, including U.S. Ambassador to Liberia, Director General of the U.S. Foreign Service and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.
Letters: Ukraine minerals deal shameful. Russia is the nation that started war.
A native of Louisiana and graduate of Louisiana State University, she received her master's degree from UW-Madison, so her return to the campus will be a homecoming of sorts. Here are five takes from her interview with the Journal Sentinel's Kristin Brey ahead of her speech. The questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Question: With USAID and the U.S.'s role in helping feed the world in limbo right now, can you explain for people who are unfamiliar with the organization, and having seen it up close, how USAID makes the world safer?
Answer: USAID is our soft arm of power. So we have three arms of power that we project overseas: It's diplomacy, that I represented, it's defense and it's development. And those stools, the legs of those stools are very equal in terms of the impact that they have on the countries we're engaging in. as well as the impact on the United States, on American citizens because American citizens benefit from what USAID does but they also contribute to what USAID has been able to achieve. And for me the soft power that USAID projected was so much more important than any of the legs of this three-legged stool because it costs so much less. So people see billions of dollars, but when we look at the whole scheme of what we spend on international programs, on defense programs overseas, on diplomacy, the aid part of it is very small, but it has a significant benefit in terms of projecting our power and our engagements with other countries in the world.
Question: You last visited our state in August to commemorate the the 12th anniversary of the Sikh shooting in Oak Creek. When you were here, you also made a visit to the Wisconsin State Fair. What did you learn about Wisconsin's role in feeding the world?
Opinion: As fights rage over DOGE and USAID, farmers battle decades of government failure
Answer: Well, it was interesting because I was there to talk about food insecurity and to talk about Wisconsin's role, but I don't think I realized how significant that role was until I went to the fair and how many farmers are engaged in activities that contribute to providing food aid around the world. So Wisconsin is a big player and, for me, being in the food security arena is extraordinarily important. I do think that despite the fact that we have food insecurity, we have enough food to feed the world and Wisconsin is a huge contributor to that.
Question: During your confirmation hearing as UN Ambassador, you quoted a Noble Peace Prize winner who said the United Nations is the greatest peace organization ever dedicated to the salvation of mankind's future on earth. But, you noted, that is only true if America is leading the way. If America stops leading the way, what do you predict is going to happen to peacekeeping around the world and our place in the world? (The post of UN Ambassador has not been filled since Thomas-Greenfield stepped down.)
Answer: American leadership is part of our inner soul, and it is expected by the countries that we work with. They don't expect the United States to sit on the sidelines. They want us sitting right in the front. And we can't do it alone. We need other countries, we need the UN, but our leadership is really powering all of the other activities of other countries and institutions like the United Nations. When we're not leading, others will step in and lead, but they may not lead based on the rules of the road and the principles. that we hold dear. And they may take the international world order in a direction that will not be in our interest. When we leave leadership vacant, all manners of others will step in to lead. I've heard over and over again, including in my (confirmation) hearing, concerns about the role that China plays and really demand that I work to counter China's power and actions in the United Nations. Us leaving our leadership role vacant is opening the door. It's offering China leadership on a silver platter. They don't even have to work for it.
Question: Today with the dismantling of, not even just DEI programs, but the idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Do you have thoughts on that as far as what you've seen, what you've overcome, what you've achieved, and what role any of these institutions have for opening doors versus the quote unquote meritocracy?
Answer: It makes me very, very sad because the assumption here is that if there is a DEI program that the people who benefit are not qualified, that we don't merit being where we are. And we all know that that is not true. We know that we have a society that has a history, a deep history of racism and a society in which people of color have not always been given access to the same benefits that others have been given. And so it makes me really concerned and worried and again, sad that this is happening in our country at this time. I don't think that there's anyone who can question my qualifications for being the UN ambassador.
Question: You've talked about gumbo diplomacy, which is the idea of sharing a meal and a personal connection to break down barriers during negotiations. And so that sounds like a much better strategy than yelling on Twitter. Is there an example or a story you have of when that worked?
Opinion: We welcome tariffs on Canadian and Mexican beef. Here's why.
Answer: So, you know, it's not just that the gumbo is a concept, more than a meal. And the concept of gumbo, it's a mixture, it's a mélange of all kinds of ingredients that come from everywhere. And you don't have to have the same ingredients. My gumbo recipe may be completely different from another person's gumbo recipe, but it's about bringing things together and making them work. ... It's not always over a meal. For me, Gumbo's diplomacy is an approach. So I might have a meeting with an adversary and I've been given my two pages of talking points where I have to deal with some very difficult topics. And I have 30 minutes to do it. My staff would always freak out because the first five minutes of that conversation would be, tell me who you are. Where'd you come from? How many children do you have? Where are they in school? Tell me what you like to eat. I'd love to have you over for gumbo. You know, and just have that minute conversation that brings down the temperature and allows you to get to know the person as a person instead of an adversary. And then you deal with the issues and you walk away from the meeting, respecting each other. And I don't always win. I've won a lot, I will say, but I didn't always win. I usually came out of that discussion with a relationship that allowed me to go back maybe a second or a third time to that person and eventually get to where we want to get some kind of compromise. But if the meeting is adversarial from the moment you start, you don't know who the person is other than he or she is your adversary and you have... some differences of views on something, and then you walk out of the meeting and you've not achieved anything and you've not set yourself, you've not set the stage for a second meeting or a third meeting. So for me, that's gumbo diplomacy. If we happen to have gumbo at the same time, it makes it even better.
Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Thomas-Greenfield to speak at UW-Madison on conflict resolution | Opinion