The red corvette of international affairs
Imagine you have just acquired a new car – a flashy red Corvette. Hopefully you would change the oil regularly and do preventive maintenance that doesn’t cost that much. Or if you were shortsighted and had money to burn you could just skip that upkeep and several years down the road be faced with a huge bill for an engine overhaul. The United States’ relationship with the rest of the world is a bit like that Corvette. We can spend a relatively small amount of money on preventive maintenance and upkeep now or we can pay much more later when disaster strikes. The preventive maintenance I’m referring to is the civilian side of our international engagement.
Today the United States is engaged in two wars and faces tremendous challenges around the world. Polls have indicated that the US reputation in the world has improved since the election of Barack Obama. However, the leadership of a popular and charismatic President is not sufficient to rebuild the bridges of trust and support that are critical in addressing terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and global poverty. The United States must match its rhetoric with concrete actions. Unfortunately, the President’s recent request to Congress to devote adequate resources to non-military international engagement has met with resistance in the Senate budget committee.
In his 2011 budget, the President requested $573.8 billion for military expenditures (excluding war funding). For non-military expenditures which include all diplomatic activities and international aid, the President has requested $58.8 billion. The Senate budget committee approved the full military request yet decreased the non-military expenditures by $4 billion. The decision to underfund the international affairs budget is short sighted and should be reconsidered.
For years diplomatic and international aid activities have been targets for cuts. Citizens question why we should be spending money overseas when we have such critical issues here at home – unemployment, health care, education, a crumbling infrastructure, and poverty. Yet, when examined as a component of the overall federal budget, this request comprises a mere 1.4 percent. There has been growing bipartisan consensus that for too long we have relied too much on military power in lieu of other smart power tools. Without a doubt, we must maintain a strong and effective military force. Yet, even Secretary of Defense Gates has suggested that our country would be well-served by placing more emphasis on non-military engagement around the world. He said,
“As I have said for the last two years, I believe that the challenges confronting our nation cannot be dealt with by military means alone. They require instead whole-of-government approaches – but that can only be done if the State Department is given resources befitting the scope of its mission across the globe.”
Investments in diplomacy and development can yield great savings in the long run. The more conflicts we prevent and extremists we convert, the less we’ll need to spend in the long run on the weapons of war.
Of course, asking a politician to think in the long term is a bit like asking a toddler to eat her vegetables. As a new parent, I know how hard that can be! Yet, Democrats and Republicans have come together across the aisle to advocate for full funding of the international affairs budget. Many Senators have put aside their differences to show their support for this important effort. In fact, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are circulating a letter urging Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS) to fully funding the international affairs budget. All the living former Secretaries of State from Democrat and Republican administrations have also endorsed this effort in a letter written to members of Congress. The Senate appropriations committee should follow this recommendation.
It’s time to invest in the upkeep our relationship with the rest of the world. Otherwise, we’ll blow a gasket and pay much more later on to combat terrorism and protect America’s interests around the world.
Related posts: