Blog

The Budget Crunch: Why Save Aid?

With passage of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution appropriations bill in the House of Representatives, consideration of the stop-gap measure moves to the Senate. With the bill, the ever-growing debate on what to cut from the budget also heads to the Senate. Unfortunately, the U.S. International Affairs Budget lies directly in the cross hairs of the deficit hawks.

Maybe lawmakers scrambling to find budget cuts are emboldened to target foreign aid programs because the American public erroneously believes that 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In fact, approximately 1% of the U.S. budget is committed to the International Affairs Budget.

Or, perhaps, as former Bush Administration speech writer Michael Gerson suggests, our elected officials are misguided in thinking our current budget crisis is because of spending “too much on bed nets and AIDS drugs,” and not because of “entitlements and aging population and health cost inflation.”

But why should Americans be interested in saving foreign aid programming in such a dire fiscal situation? Much is said about America’s moral imperative to invest in development programming. As a super power with the world’s largest economy and which is undeniably linked to the rest of the world, Americans have an obligation to look out for those less fortunate than ourselves. Those who, try as they might, are unable to break themselves from the cycles of poverty, disease, and violent conflict that ravage the developing world. We must help those that are at a distinct disadvantage from their counterparts in the developed world to continue America’s commitment to humanitarian values.

But let us forget for a moment that roughly 1 billion people live on $1.25 per day. Forget that 33.3 million people are currently living with HIV around the world, 1.8 million of which died in 2009 because of their disease. Forget that rising global food prices are the cause of 925 million people worldwide suffering from debilitating hunger. And let us certainly forget that through its foreign aid programs the United States can do something about it.

Instead, let us consider the value added to the American public through strong investment in global development. Without humanitarian values to back up our foreign aid budget, what is there to encourage lawmakers to fully fund global development activities? In other words, in such a difficult economic situation, what’s in it for us?

First, investing in the International Affairs Budget means investing in national security. By investing in programs such as Peacekeeping Operations, International Military Education and Training, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, and Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs, the U.S. is strengthening its national security and saving on costs of military engagement. These programs help cultivate strong diplomatic relations, stabilize conflict areas, and reduce the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking on America’s doorstep.

Military professionals and civilians alike agree that our development funding is a vital component to national security. In a letter to Congress in support of the International Affairs Budget, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen reasoned “the more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!” In an editorial published recently, Representative Steve Rothman went so far as to claim that because of the national security component of the development budget, “our foreign aid and diplomatic budget has a return on investment that is at least a thousand fold.”

More importantly, investing in the International Affairs Budget has a decided economic benefit for American businesses and the economy at large. Ensuring economic growth in the developing world opens markets to international trade. Because of the investment in out development programs, American businesses are able to penetrate these new markets more readily.

Take for example, the US Trade and Development Agency helps American companies to break into new markets by establishing links between the companies and potential export and trade opportunities. In 2010 alone, the USTDA funded activities that accounted for $2 billion in U.S. exports. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation finances and insures U.S. business ventures in emerging markets, at no cost to American taxpayers. Both of these agencies are vital components of the U.S. foreign assistance strategy as they are integral to economic growth in the development world as well as economic prosperity and job creation in the United States.

Without a robust International Affairs budget the United States is at a severe disadvantage in its quest for national security and economic prosperity.  We must combine these two reasons with the American legacy of humanitarian responsibility to truly harness the world’s potential and create stability. Because, in the end, a stable and prosperous world is a safe a prosperous United States.

Rajiv Shah Addresses U.S. Diplomats; Stresses the importance of development and highlights opportunities for partnership with USAID

Earlier this month at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah spoke to 300 U.S. diplomats, who were brought home from around the world to strategize diplomacy and development goals laid out in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). During the conference, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted diplomacy as the front line of American foreign policy; Shah complemented her remarks by explaining the current goals of USAID and how US diplomats can help implement them.

Shah stressed the importance of development work, calling it “the forward defense of our national security.” He mentioned amazing progress in Southern Sudan, an 85% reduction in narcotics trade in Colombia, and the continued work towards an exit strategy in Afghanistan as examples of development work’s stabilizing effects on volatile nations. He also highlighted development in terms of future economic opportunities for the United States, saying “the bottom billion” will eventually “represent a large and growing middle class and will require us to be competitive in that context in order to have real economic opportunities.”

Shah went on to describe “USAID Forward,” which will move away from inefficient practices and instead focus on development strategies that are proven to have long-term, lasting value. He briefly described priorities in food security, global health, and economic growth and said that in these and other areas of focus, USAID is seeking to put in place “more effective, more modern, and more efficient strategies to get better results and better outcomes.” But in order to achieve these results, better partnership is needed; “our diplomats and our development experts need to hold hands and pursue these goals together.”

He concluded his speech by asking the chiefs of mission to engage with USAID activities happening in their countries and to have conversations about development goals with the leaders they encounter. He also asked for their assistance in implementing USAID’s new evaluation policy and procurement reforms, and requested that they think through how science and technology can be used as a tool for improvement.

To listen to or read a full transcript of Rajiv Shah’s remarks, visit: http://www.state.gov/s/c/remarks/155892.htm

Clinton reiterates diplomacy as critical to successful U.S. foreign policy

Last week, at a foreign policy meeting of U.S. ambassadors from all over the world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reemphasized the importance of civilian power, especially in light of the recent unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. Clinton and the current administration have made diplomacy and development and integral part of their strategy on national defense, as outlined in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which was released at the end of 2010.

At last week’s gathering, representatives from 260 U.S. posts abroad were brought to Washington, D.C., for a policy discussion in which Clinton emphasized again the importance of civilian power. The political climate in a country can change rapidly, requiring an even greater need for quality U.S. representation abroad. “Diplomats,” stressed Clinton,” are the on the front lines of America’s engagement with the world.” She also encouraged them to represent the U.S. in the digital world, engaging with current social media trends to stay up-to-date on what is being said and to respond effectively.

Clinton called this “a critical time for America’s global leadership,” and stressed again the importance of diplomacy and development alongside of defense as the primary components of national security and foreign policy. “We have spent two years renewing our alliances, forging new partnerships and elevating diplomacy and development,” she said. “ Now as we look to the next two years, it is time to build on that progress and deliver results.”

For more information on Clinton’s remarks and the gathering, see:

Hillary Clinton to diplomats: Respect ‘civilian power’

Hillary Clinton calls historic meeting of U.S. Ambassadors

Clinton: Critical Time for American Leadership

Clinton: American Diplomacy Must Be Accountable