Dollars and Sense Diplomacy: A Better Foreign Policy for Less Money

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

Pressure to eliminate the budget deficit has grown increasingly intense, and the United States has responded by slashing its spending on foreign relations. The international affairs budget has fallen 51 percent in real terms since 1984, and the Clinton administration's 1997 request is lower than the current budget. The decline is even more striking since big-ticket items, such as aid to Israel and Egypt, have been left untouched. And Congress has denied the administration even these modest amounts, forcing the president to veto the State Department authorization bill in April.

Ideally, Congress would reverse this disturbing trend and allocate more funds to the struggling agencies with international responsibilities. The United States would then be able to keep its consulates and embassies open, pay its overdue bill to the United Nations, and fund the trade promotion agencies that support the 300,000 American jobs tied to exports. Perhaps it could even raise slightly the one-tenth of one percent of GDP devoted to foreign aid, a sum that makes the United States the most miserly of the industrialized countries. But presidential candidates Dole and Clinton are not calling for such increases, nor would Congress respond favorably if they did.

The alternative is to make a virtue out of necessity and restructure the agencies that carry out U.S. foreign policy. Underlying the current system is the false premise that the United States' objectives abroad -- promoting national security, free trade and U.S. exports, and respect for human rights -- often conflict with one another. In fact, those interests are intertwined. Progress toward democratic government fosters open markets, and American involvement in regional security encourages democracy and free trade. But the current structure of the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy invites foreign countries, both allies and adversaries, to play agencies or issues against each other. A consolidated structure would buy the United States more effective diplomacy for the buck, satisfying the budget hawks in Congress. More important, it would take advantage of the synergies of the United States' various foreign policy aims, compensating for the funding cuts that have crippled the country's ability to promote its interests abroad. There is no time to lose. As Congress swings the budget ax and imposes solutions, the State Department, U.S. foreign policy, and all Americans suffer.

BALKANS ON THE POTOMAC