On May 28, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that the State Department had requested $58.5 billion for State Department and United States Agency for International Development funding for the upcoming fiscal year. On the same day, the Pentagon requested $715 billion, totaling a whopping 12% of the entire $6 trillion budget request, or 12 times that of the State Department.
State Department and foreign aid funding consist of a tiny portion of the federal budget, and as a result, the American diplomatic operation is functioning on a dangerously low amount of funds. The U.S. tends to adopt military approaches instead of diplomatic ones to counter our adversaries, whether that be through NATO or the brand-new AUKUS agreement. This is the wrong approach, and Washington should shift its focus to revitalizing our civilian diplomatic corps and boosting our foreign aid budget. Soft power strategies will improve popular sentiment abroad, bolstering the U.S. effort to curb authoritarian influence overseas while also bringing about economic and national security benefits.
Across the Pacific, China does not spend nearly as much on foreign affairs as the U.S., but they are rapidly increasing how much they do spend. Their Belt and Road Initiative alone, facing problems as it may, spends as much as the entire United States State Department and is expected to cost over $1 trillion. It’s a massive soft power ploy, and only one prong in the Chinese soft power strategy, as a slew of investments are made outside the BRI framework. As the Council of Foreign Relations found, 60 countries with 66% of the global population have either signed on for or shown interest in signing on for BRI projects. As these countries begin to align themselves with China on the geopolitical sphere, they put the American global position at tremendous risk. Now more than ever, a measly foreign aid budget is to the detriment and harm of the United States.
The American government has routinely relied on hard-power, militaristic solutions to counter Chinese influence, most recently exemplified by the AUKUS agreement that will allow the Australians to develop eight nuclear-powered submarines in partnership with Washington and London. Military moves can be a strategically positive, oftentimes even appropriate, course of action, particularly in the South China Sea where the Chinese have activated their own armed forces. However, expanding the U.S. military’s role for soft power missions, general administration in developing nations, or even just diplomatic support, not only dramatically increases the burgeoned military-industrial complex but also gives a threatening air to what should be a non-threatening goal.
The money exists — it’s not that the U.S. government is strapped for cash. The Pentagon keeps finding more money in its wallet than it both wants and needs, while other executive agencies including the State Department are strapped for cash. Reallocating the money we already spend — while accounting for more that the government may raise through a myriad of tax policies — toward the foreign aid and State Department budget will provide much-needed funds for what currently consists of only 1% of our national budget.
An increase in economic development and investment, humanitarian aid, and general poverty-reduction funding will serve three purposes simultaneously. First, the United States will strengthen its mission to counter authoritarian influence around the globe, particularly from China and Russia, who have already spent heavily in developing nations to boost their own global influence. A flush of U.S. funds in developing nations would help solidify American soft power, increase our allies in volatile regions of the world, and as a result, diminish the power of China and Russia in those same regions. This is particularly relevant in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, where American influence is ebbing in favor of closer ties to Beijing and Moscow.
Second, assisting economic development in developing nations would dramatically improve the quality of life in those countries. This is not something that would happen with the arrival of the U.S. military — this kind of assistance must be done by the State Department and their humanitarian organization partners, eliminating any semblance of military or hard-power involvement. One would see improving health, higher education rates, and a whole range of other benefits for the people in those regions.
Third, by increasing foreign aid funding in these regions and improving their quality of life, the risks for the twin threats of terrorism and pandemics decrease. When you put kids in schools, improve economic conditions and remove situations of desperation, and vitalize health systems and eliminate breeding grounds for disease, there will be fewer people radicalized and fewer pathogens finding hosts. Once again, it is critical that the military does not take the place of the State Department. The presence and actions of the U.S. military abroad have already fomented deep resentment against the United States, and this sort of mission is well beyond their scope. There is simply no need to send armed forces when the diplomatic corps could do a fine job, provided they have the money.
Of course, foreign aid should be dynamic, not rigid. Every nation has different needs, and the U.S. has far too often failed to recognize the unique needs of not just individual nations, but also ethnic and religious communities within those nations. The American government cannot expect to, nor should it, provide the same support to completely different countries. As part of revitalizing the diplomatic corps, it is essential that foreign aid comes in a form that perfectly understands the culture of where it is arriving. Blanketing aid across diverse regions may backfire. Additionally, foreign aid should be dynamic in the form it arrives in over time. As COVID-19 continues to pose a tremendous threat, the U.S. government should look to prioritize vaccines and other forms of COVID-relief at this critical juncture. As new threats arrive and new problems surface, the shape of foreign aid should change.
While some may argue that the money is better spent at home, these two are not mutually exclusive. Drawing from Pentagon funds and raising new funds from an assortment of tax reforms would allow domestic spending to stay as is while also giving our State Department the funds it desperately needs. A large boost in foreign aid serves the interests of the U.S. and nations abroad, improving their economic conditions while strengthening the U.S.’ hand and protecting the American people and the people of the world. The increase in foreign aid funding and the reinvigoration of our civilian diplomatic corps apparatus will breed cycles of growth and safety that every nation can benefit from.
Image by Annika Gordon is licensed under the Unsplash License.
