The Senate Budget Committee recently passed a Budget Resolution that would cut the Foreign Affairs Budget by $4 billion. Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) released a statement about the bill and the cuts, stating, "a budget is about setting priorities." If that is the case, this resolution indicates a deficiency in long-term foreign policy priorities by cutting huge amounts of assistance to people in some of the world's poorest and least free countries.
The disappointing decision by Budget Committee Members to slash the international affairs budget will unduly affect the ability of the United States to achieve policy goals abroad. Foreign assistance represents less than 1% of the total budget request for 2011 and cuts to this already frugal amount will be devastating to efforts to promote development and good governance around the world. U.S. foreign assistance has long exhibited a "band-aid" type of approach, addressing issues as they become crises rather than taking preventative steps. Instead, in an increasingly tight fiscal environment, an investment in long-term foreign assistance strategies can provide the U.S. a lot more bang for the buck.
Of particular concern is the effect these cuts will have on the democracy and human rights budget. Democracy and successful developmental efforts are inextricably linked: stable, democratic countries whose governments represent the will of the people can effect more successful aid programs and make better strategic partners for the US. Further cuts to the already meager amount allocated for these programs would hinder America's democracy and human rights efforts in some of the largest and most strategically significant societies.
As the smallest category of funding in the Budget Request, democracy and human rights programs are particularly vulnerable to cuts. These programs represent less than 10% of the entire request for foreign assistance, and with 47% of the money dedicated to programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that leaves just $1.7 billion for democracy and human rights programs for the rest of the world. This is particularly troubling considering the increasingly repressive global environment we now face.
For the 4th straight year Freedom House found that in 2009, more countries saw declines in freedom than saw improvements, the longest continuous period of deterioration in the nearly 40-year history of monitoring. Further evidence of a "democracy recession" can be found in a series of troubling recent developments: cyber-attacks against Google in China, crackdowns against peaceful protests and dissent in Egypt, the silencing of opposition in Venezuela, the murder of journalists in Russia, and more subtle forms of intimidation and control against civil society elsewhere.
American democracy and human rights funding for efforts in places like Venezuela, Egypt, and Russia are all seriously underfunded despite the fact that these governments have become increasingly brazen in their repressive tactics and even though these countries still have large and active democracy movements. By cutting foreign assistance we are essentially abandoning activists who see the U.S. as a natural ally and ignoring societies where a modest amount of aid can make a significant difference.
The outcome of struggles around the world for greater freedom and better, more accountable governance will ultimately be determined by the men and women of each country, but democracy assistance from the international community can aid those efforts, especially in conjunction with strong and supportive diplomacy.
The United States needs to be fully engaged in the struggle for democracy and human rights around the globe. Given the mounting threats and challenges around the world, and the consequences these have for other vital national interests, more funds should be made available to invest in global development, diplomacy, and democracy and human rights, not less. By focusing only on the countries in which we are engaged militarily, the U.S. neglects countries that may in the future become focal points of conflict and upheaval. Our foreign assistance policy should reflect a longer-term strategy that incorporates preventative measures, such as development, human rights, and democracy assistance, rather than acting as a band-aid for whatever crisis is on the horizon.
Eight former Secretaries of State, who served in both Democratic and Republican Administrations, have publicly stated their opposition to the cuts, as has Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), and a number of civil society and advocacy groups. Congress should listen to these voices and oppose any reduction of the Foreign Affairs Budget.