Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Editorial

Ignoring Diplomacy’s Past and Its Future Promise

Credit...Delcan & Company

One of America’s greatest contributions to international peace resulted from a historic investment in foreign aid. After defeating Fascism in World War II, Washington channeled billions of dollars into the war-torn nations of Europe and Japan, helping transform them into economic success stories and vital democratic allies.

That’s a lesson worth remembering as President Trump tries to slash the State Department and its foreign aid programs by about 30 percent in the proposed budget for the next fiscal year, while raising Pentagon spending by 10 percent. The cruelest cuts may be a reported $1 billion reduction for the United Nations’ peacekeeping operations and programs that care for needy children.

Mr. Trump seems to assume that national greatness comes from the barrel of a gun — he wants to expand the fleet of Navy ships and the nuclear arsenal — rather than from a combination of military might and “soft power” tools. One such tool is the example America sets by adhering to constitutional principles, the rule of law and human rights. Others involve pursuing smart diplomatic engagement and initiatives, including nuclear agreements and disaster assistance for some of the poorest countries.

The State Department and foreign aid have long been targets for budget cutters because many Americans don’t understand what these programs do. Polls show that Americans overestimate how much federal spending goes to these programs. The actual number for foreign aid is about 1 percent of the budget, or $36.6 billion in 2017. And some of that money is spent in the United States.

Diplomacy doesn’t always prevent war, Syria being one example, but war becomes far more likely if there are not enough diplomats to work with other countries to resolve disagreements. Compelling examples of diplomacy working include the 2015 deal that is preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; the 1995 Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnia War; and the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Other examples include several treaties that committed America and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals significantly. American diplomats have strengthened alliances, built new partnerships with countries like Cuba and Myanmar, promoted democracy so that countries are less likely to go to war with one another and created jobs by helping to open overseas markets to American business.

American interests are also advanced by helping other countries become more stable. A health program begun by President George W. Bush helped check the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and then was used to stop an Ebola epidemic in West Africa during the Obama administration. Other programs aid refugees; finance improvements in sanitation and water, primary education, energy and counterterrorism; and underwrite exchanges between foreign students and professionals and their American counterparts.

None of this is to say the State Department cannot be made more efficient. Tax dollars should be spent wisely. But rather than slashing the department’s budget, which pales before a $600 billion Pentagon budget (which alone exceeds the military spending of the next seven countries combined), Mr. Trump should be urging Congress to increase it.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former Exxon Mobil chief executive, has been shockingly complicit in Mr. Trump’s miserly approach. In Tokyo this month, he called the department’s current spending “not sustainable” and said that “as time goes by, there will be fewer military conflicts that the U.S. will be directly engaged in.” If that statement were true, it would be an argument against increasing Pentagon spending, not for cutting money for diplomacy.

Fortunately, Congress, which holds the purse strings, is pushing back. Prominent among the critics is the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who said he did not view the State Department cuts as appropriate because “many times diplomacy is a lot more effective — and certainly cheaper — than military engagement.” Last month, more than 100 retired generals and admirals, in a letter to congressional leaders, argued that the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development are “critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put” American troops in harm’s way.

The question is whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Tillerson, businessmen unfamiliar with the ethos of public service, will listen to more experienced voices.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 30 of the New York edition with the headline: Ignoring Diplomacy’s Promise. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT