Editor’s note: This commentary is written by Henry M. Colyer, an intern for the nonprofit The Borgen Project.
[D]id you know the U.S. allocates less than 1 percent of the federal budget to programs that assist the world’s poor? On average, Americans believe that 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid and think that it should in fact be slashed to 10 percent. The irony is that 61 percent of Americans, including myself, are in favor of reducing world hunger as a priority of U.S. foreign policy while 78 percent support helping poor countries develop their economies as a way to fight terrorism. These numbers show a stark comparison between perception and reality on a global issue that cannot afford to be misperceived.
Many military officials have stressed the need to allocate more money towards our State Department which would utilize those funds to create growth in impoverished regions. This concern was brought to Congress in March 2010 when approximately 50 retired three- and four-star generals appealed to Congress to increase funding for the international affairs budget. This budget incorporates two of the three D’s that make up our foreign policy as was established by the Pentagon: Diplomacy and Development, the third being Defense. Our elected officials have stressed the need to increase and improve our armed forces in order to be able to outmatch any threat to our national security and interests. I would agree that this is a necessary judgment, however we have been seeing a growing gap which has left two of our three D’s to lag dramatically with $663 billion spent on defense while development and diplomacy receive only $30 billion.
The administration’s proposed cuts to the international affairs budget would restrict and may even cause an unraveling of the above achievements as well as others. This would dramatically restrict our ability to have an influence and an impact on countries that are dependent on aid. The policies of our great nation are a reflection of the concerns of the citizens. However, I feel that policies regarding our foreign policy reflect the ongoing misperception that we allocate more than is necessary to developing countries. The end game of our foreign relations to achieve global prosperity and stability is and should remain a bipartisan effort. The United States holds the capacity and the capability to achieve that end and should be directed accordingly.
The Pentagon established a 3 D’s platform for U.S. foreign policy because they complement one another; they work in unison to implement a functioning world order, and can only do so if we continue to work towards finding the correct balance of diplomacy, development and defense. These budget cuts would only pull us further from that objective as a world leader. Misperceptions always lead to the miscalculation of an action, and that is the exact situation we are looking at with these budget cuts. By supporting the international affairs budget, we would be solidifying our commitment as a world leader to achieving global stability and development.
