Part One: U.S. strategy in the 21st century: leadership through hegemony
Chapter IV: Funding for U.S. International Policy
Criticism of Washington’s Financial Policy in the Sphere of International Affairs
Many American experts, particularly those involved in some way in the foreign policy process, criticized the Clinton administration and especially the Congress for insufficient financing of U.S. activity in the international arena. There are many papers on this topic,62 but let’s look at an article by Richard Gardner, former U.S. Ambassador to Spain and Italy, currently a Columbia University professor, in which he analyzes U.S. expenditures on international affairs in fiscal year 2001.63
It turns out that the State Department’s initial budget request for international affairs for 2001 (made during the tenure of Madeleine Albright) amounted to $25 billion. The Clinton administration cut it down to $22.8 billion (as quoted above), and the budget subcommittees in Congress trimmed it down further to $20 billion, according to Gardner. The professor notes with indignation that at the same time, the defense budget in 2001 grew by $4.5 billion to $310.8 billion. Even though protests from Clinton and Albright persuaded the Congress to increase the Function 150 budget eventually by $1 billion, it is still insufficient for achieving U.S. foreign policy goals.
Gardner is also unhappy about future prospects. Following the president’s proposal, Function 150 expenditures will grow to $24.5 billion by 2005, but taking inflation into account, this will actually mean a 20 percent decline against the 2000 level. Meanwhile, the military budget will grow to $331 billion by 2005, and the proportion of military expenditures to international policy expenditures will reach 16:1. Gardner reminds the reader that in the 1960s, Function 150 accounted for 4 percent of the Federal budget; in the 1970s, 2 percent; now its share has dropped to just over 1 percent.
The former diplomat believes this careless attitude toward international policy is due to failure to see these expenditures as part of the outlays on national security. In his opinion, it is precisely this budget item that actually encompasses a wide spectrum of national security issues tied to the country’s seven fundamental national interests.
Gardner goes on to show what kind of money is actually needed to realize these interests. For instance, the 2001 budget allots $6.8 billion to the Department of State, with $3.2 billion from this total earmarked for administrative activities. Because of the destruction of certain embassy buildings in Eastern Africa (those in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam), $1.1 billion is earmarked for rebuilding and modernization of security systems, though the actual need is $1.4 billion. Although the actual need is $330 million, only $17 million is set aside for the creation of a communications infrastructure. Not a penny was allotted to continuing training for the Senior Foreign Service personnel (700 people). Thus, the Department of State alone is underfunded to the tune of $500 million; this sum is needed to cover minimal needs.
The situation is similar regarding funding of international organizations. The budget includes $946 million for assessed contributions to international organizations, of which $300 million is for the UN itself, and $380 million more is for UN-affiliated agencies, such as the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans. Other bodies such as NATO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) account for the rest. (Note: Richard Holbrooke, the able American ambassador to the UN, found himself deep in difficult negotiations to reduce the assessed U.S. share of the regular UN budget and the budgets of major specialized UN agencies from 25 percent to 22 percent at a time when many conservative politicians and scholars [for example, those at the Heritage Foundation] simply suggested telling the UN to go to hell.)
Gardner calculates that the Department of State needs another $1 billion to function normally, i.e., the expenditure total for the item Commerce, Justice, State must be $7.8 billion.
All this concerns Gardner from the consequences of globalization perspective, which leads to further impoverishment of poor countries. According to his figures, half the world’s population lives on less than $2 per day; two billion people have no access to electricity; 1.5 billion people have no access to pure drinking water; more than a billion do not have access to education, health care, or modern birth control methods. His forecast is that at the current growth rate of 75 million people per year, the world’s population will reach nine billion people by 2050, with the majority living in the poorest countries. If the current trend continues, “We can expect more abject poverty, environmental damage, epidemics, political instability, drug trafficking, ethnic violence, religious fundamentalism, and terrorism.” All these problems are becoming items more important in the list of threats to national security than intergovernment conflicts. Gardner believes that at least $1.6 billion should be added to the foreign operations budget. The decision to spend only 1 percent of the budget on international affairs is not a “solution,” concludes the former American diplomat.
* * *
On many occasions, I have analyzed the budgets of the Russian Federation and other countries, but I have never seen such an attention to detail as found in U.S. budgets. I want to stress in particular the Americans’ respect for each cent spent on any state activity, whether inside the country or abroad. Finally, it appears that only Americans connect foreign policy goals and interests to expenditures needed for their implementation. I regard this as one of the most important advantages the USA enjoys over other countries of the world; it is the bedrock of its leadership.
As for Russia: Until Russians learn to count every penny, like “the bitch Marinka,” and learn to connect talk about being a great power to their country’s financial capacities, Russia will remain, in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s expression, a “client” of the U.S., begging the IMF on bended knee for yet another extension of credit.
62 See Morton H. Halperin, Lawrence J. Korb, and Richard M. Moose project directors, Financing America’s Leadership: Protecting American Interests and Promoting American Values. An Independent Task Force, The Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., cosponsored by The Brookings Institution (January 14, 1998); Internet.
63 Richard N. Gardner, “The One Percent Solution,” Foreign Affairs (July/August 2000); Internet.
The 21st Century: The World Without Russia
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)