O’HANLON: ‘Hard power budget’ for State?

COMMENTARY:

It has become a truism in the Washington debate that the State Department and its main programs and activities are underfunded. Their combined $40 billion annual budget is of course dwarfed by the Pentagon’s spending of nearly $700 billion a year - but such an asymmetry between diplomacy and defense is probably inherent in their respective tasks and structures.

Still, when the defense secretary himself advocates increases in spending for diplomacy, development, and similar matters, there probably is something to the idea that we need to beef up the tools wielded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a forthcoming Brookings Institution study, I have attempted to critically review the literature on what might be termed the “hard power” instruments of the budget of the State Department and related activities. These include funding for nuclear disarmament abroad, for peacekeeping, for the State Department’s role in missions like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the nuts-and-bolts of diplomacy on matters such as war and peace, and for helping other countries including Pakistan better prepare their own armed forces for challenges of civil conflict and counterterrorism.

Such a review reveals many gaps in our attention. The Bush administration did a reasonably good job in some areas of the so-called “150” budget, beginning to strengthen the Foreign Service and some aspects of public broadcasting and peacekeeping training for African militaries. But the neglect had gone on for so long beforehand that much remains to be done.

Leaving aside issues such as development assistance and energy policy, which are beyond the purview of my study, I estimated that somewhat less than $7 billion a year in additional funding would go a long ways toward creating the diplomatic and developmental tool kit required by the times in which we live. This is real money, to be sure, but only 1 percent of the Pentagon budget and less than 1 percent the size of the fiscal rescue package.

The following general areas of hard power aspects of the “150” budget would benefit from the indicated increases in their annual budget. Of course, these numbers are debatable, and approximate, but they do reflect an effort to understand the basic requirements of the tasks they are addressing and as such should be a rough indication of what is needed.

c Expansion of peacekeeping training for foreign militaries: $400 million.

c Nonproliferation initiatives: $500 million.

c Expansion of diplomatic capabilities at State: $1 billion.

c Public diplomacy efforts including increased scholarships: $800 million

c Expansion of Agency for International Development (AID)/Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) capacity (in same or separate agency): $1 billion.

c Expansion of flexible Economic Support Fund (ESF): $200 million.

c Afghanistan security/economic aid expansion: $1.700 billion.

c Pakistan security/economic aid expansion: $750 million.

Story Continues →