FSO Tidbits: 8 former Secretaries of State Call for Increased Funding for Diplomacy

Here is a very interesting report by eight former Secretaries of State regarding America's pressing need to increase funding for diplomacy: especially for FSO recruitment and career development. There is a lot of good stuff about the importance of USAID in the grand scheme of things. This is the kind of stuff that make me very excited and proud about my impending opportunity to serve my country. I want to get started...like, yesterday.

National Security – Diplomacy, Development and Personnel

by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice

National Security is about more than bullets. “Smart Power,” “Soft Power,” and the “Three D’s” of development, diplomacy and defense are widely accepted as important and effective foreign policy principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to the federal budget, diplomacy, development and democratic governance too often get short shrift.

The American military fully understands the issue. Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen have called repeatedly for more robust civilian resources. New U.S. Army manuals for counter insurgency and stability operations recognize that civilians must take the lead on critical issues such as refugees, humanitarian assistance, and governance. “Where are State and AID” remains a frequent cry from officers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is that sufficient personnel to undertake these duties do not exist because the budget has not been there to recruit and train them.

A recent report of the American Academy of Diplomacy in cooperation with the Stimson Center titled the Foreign Affairs Budget of the Future has documented the problem and the need.

The report makes the point that sending diplomats abroad without language skills is like deploying soldiers without bullets. Yet nearly 30 percent of positions that require foreign language skills are filled by officers without them. Why? Because State lacks the personnel to send to language training at a time when nearly 20 percent of regular positions in Embassies and in the State Department are unfilled.

From Grenada to Haiti to Afghanistan and Iraq, we have faced situations that demand a rapid deployment of technical experts in a wide array of fields, from police training to municipal administration. Our inability to respond promptly has cost us severely.

Staff levels in the Agency for International Development (USAID) declined from 4,300 in 1975 to 2,200 in 2007 -- even as other budgets rose. An agency that once built roads now has only five engineers on full time staff. The 2,200 USAID career officers are fewer than were once in Vietnam alone. The problems of excessive reliance on contractors cannot be solved unless USAID has the staff to operate.

American efforts to communicate with the world are equally troubled. Staff and resources to manage print media, television, and public speaking have shrunk. As regional and cultural conflicts have grown into issues of worldwide concern, our exchange programs for students and scholars have declined along with the personnel to manage them. And we have not even begun to take advantage of the opportunity to touch people directly through the internet.

Our national security demands greater engagement on a number of relatively new and dangerous issues -- such as the problem of failing states, the spread of infectious diseases, terrorism, and climate change. At the same time, the challenges presented by managing bilateral relations and alliances in a globally interdependent world have become more complex.

Finally, USAID works to help developing countries achieve rapid, sustained and broad-based economic growth. Such efforts are critical to helping us weather the worldwide recession that grips us.

Providing the personnel and financial resources to manage our diplomacy and development policies is an urgent matter of national security. Fixing the problem will require sustained effort over several years.

The 2009 budget proposed by the Bush Administration began to address the problem with a request for over 1,300 new State and Development officer positions. It took the first, steps to build an active and reserve force of experts who could be called on in a crisis. President Obama supported this request when he was a member of the U.S. Senate. That Congress approved 60 percent of the request was an improvement over its refusal to appropriate any additional staff in the preceding two years. President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget, in support of which Secretary of State Clinton will soon testify, marks an even larger step toward fixing the problem.

Some will say that we cannot afford to support the increase, and we recognize the economic crisis facing our country. But the reality is that we cannot afford to fail at this challenge. The costs, which the American Academy of Diplomacy/Stimson Center estimates at $3.5 billion by the end of a multiyear ramp up, are less than half of one percent of what we spend on the Defense Budget portion of National Security (excluding costs to actually fight two wars). Avoiding one war or defusing one major crisis would save many times the increase. And providing resources for civilians to carry their share of the load will decrease the strains on our already badly over stretched military that has been asked repeatedly to divert personnel to deal with issues from nation building to agricultural development.

We, former Secretaries of State of different administrations and different political parties, and with differing views on many other issues, are nevertheless of one mind on this issue of critical importance to our country’s national security. We call on Congress act accordingly and fund this critical need.

(Published in ‘Politico,’ June 25, 2009)