Restoring America's International Engagement

Prepared By:
The Coalition for American Leadership Abroad
Charles F. Dambach, Chairman
Bruce K. Byers, Former Acting President

Table of Contents

 Preface: Restoring America's International Engagement

“Don't think America can lead and influence events around the world if it doesn't pull its weight in the difficult work of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and participation in other international institutions. Leadership is not just about reacting to aggression once it occurs--it's about preventing it where we can, helping others in need and supporting those who share our values. This requires generosity of spirit and a willingness to take risks. I believe America has the character and courage for these requirements of leadership.” -- General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

The peace, prosperity and global leadership enjoyed by Americans today is our inheritance from the sacrifices and investments made by our parents and grandparents. The “Greatest Generation” didn’t just win a world war, they also won the post war world. They did it by investing in worldwide social, political and economic cooperation and progress. Even though America’s economy was still recovering from the Depression and World War II, they invested 3% of GDP--$3 out of every $100 they produced--in the Marshall Plan – foreign aid. The Marshall Plan and subsequent international development programs like the Alliance for Progress restored the world economy and political stability and may well have been the best investment any country ever made.

Steep Decline in International Commitments

In the aftermath of the Cold War, our generation has been on a very different and dangerous track. We grudgingly spare mere pocket change for our entire foreign affairs apparatus: about twenty-five cents out of every $100 of GDP. That quarter covers operating our embassies, supporting the United Nations, all foreign aid, exchange programs, peacekeeping and arms control efforts combined. Our commitment to humanitarian relief and development assistance in poor countries amounts to about a nickel. As a result, our capacity for diplomatic and moral leadership has been in steep decline. Our ability to leave our children a world of peace, cooperation and prosperity is at risk.

There are signs of positive change. President Bush and the 107th Congress have access to abundant resources to reverse this trend. Initial statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell, indicate that one of his top priorities will be to rebuild and strengthen the State Department, the Foreign Service, and America's entire foreign affairs apparatus. Greater bi-partisan cooperation between Congress and the White House could augur well for the development of a new foreign policy that would not only improve U.S. national security but also increase America's economic well-being in the global marketplace. Diplomacy and international engagement must remain the first means of protecting our national security.

[Page 2]

The choice is crucial. Other nations, including our adversaries, will continue to push their agendas on the world's stage. Increasingly, international trade and the power of information and communication technologies are driving and sustaining America’s growing prosperity. Other nations

and individuals can use these same forces against us; computer hackers and terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies and ships are sharp reminders of this.

Global Events Increasingly Affect Americans

Americans are increasingly affected by events around the world. Trafficking of people and narcotics, the threat of new biological and electronic viruses, further degradation of the global environment, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, rising costs and demands for energy, and financial crises on the other side of the world impact our own pocketbooks and our nation's security. To secure international peace and stability in this new world, our government must protect our global interests. U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy, firmly rooted in the principles of peace, cooperation, and economic progress, have served us well for many decades in this endeavor. They must continue to help us build a more democratic world and increase the acceptance of the rule of law and respect for human rights. American leadership has proven to be a beacon for oppressed peoples, and it must continue to shine.

Diplomacy is the First Line of Defense

America’s military capacity is, clearly, a vital part of U.S. foreign policy, and it must be sufficient to assure our protection and meet our global obligations. Diplomacy and military readiness compliment each other, and military spending must be accompanied by appropriate funding of diplomatic readiness. The best tools to achieve our foreign policy objectives and protect our national security are people working together to solve problems before they become violent crises requiring employment of U.S. military assets. If the tools of diplomacy are short-changed, the risk of having to put our armed forces in harm’s way increases. Preventive diplomacy can reduce the risk of body bags being returned to America.

Budget Cuts have Crippled U.S. Leadership Capacity

In spite of its extraordinary wealth, America’s ability to lead through diplomacy is at risk. For nearly 15 years we have allowed a perilous deficit to grow in our nation’s first line of defense: U.S. diplomacy. Funding for non-military foreign affairs has become critically low and riddled with massive budget cuts in the face of expanding demands and opportunities. Our diplomatic corps, exchange programs, arms control agents, and humanitarian, development and environmental assistance programs simply cannot meet their obligations.

The report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP, November 1999) concluded that, "The United States' overseas presence, which has provided the essential underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a state of crisis. Insecure and decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology, outmoded administrative and human resources practices, poor allocation of resources, and competition from the private sector for talented staff threaten to cripple our nation's overseas capability, with far reaching consequences for national security and prosperity."

The severe lack of budgetary resources has been a major cause of this decline. Added to this is a need for internal reform and change in the traditional management style and corporate culture at the State Department to improve its ability to meet today's challenges to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

[Page 3]

The OPAP recommendations and other searching analyses, including the 1999 studies by the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, appear to have been largely ignored within the federal bureaucracy.

A New Opportunity to Strengthen Diplomatic Readiness and U.S. Global Leadership

President Bush, Secretary of State Powell and the 107th Congress must work expeditiously and cooperatively to overcome fifteen years of decline in America’s diplomatic capacity. Policies must also be implemented that address and provide opportunities for counties, cities, and towns across our land to engage in the international arena. In the 21st century, U.S. communities will need to become ever more globally connected and internationally competitive to insure that American prosperity continues and that quality of life is improved for all Americans. Thus, as part of U.S. global leadership, President Bush and his Cabinet should support policy initiatives and programs that strengthen U.S. communities’ competitiveness and engagement in international affairs.

As a first step, the White House in cooperation with the State Department and other federal agencies, should convene the Second White House Summit on Citizen Diplomacy modeled after the very successful summit that was held by President Eisenhower in 1956. Such a summit would enable the federal government to better understand the growing importance of citizen diplomacy and international engagement at the community level. The summit could explore the growing opportunities for collaboration with local communities, their citizens and the non-profit sector, and could establish a strategic agenda for the next four years.

Fortunately, we now have a new opportunity to do these things. As the world’s remaining superpower, the United States can and must restore its capacity to meet its security and economic needs and exert positive influence on world events to promote universal humanitarian, social, economic, political and environmental values and prosperity worldwide. The question is: are we willing to invest enough of our resources to achieve our foreign policy objectives? COLEAD members believe the answer is yes.

Recommendations and Analysis

[Page 4]

Fifteen years of budget cuts and antiquated structures have sharply compromised America's capacity for global leadership. In the following paper COLEAD discusses the impact of the international affairs funding crisis and makes recommendations for action to reform and strengthen our nation's diplomacy apparatus.

The objectives of U.S. foreign policy should be clear to all concerned. We believe there are three fundamental and interdependent issues: 1. Protect America’s national security, 2. Advance our economic interests, 3. Promote our humanitarian and democratic values. The future of our nation depends directly upon our ability to conduct our international affairs effectively. Substantial budget increases and structural improvements are imperative.

For example, COLEAD believes that better cooperation and collaboration between our official diplomatic establishment and the many U.S. NGOs and citizens organizations engaged in international activities is vital. Cooperation between the Executive branch and Congress needs to be strengthened. COLEAD supports the appointment of a well recognized and experienced leader to head the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs and the establishment of a permanent State Department liaison office on Capitol Hill to improve communication and foster greater bipartisan support for U.S. foreign policy.

In this paper, COLEAD members have expressed their views and analyses of U.S. foreign policy, American international engagement and questions of increasing Federal funding of the foreign affairs agencies. The paper does not, except in passing, address specific policies with regard to humanitarian, refugee and other global issues. Rather, it focuses on the capacity of our government to meet its foreign policy objectives. Each section of the paper includes recommendations specific to the topic. They can be summarized as follows:

1. Over the next five years, increase funding for the State Department and Overseas Operations from the current 1% of the Federal budget to 2%.

2. Adopt and implement the 1999 Overseas Presence Advisory Panel's (OPAP) recommendations, including rebuilding U.S. overseas diplomatic infrastructure; increasing physical and informational security; and increasing and accelerating recruitment and promotion of Foreign Service officers to fill staffing gaps which continue to cripple U.S. diplomatic readiness.

3. Increase open communication between Congress and the Department of State; establish a permanent State Department liaison office on Capitol Hill, enabling it to be more responsive to congressional needs.

4. Increase policy and resource commitment to unconventional threats to U.S. security, including electronic terrorism; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; transmission of lethal contagions; threats to natural resources such as water and energy; and threats to the global environment, including emissions causing global warming.

5. Fund development assistance sufficiently to operate at the OECD percent of GDP median and to once again serve as an effective tool of U.S. foreign policy.

[Page 5]

6. Increase interaction between the Department of State and representatives of towns, counties and state governments in developing policies to increase business, educational, cultural and other opportunities for Americans and citizens of other countries.

7. Convene the Second White House Summit on Citizen Diplomacy modeled after the very successful summit that was held by President Eisenhower in 1956. Such a summit would enable the federal government to better understand the growing importance of citizen diplomacy and international engagement at the community level.

8. Reassert U.S. diplomatic leadership in international efforts to secure a sustainable global environment and protect Americans and citizens of other nations from the effects of environmental degradation.

9. Promote debt reduction, international health and education programs and business opportunities in the poorest nations.

10. Support fully the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other international organizations that provide vital services to people, countries and governments around the world.

Diplomacy in the 21st Century

By Marshall Adair, President, American Foreign Service Association, and Ken Nakamura, AFSA Legislative Affairs Specialist

[Page 6]

In the global era of the 21st Century, we no longer have the option of asking whether the United States will engage in world affairs. The question before us is – how? During the second half of the last century, the United States was the dominant power of the western world. American leadership improved lives in America and beyond as the U.S. promoted the expansion of freedom, security and prosperity.

The United States is challenged today to maintain and to improve its leadership in a new century. Important new trends are increasing the prominence of diplomacy in that leadership role. New changes in the international landscape are placing new demands on the exercise of that diplomacy.

New Trends

Americans are increasingly impacted by the international economy. International trade and investment account for one-third of our economy and have been major engines driving economic growth in recent years. The development of foreign economies provides new markets for American products, and the lack of development supports instability which can rapidly cross international boundaries. Building and enforcing new trading systems, helping American exporters and investors expand their horizons, and designing and administering effective assistance programs requires the development and dissemination of up-to-date information and analysis and active advocacy--the work of diplomacy.

Many of the problems facing us today--the spread of weapons of mass destruction, international crime, narcotics trafficking, international terrorism, world environmental degradation, diseases like AIDS and West Nile virus, human rights violations, and regional and ethnic conflicts--can no longer be solved unilaterally, even by a global power. Effective resolution of these problems will require communications with other peoples, working with international official and non-governmental organizations, and building coalitions of concerned governments--the work of diplomacy.

There are at least 8 million Americans living abroad, and they require the protection and support of our government overseas--the work of diplomacy.

Strategically and politically, the United States is engaged in a much more complex world in which effective policies depend upon a deep understanding of foreign cultures and reliable barometers of impending difficulties, be they political or economic. The United States needs more eyes and ears around the world--the work of diplomacy.

Changes in the International Landscape

There are more actors on the international stage. Business, non-governmental organizations, the media and individual people impact many aspects of policy

[Page 7]

formulation and implementation, and help to define the relationships between nations. Effective diplomacy must work with them or, where necessary, against those who threaten U.S. interests and American lives.

American embassies today serve as a base, not only for officials of foreign affairs agencies like the Department of State, but also for the operations of as many as 40 other U.S. departments and agencies from the Department of the Treasury to the Environmental Protection Agency. Effective diplomacy must include new strategies for management, policy coordination, and inter-agency communication.

New means of communications and travel have made it possible for world leaders to talk directly to each other in real time, and to see each other face-to-face more often. Effective diplomacy must support this high-level communication without being eclipsed by it.

Instantaneous broadcasting brings world events into the daily lives of the American people, and also brings more domestic interests to bear on many aspects of foreign policy. New means of communication also make it possible for governments to talk directly to the citizenry of other nations, and for peoples to interact directly through the phone, fax, and the internet. Effective diplomacy must incorporate the most up-to-date public affairs techniques and strategies available.

Trouble in Our Foreign Affairs Institutions

In the changing environment of the 21st Century, the need for diplomacy has not diminished. U.S. interests in foreign countries and in international forums need more than ever the agency, advocacy and stewardship of seasoned diplomatic personnel with global experience and strong cross-cultural skills.

However, as the demands for diplomacy increase, America’s diplomatic apparatus is in serious trouble. During the past three years, three separate respected studies by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Henry L. Stimson Center, and the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) each came to the same conclusion. That conclusion, as stated in the OPAP study was that, “The United States overseas presence ... is near a state of crisis.” The Stimson Center study stated further,

“...while the world has changed radically in the second half of the 20th century, the means and methods used by US diplomats to advocate our interests abroad are barely out of the quill-and-scroll stage.... Certainly business leaders are equipping themselves for the future; so are military leaders; but diplomats–our first line of defense–are handcuffed by outdated structures and outmoded tools.”

Demographic and social changes, long-term prosperity in the American economy, and a greater variety of careers in international affairs have presented new challenges to the foreign affairs agencies in recruiting and retaining the best people in the Foreign Service. Insufficient workforce planning within our foreign affairs agencies has resulted in sizeable staffing gaps, especially among mid-level officers. Fatigue and frustration have increased as more is asked of fewer people. Insufficient manpower inhibits professional education and training.

[Page 8]

Insufficient Funding

A central element in fixing the problems of our foreign affairs infrastructure lies in providing sufficient funding to meet the realistic needs of today’s world. Funding for international affairs makes up only one percent of the federal budget, and that is not enough.

In a period of history when the United States must be fully engaged internationally, we as a nation are not providing the necessary support to recruit, train, and ultimately retain skilled, effective diplomats. We are not providing sufficient resources to protect our overseas posts and fund America’s leadership role in the world. In the 1960s, the international affairs account made up about 4% of the federal budget. Into the start of the 1980s, the account was still around 2% or higher, and as late as 1992, international affairs made up about 1.5%. Increases in mandatory parts of the budget such as social security are partly responsible for these declining numbers. However, resources provided to the international affairs account have declined in real terms as well – some 41% since the mid-1980s alone.

There seems to have been no intention on the part of the former Administration or the 106th Congress to readjust funding beyond the 1% level in the years to come. In fact, the 2000 House budget resolution projected a continuing decrease in the International Affairs account while discretionary spending and funding for such areas as defense and transportation increased. The Clinton Administration’s projections increased only enough to allow for inflation over the next five years.

Ambassador Richard Gardner wrote in a recent Foreign Affairs Quarterly article,

“There is a fallacy that a successful US foreign policy can be carried out with barely one percent of the federal budget. Unless the next president moves urgently to end this charade, he will find himself in a financial straitjacket that frustrates his ability to promote American interests and values in an increasingly uncertain world.... More money is not a substitute for an effective foreign policy, but an effective foreign policy will simply be impossible without more money.... The one percent solution is no solution at all.”

Rebuilding Our Diplomatic Infrastructure

To rebuild our diplomatic infrastructure, there are elements that money can help fix, and there are elements that require new ways of thinking, new structures, and a planned drive for reforming the current system. Because funding levels have been reduced so severely, new money must be found and added to current levels. The one-percent framework was inadequate before and is even more so now. Four areas must be addressed: security, technology, working conditions, and the career service.

1. Security

In August 1998, two U.S. embassies in east Africa were blown up by terrorists. Over 220 people were killed, and more than 4,000 were injured. Twelve American diplomats and family members, and another 40 local embassy employees, were among those killed. Accountability Review Boards, chaired by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Crowe, found that there was a collective failure by several Administrations and Congresses over the past decade to invest adequate efforts and resources to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions around the world. They warned that the threat environment has dramatically changed with the emergence of sophisticated, global terrorist networks aimed at U.S. interests abroad.

[Page 9]

They determined that more than 80 % of all embassies do not meet security standards, and they made several recommendations. Among these was that major sustained funding ($1.4 billion per year for 10 years) was required to build safer embassies, install needed security equipment, and provide necessary training and security personnel to protect American facilities and people.

The Administration and Congress must work together to ensure this funding is made available and that the agencies responsible use it effectively to ensure that American embassies and consulates provide a secure working environment for all Americans stationed overseas.

Information security also needs attention, as evidenced by several potentially serious incidents at the Department of State in recent years. The State Department building itself requires a major structural overhaul to permit reasonable public access while providing reliable protection for classified material. Significant renovations are already underway but will take years.

2. Improvements in Information Technology and Communications

American diplomacy is operating with woefully inadequate information management and communication technology. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, in looking at communications and information management for the Department stated,

“America’s overseas presence absolutely requires up-to-date information and communications technology. Officials overseas must have easy access to all agencies sharing our overseas platform and the fastest possible access to all information that might help them do their job. They must also have the capacity to communicate quickly and precisely with a larger number of people and a broader range of constituencies than ever before. The current information technology infrastructure does not provide the means either to acquire information from a full range of sources or to disseminate it to a full range of audiences.”

Various panels looking at this problem believe the technology side of the problem could be resolved with a $400 million Working Capital Fund to finance the costs of acquiring outside consultants, equipment, and additional bandwidth, retraining information technology staff, hiring and retraining additional technicians, and modernizing the systems in the future as new technologies become available.

3. Upgrading Overseas Working and Living Conditions

The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel reported the physical state of many American embassies and the working conditions for overseas staff are shameful. It stated that “the panel saw numerous facilities that lacked adequate security and were poorly maintained, overcrowded, and inefficient. Approximately 25 % of all posts suffer from serious overcrowding.” As the report points out, there are many reasons for the often shameful conditions of many posts abroad, and “lack of funding obviously plays a role.” For Fiscal Year 2001, the Department of State urged that close to a billion dollars be requested for non-security related capital improvements. This was rejected in the preparation of the Clinton Administration’s budget request, and the 106th Congress, while increasing the Defense budget by more that $20 billion, did not provide any additional funds for capital improvements of diplomatic posts and missions abroad.

[Page 10]

4. Support of Our Foreign Service Personnel

Highly trained, talented and dedicated members of the Foreign Service are fundamental to an effective overseas presence. While they continue to uphold the high standards of the Foreign Service, each of the studies cited above found that improvements are needed to support the people we ask to serve overseas. Three elements need to be addressed: quantity, quality, and quality of life.

Quantity: The Foreign Service is basically a bottom entry, up-or-out system, similar to the military, where over a 20-30 year career, personnel are trained through hands-on experience as they move every two to three years from assignment to assignment and country to country. The system relies on a steady in-take of personnel to train, develop and fill positions as others at the other end of their careers leave the service. However, due to the funding reductions in the mid-1990s, the Department of State suspended the Foreign Service entry exam for three years. Even when it started hiring again, it kept the intake of junior officers low, and drastically reduced the promotion rates of those already in the Service. Today, the Department finds itself 200 mid-level officers short because the intake and promotions were not maintained over the years. Some have argued that the situation is far worse, with a 700 personnel shortfall when real shortages are counted against authorized positions. We cannot afford simply to stop hiring for several years, as was done in the early 1990s, just to save a few dollars if the resulting stress of covering persistent, widespread staffing shortages means dedicated personnel burn out and choose to leave government service.

Quality: The quality of the Foreign Service remains high, with thousands more applying for positions than the few hundred who are accepted each year. However, all three recent studies have pointed to the need for continued professional training opportunities, especially in the management area. Too many times, personnel are sent to new assignments without the needed professional training to make them fully effective from the beginning. Too often, training that would help the employee in professional growth for future assignments cannot be taken because a position would be left vacant somewhere if the person took a training assignment. Training and education need to be made an integral part of the personnel system, including being mandatory for promotion beyond certain levels. The Foreign Service also needs a built-in 10-15 % “staffing float” over existing active duty positions to allow for training.

Quality of Life: Both the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel and a separate “War for Talent” study by McKinsey reported that quality of life issues are essential for attracting and keeping highly qualified personnel in today’s competitive economy. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel’s recommendations include “providing a greater number and range of employment opportunities for spouses, reviewing and revising the limitations on spousal employment opportunities, taking a proactive family-sensitive stance in the management of assignments overseas, reducing the burdensome aspects of travel and relocation procedures, and developing a plan to address serious medical and educational concerns.” All of these are closely related the lack of proper funding for foreign affairs.

Conclusion: Money is not the only solution to all of these problems, and the Center for Strategic Studies, the Henry L. Stimson and the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel reports make that abundantly clear. Meeting the new challenges of the 21st Century requires major reforms in the foreign affairs agencies, the interrelationships among the many agencies now overseas, and in our institutional cultures. Some of the needed changes can be made whether there is increased funding or not. However, most require appropriate funding.

[Page 11]

The American Foreign Service Association has recently pointed out that in dollar terms what the State Department would get for increased funding would be an improved ability to prevent conflicts rather than fight them. A funding increase would better enable the Department of State to predict and avoid economic disruptions such as the Asian financial crisis of three years ago and perform more effective anti-narcotics work, more effective prevention of weapons proliferation, and more effective environmental protection and international disease control. Those returns would amply justify a relatively modest investment increase.

President Bush and the 107th Congress will need to work on a complete revamping of our national security system to address the changes in the international environment which have taken place since the end of the Cold War. Providing adequate funding for diplomacy and the civilian management of foreign affairs is a necessary first step toward giving us the ability to shape the world of the 21st century rather than simply react to it.

Building National Security

By Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Adviser on International Security Issues Union of Concerned Scientists

[Page 12]

Preventative Security

The Clinton Administration and Congress spent far too little for Preventive Security, the whole range of actions that can prevent threats to U.S. national security from actually materializing. This persistent shortfall in national security insurance increases the possibility that the United States will have to spend much more--both in lives of its military personnel and in money--as potential and preventable conflicts explode into real ones.

Preventive security includes preventive diplomacy, U.S. diplomatic intervention to bring about peaceful settlement of international and internal disputes before they erupt or flare up again into active conflict, like the active role of the U.S. through several administrations in moving toward solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Preventive security also includes the whole range of conflict prevention actions: early warning, mediation, negotiated constraints on activities of armed forces, preventive peacekeeping and post-conflict peacemaking to make sure that conflicts once resolved do not flare up again. It includes concluding and implementing verifiable arms control agreements covering the whole gamut from nuclear weapons to chemical and biological weapons, to landmines and small arms. It includes intensified international and domestic cooperation to protect against terrorist attack. It includes actions to promote the democratic processes that are critical in the peaceful settlement of disputes and also to promote instruction in conflict avoidance and peaceful resolution of disputes at every level of education.

The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world. For this reason, it is often a target of resentment. Also, particularly if the fighting lasts long enough, it is an unavoidable participant in some form in nearly every armed conflict. This means that, because of its size and capacity, the United States always gets involved, whether we like it or not. Consequently, failure to spend enough on preventive security measures brings far greater costs in coping with actual conflicts for the United States--and for U.S. taxpayers--than it does for any other country.

There is nothing inevitable about the current high level of small-scale conflict. It can be cut back. The international community already has the resources and the knowledge to decrease the frequency of armed conflict both between countries and inside national borders if these measures of preventive security are applied systematically. We must pay for this security insurance. If this is not done, we will pay much more later.

[Page 13]

What Should Be Done

1. End the No-Growth Policy on UN Budgets

Serious prevention costs money. The U.S. should end its no-growth position on budgets for the UN, which has actually meant an annual decrease in these budgets owing to the effects of inflation. A growth of 3% per year would be reasonable.

2. Strengthen and Improve U.S. Commitments to Peacekeeping

The U.S. should pay in full its dues to the UN, a backlog of $1.8 billion. Another billion dollar shortfall is now in the making for peacekeeping. Paying our dues and paying them on time will help to gain agreement of other UN member governments to lower the U.S. peacekeeping assessment to 25% and normal dues to 22%. But even then, with other governments paying 75% of the costs and supplying over 95% of the manpower, UN peacekeeping will continue to be a good deal for the United States and is real burden sharing with other countries.

The creation of a more effective consultative process between the Congress and the Administration could eliminate unnecessary U.S. arrears to the UN. One way of doing this would be to create a Joint Select Committee on International Organizations that would work to create a consensus between branches prior to the Executive making U.S. foreign policy commitments.

Other desirable actions in this field include:

Making good the current 100-man shortfall in the personnel of Department of Peacekeeping Operations at an estimated annual cost of $3,700,000;

Establishing two one-hundred-man command unit headquarters at the UN to prepare and run specific field peacekeeping operations to increase the speed and quality of actual deployments, at a cost of $7 million annually; and

Completing a study on establishing a small, experimental force of UN police of about 6,000 volunteer men and women. This force could be sent immediately for preventive deployment in trouble spots like East Timor and Kosovo, avoiding the need for larger and more costly deployments of peacekeepers drawn from the armed forces. One-time cost: $500,000.

Establishing a Conflict Prevention Center in the UN Secretariat. It would be staffed by a corps of fifty trained professional mediators to be sent in small teams to potential conflict areas to mediate among the parties and propose solutions to their quarrels. Estimated budget: $4 million annually.

The General Assembly should establish a Conflict Prevention Panel to work in close cooperation with the UN Security Council, dealing with problem areas that the Security Council is not working on. This committee should visit potential conflict areas, hold hearings on-site and in New York to warn the world community of possible conflict and to propose possible solutions. Estimated cost, mainly for travel: $3 million annually.

3. Arms Control

Nuclear Weapons: The ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is still a long way from being realized, but much more can be done to reduce the dangers of current arsenals and to tighten the non-proliferation regime. Most urgently, the United States should be prepared to fund more fully those programs that contribute to the destruction or dismantling of weapons of mass destruction.

[Page 14]

Funds should be provided for a further round of bilateral U.S.-Russian negotiated reductions and for expansion of negotiations to include the other nuclear weapon states--China, Britain and France--and then also the de facto nuclear weapon states--India, Pakistan and Israel. The objective should be to reduce the size of all nuclear arsenals--warheads and delivery systems --and to place them under verified limits. This would help to eliminate the considerable current dangers from large operationally deployed nuclear arsenals, including accidental launch, unauthorized launch, launch on erroneous warning, theft of nuclear materials and threats of use of nuclear weapons.

As regards proliferation dangers, the effectiveness of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria, whose safeguards program verifies that fissile material from civilian reactors is not being diverted for weapons purposes, is decreasing because the agency budget has been held to zero growth for many years. The U.S. should support a 10% increase in the agency’s verification budget, now about $80 million plus inflation, to be spread out over three years, and to be prepared to pay for its own 25% share of this increase.

It has been possible to limit North Korea’s production of plutonium usable for nuclear weapons through substitute fuel oil organized by the Korean Peninsula Development Organization (KEDO). This is a classic preventive security investment. But as oil costs continue to rise, the U.S. should restore $20 million discretionary authority deleted in the last budget round, for a budget of about $55 million.

U.S. contributions to the project to provide alternative employment to former Soviet weapon makers go through the Department of State’s International Science and Technology Center to reduce the possibility that these people will be hired by foreign governments that want to up their weapons expertise. Funding should be kept at a steady level of $45-50 million per year. Controlling the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capability of the former Soviet Union falls under the Defense and Energy Departments in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and in the Energy Department budget the Material Protection, Control and Accounting Programs. This vital insurance should be continued.

Further reduction of the 150 Account budget would reduce the contribution of the United States to effective monitoring by the international agency that verifies the international prohibition on production of chemical weapons and cooperation with anti-terrorism agencies of other governments to oppose international terrorism. Our contribution on chemical weapons should be funded at $13 million.

To facilitate cooperation with other governments in combating international terrorism, the State Department is asking for $30 million to fund a new international training facility which will sharply augment efficiency of U.S. training of foreign anti-terrorist personnel. We should support this classic instance of preventive security.

International Development

By Andrew Rice, International Development Conference and Terrence L. Bracy, Executive Director, Business Alliance for International Economic Development

[Page 15]

We Americans have vital interests in helping bring about rising standards of living and greater opportunity for the people who live in the developing countries of our world. By working with them to reduce poverty, we will reduce threats to our own security and well being.

People who live in poverty with little hope of improving their condition may seem far away and unthreatening to us, but in fact their condition poses dangers to us in many ways:

Tyrannical governments, ethnic violence, and random terrorism are all spawned when people live in poverty;

Countries where great poverty exists lack the resources to curb the spread of disease, to provide family planning services, or to preserve the environment;

Poverty leads people to seek better lives by emigrating to other countries or by growing crops that fuel the flow of illegal drugs.

In these and other ways poverty exacerbates problems which confront us in an increasingly globalized world. The consequences of poverty can lead to the overseas engagement by American troops in regional conflicts. It can further the flow of refugees with which we must cope. It can incubate diseases that can become global epidemics. It can increase global warming through the destruction of forests.

By contrast, when people are able to improve their quality of life, many of these global problems are eased. And American development assistance can be an important factor in bringing about improvement in living standards. Fifty years of experience provide strong evidence that development assistance, wisely focused and administered, has paid solid dividends in reducing the instabilities that poverty engenders.

Over these 50 years, U.S. foreign assistance has laid the cornerstones of democracy and progressive civil society. It has created vibrant trading markets; cut child mortality by providing basic health and nutritional care; improved reproductive health of women; helped educate many millions of children, particularly young girls; protected the environment; assisted refugees and internally displaced persons; and provided urgent disaster relief. The list of successfully combating poverty, disease and other challenges to life with dignity is long, but one message stands out—these programs work to improve the lives of millions.

To illustrate in greater depth the benefits that our engagement in international development has brought to the United States—and could bring even more if we enlarge our engagement—consider the following.

[Page 16]

Developing Human Capacity and Abilities

Education and training, which are essential for achieving many U.S. foreign policy objectives, is more important than ever in today's knowledge and information-intensive global economy. An educated populace is fundamental not only for economic prosperity; it also helps strengthen democracies, eliminate abusive child labor, control population growth and improve environmental protection. People with just a few years of education are more likely to understand health risks, including AIDS, take preventative measures and seek quality treatment. Educating girls, in particular, dramatically reduces family size and improves the health and educational success of future generations.

For more than four decades, the United States has been a leader in helping other nations build an educated and skilled workforce. Since the 1960s, global literacy rates have increased by nearly

50 %. Primary school enrollment has tripled over the last 25 years. Tens of thousands of developing country experts have received advanced training.

Despite this progress, nearly one billion people are illiterate. More than 113 million children around the globe are out of school and another 150 million children drop out before reaching the fourth grade, failing to gain basic literacy and numeracy skills. Less than 5 percent of the computers connected to the Internet are in the developing world. The U.S. invests approximately $150 million per year--less than two percent of U.S. bilateral non-military aid--in improving education in developing countries. Funding for training has fallen by one-half and the number of USAID staff in education and training has fallen by one-third since the mid-1990s.

Recent U.S. commitments call for significantly increased funding for education and training. In April 2000, the United States joined 145 countries in pledging that by 2015 every child will have the opportunity to go to primary school and adult literacy will increase by 50 %. The U.S. portion of the additional resources needed to reach universal primary education is estimated at $370 million per year--more than triple current spending for schooling for children--and further investments would be needed to reach the goal of helping more adults learn to read and write. In July 2000 G-8 leaders

called on countries and corporations to help reduce the digital divide between developed and developing nations.

U.S. assistance programs--starting with early childhood programs and continuing on throughout life including formal and informal education, skills training, adult literacy and information technology programs--help individuals, institutions, and nations develop the skills and knowledge needed to meet their own development challenges. They help nations take advantage of new information and communication technologies that can cut the time for processing relief supplies for disaster-stricken regions, give small businesses access to global markets, and provide immediate access to health care for remote locations. Reducing the education, knowledge and digital divide between the haves and the have-nots should be a priority for U.S. foreign policy.

Preserving the Environment

The United States has a vital interest in leading international efforts to secure a sustainable global environment and protect the United States and its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. Preserving a habitable planet is essential to maintaining prosperity. Pollution crosses borders and oceans, affecting the health and prosperity of Americans. Sound environmental management is essential to economic growth and political stability. Degradation of and competition

[Page 17]

for natural resources can lead to economic stress, instability and conflict, threatening security, economic, and other U.S. interests.

In recent years, however, the United States has been seen as fitful and erratic in its international environmental leadership. We excelled in negotiating the highly effective stratospheric ozone reduction and lead the world in environmental research. But we failed to join the rest of the international community in acting to combat the threat of climate change, in protecting biodiversity, and in implementing the global action agenda agreed to at the Rio Earth Summit.

We have cut excessively our contributions to international organizations and programs designed to promote international cooperation to protect the environment. We contributed the same amount--$10 million--to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in FY2000 as we did in FY1977. We have cut our promised contributions and are in arrears to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is the main international mechanism to help developing countries participate with us in critical global environmental work.

The United States must reassert its role as a world environmental leader. We must support the family of international environmental conventions and treaties that provide the legal basis and level playing field for world environmental protection. We should ratify the Kyoto Protocol on

climate change and the Biodiversity Convention to protect plant and animal species and work actively to further the Rio Earth Summit agenda.

We must work with other countries to conclude negotiations on toxic chemicals and forestry protection and improve the management and implementation of international ocean and fisheries agreements. We must work to integrate environmental considerations into development planning and trade policies, to strengthen bilateral environmental agreements with key countries, and increasingly involve the world scientific communities, private sector, and civil society in our international environmental programs.

As we enter not just a new century but a new period of globalization, protecting the Earth's life support system is essential, and the United States must place higher priority on and invest more resources in international environmental efforts. The absolute minimum investment should meet the Clinton Administration's modest request for environmental programs in the FY 2001 foreign affairs budget. But in the light of our own national interest and the world's needs, a doubling of our contribution to international environmental programs over the next five years would be a sound investment for the nation's future.

Building the Peace Corps

The entire world community has recognized and applauded the U.S. Peace Corps and the 160,000 volunteers who have served overseas. Because this program works on the personal and community level, it is particularly effective in developing human capacity and opportunities in developing countries. These volunteers return home to lives and careers of service that benefit American communities. Due to inadequate funding, however, the Peace Corps is able to recruit, train and support fewer than half the number of volunteers that served three decades ago. Each Administration, and each Congress since 1985 has endorsed expansion of the Peace Corps from its current level of 7,000 volunteers to 10,000. Yet, adequate funds for this expansion have never been appropriated. It is time to achieve the 10,000 volunteer goal.

[Page 18]

Responding to the Crises

Despite the undeniable economic and political progress that the developing world has made in the last few decades--thanks in no small measure to American leadership and foreign assistance--many places remain dangerous, unstable, and crisis-prone. Millions of Americans were moved by television images of poverty, brutality, and disease in places like Sierra Leone, Haiti, and Kosovo. Most understand that in addition to the humanitarian challenges posed by these areas of crisis the U.S. also has a strong security interest in addressing the underlying problems in these countries.

But we should not view U.S. involvement in and assistance for these countries merely as helping "to put out fires." Just as the Chinese ideograph for "crisis" is the same as that for "opportunity," U.S. attention to these areas of crisis also represents real opportunities for advancing U.S. interests.

In Africa, the list of conflicts and crises is long, and includes Sierra Leone, the Great Lakes region, Angola, and Ethiopia/Eritrea. In a broader sense, one might consider the entire continent in crisis or at risk because of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Although some public officials have suggested that these crises are peripheral to U.S. interests, this view fails to take into account 1) that the U.S. imports as much oil from Africa as from the Persian Gulf, 2) that rapidly-growing African economies represent a major new market for U.S. trade; and 3) that, as demonstrated by the National Summit on Africa process, there is a large and growing constituency of Americans concerned about Africa, including African-Americans, African immigrants, businesspersons, members of faith-based communities, and the 50,000 former Peace Corps volunteers who have served on the continent.

Mozambique and Nigeria, two former crisis countries now among the continent's recent success stories, demonstrate that U.S. engagement can make a significant difference. In the space of just ten years, and with substantial diplomatic and development assistance from the U.S., Mozambique has peacefully resolved one of the continent's longest-running and most brutal conflicts, established a fledgling multi-party democracy, and begun to attract major foreign investment. The U.S. played a smaller role in Nigeria's transition, brought about in large measure by the demise of the former military leader. However, the impact in Africa of Nigeria's turn-around, which has been strongly supported with U.S. programs aimed at building democracy and strengthening civil society, has been profound.

There is perhaps no better example of the opportunity to be found in potential crisis situations than the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In the space of less than ten years, the former Soviet sphere of influence, stretching from Central Europe to the Pacific, has been transformed. No longer the most serious strategic and military threat to the U.S., it is now a group of independent, mostly democratic states, some of which are now our military allies, and all but a few of which are working cooperatively with us and our allies. To be sure, this transformation did not occur without conflict and deprivation, some of which continues in places like Yugoslavia and the Caucasus. However, proactive U.S. diplomatic engagement and targeted assistance helped to defuse--literally--the core nuclear threat to the U.S., to smooth the (still uneven) path from socialism to open economies, and to strengthen the civil society that is the basis for the newly-formed democracies in the region. Simply put our investment in aid and diplomacy in Eastern Europe and the NIS helped to advance paramount U.S. security interests at a small fraction of the cost of our defense budget. This achievement remains fragile, though, and will require continued attention and resources to maintain.

[Page 19]

Asia and Latin America provide two of the most vivid examples of the direct impact on the U.S. of crises in the developing world. The effects of the 1998 financial crash in Thailand, Indonesia and other East Asian countries were felt deep in the heart of America as farmers and other exporters saw their foreign markets shrivel, and tens of millions of Americans saw their holdings in the stock market dwindle. The financial crisis in Mexico in the early Nineties had a similar impact. In both cases, U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance, the latter through agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, helped to stabilize the situation and avert more serious political crises.

Strengthening the American Economy

A decade of sharp reductions in U.S. foreign assistance has seriously limited the competitive position of American business in many emerging markets. The 15 members of the European Union spent a staggering $27.4 billion for official development assistance in 1998 compared to our $8.8 billion, even though the economy of the EU is only 5% larger than ours. Yet we derive very real benefits from our foreign assistance programs, benefits we risk losing if we do not engage the world around us more actively.

Few Americans realize that fully 80 % of the foreign assistance budget is spent at home on American goods and services--more than $6 billion in 1998. The livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans--farmers, truckers, assembly line workers, software developers--depend on U.S. foreign assistance. More importantly, millions of other Americans benefit indirectly from foreign assistance programs.

Most of the foreign assistance we provide to developing countries today goes toward making them good customers tomorrow. By focusing on several elements of reform in developing and transition economies, ranging from reorienting overall economic policy in the Czech Republic to building small businesses in Niger, U.S. economic assistance lays the groundwork for America's private sector.

The work done by foreign assistance programs to promote democracies--which happen to make great trading partners--and to tackle environmental problems, disease and overpopulation at their source also benefit the United States in tangible economic ways, creating jobs and reducing the amount we must spend on global problems here at home.

Today, exports account for 10 % of the entire U.S. economy--double the level of only a decade ago--and are the fastest growing part of the economy. Export-driven job growth is a result largely of our trade with developing countries, not with our traditional European, North American and Japanese partners. Our foreign assistance expenditures in the 1960s and early 1970s, particularly in East Asia and Latin America, are tightly linked to a massive increase in exports and investment in the developing world in the 1980s and 1990s.

America’s paradigm for a healthy, democratic society where business acumen and innovation are provided a fertile environment in which to flourish is a model that, if expanded globally, could have resounding effects on economies and societies around the world. U.S. foreign assistance can and should play an important role in exporting this model and can, in the process, support the interests of key elements of the U.S. private sector.

[Page 20]

Restoring U.S. Leadership in International Development

These illustrative examples of the importance of American engagement in international development could be multiplied many times. Sadly, however, the U.S. has been withdrawing from the leadership role which it long played in this field. We stand last among developed countries in the amount of development aid we give as a proportion of Gross National Product (GNP). Among multilateral organizations, where the United States once held the top position in the three most important—the World Bank, the UN Development Program (UNDP), and the OECD Development Assistance Committee—today an American heads only the World Bank.

Yet public opinion polls show consistently that Americans by a substantial majority, motivated by our humanitarian values but also by a sense of America’s own best interests, stand in favor of a solid U.S. commitment to deal with poverty and the global problems that it engenders. This public endorsement is perfectly in tune with the goals that the international community has set for itself. The United States joined all the other nations of the world at the UN Millennium General Assembly in September 2000 in setting a target by 2015 of reducing by one-half the number of people living on incomes of less than a dollar a day. A goal was set by the same date of providing primary schooling for all children everywhere and ensuring equal access to girls and boys. And similar targets were established in the fields of health, housing and hunger.

The record is clear, the dangers are real, and the benefits are great. Buoyed by public support, President Bush and Congress should once again raise the United States to the top world leader in international development.

The Role of Public Diplomacy in U.S. Foreign Affairs

By Julie Taiber, Assistant Director and Senior Policy Specialist, Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, Jelita McLeod, Fulbright Association, Jill Griffith, National Association of Foreign Student Advisors, and Sherry Mueller, Executive Director, National Council for International Visitors

[Page 21]

The State Department’s public diplomacy programs encompass a broad range of cost-effective activities that build long-term relationships, international advocacy for U.S. foreign policy goals and better understanding of American values and institutions. Public diplomacy programs bring together American and foreign organizations and groups with State Department officers in Washington and around the world. Because of the critical importance of public diplomacy in the emerging foreign affairs environment, funding of its long-standing and newer programs needs to be increased in the FY-2002 budget and beyond.

Both long-term and short-term programs are needed to create a positive climate for American ideals and to react effectively to crises. Public diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. Public diplomacy, comprised of international exchange and international information programs, differs from traditional diplomacy in that public diplomacy deals not only with government-to-government diplomacy but also primarily with non-governmental organizations and individuals.

World-renowned educational and cultural exchange programs, such as the Fulbright and International Visitors programs, engage thousands of Americans in communities across the nation in the conduct of our international affairs. International education is our fifth largest earner of foreign exchange in the service sector, and the Commerce Department estimates that foreign students spend nearly $13 billion dollars a year in the United States generating well over 100,000 jobs. As other nations increase funding and support for international education and exchange programs, the U.S. should renew its commitment to international education and exchange.

Public diplomacy also includes international information programs designed to influence foreign public opinion to support American policy positions. During the early 1990s the former U.S. Information Agency, consolidated into the Department of State in October 1999, acquired and instituted state-of-the-art information management resources. These have enabled cultural exchange and information program officers in Washington to work expeditiously and directly with public diplomacy officers at U.S. embassies overseas. There is, however, need to improve information systems to become more effective in today's global communications environment. This requires investments in both state-of-the-art technology and in training.

International Exchange Programs

The U.S. provides an extraordinary menu of exchange opportunities for people around the world. State Department-supported programs provide opportunities for scholars and students in cutting edge

[Page 22]

technology, higher education, research, business administration and many other fields. These programs encompass activities ranging from genetic research to high school exchange programs, from information technology training to graduate school research, from undergraduate university studies to summer camp counselors and au pair opportunities. Exchanges function as a multiplier for professional and personal experiences and promote our national interests. No other country in the world is as rich as we are in international exchange opportunities.

COLEAD recommends doubling resources over the next five years, beginning with $270 million for FY-2002, to fund the following exchange programs:

J. William Fulbright Scholarships

For more than half a century Fulbright exchanges between U.S. students, teachers and scholars and their counterparts in over 140 other countries have resulted in significant benefits to U.S. communities. Fulbright exchanges develop critical foreign language, cross-cultural and area studies skills needed for U.S. citizens to meet the challenges of a new century. Exchange programs provide extraordinary opportunities for sharing knowledge and democratic values. By strengthening individual and institutional relationships across borders, the Fulbright Program promotes a more stable and peaceful world. U.S. government funding helps to leverage cost-sharing from foreign governments and from private sources in many countries where the work of the Fulbright program is carried on by strong Fulbright alumni organizations and bi-national commissions.

To secure the foundation of Fulbright exchanges worldwide, restoration of adequate U.S. funding is essential. Since 1995, federal funding for Fulbright has been cut from $125 million to $103 million. These cuts diminish the capacity to identify and develop U.S. leaders with vital international perspectives and foreign leaders with informed perceptions of the U.S. The Fulbright Program's international recognition is a national asset that furthers long-term U.S. interests in an increasingly complex world. COLEAD believes that it must be funded accordingly.

The State Department International Visitor Program

The long-standing and very successful International Visitor Program, described by U.S. Ambassadors in a recent survey as "one of the most effective foreign policy tools of American diplomacy," has welcomed foreign leaders, policy makers and influential opinion makers on professional visits to the U.S. for almost 60 years. International visitor councils throughout the United States, working with program agencies, have served as the State Department’s private sector partners in implementing the International Visitor Program since its inception. Each year more than 80,000 American volunteers are involved in National Council for International Visitors member activities. These individuals practice "citizen diplomacy" by arranging professional and cultural programs for their visitors, serving as professional resources, opening their homes for dinners and home-stays, and serving on boards of directors. Through the relationships they develop with International Visitors, they strengthen their communities' international ties, establish foreign trade contacts, and develop their citizens' knowledge of the world and ability to communicate across cultures.

Citizen Exchanges

Citizen exchange programs, such as Sister Cities, Partners of the Americas, American Council of Young Political Leaders, and others, help create new trading partners, build understanding

[Page 23]

and cooperation between Americans and future foreign leaders and advance democracy and economic growth. They create opportunities for Americans to learn, prosper, and work with others to solve shared problems and make the future more secure. The programs are designed to give Americans an international and cross-cultural perspective and increased understanding of foreign needs and priorities. This partnership benefits thousands of Americans and foreign visitors taking part in exchanges at the grassroots level, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Overseas Educational Advising

An issue of fundamental importance to our nation's interests is ensuring the continued flow of foreign students to the United States. Foreign students bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S. economy every year. One of the best tools the United States has to maintain America’s leading role in international education is overseas educational advising. Foreign students who choose to study in the United States take American values and perspectives home with them, promote democratic institutions and market-based economies, make major purchasing decisions involving American products, and create partnerships with American enterprises and academic institutions. Many become leaders in their societies. These foreign students have a profound, positive impact on our own security and prosperity. To ensure that the U.S. maintains its leadership, the State Department should increase funding for overseas educational advising to develop and implement a coordinated international student marketing and recruitment strategy and improve technology at overseas advising centers. Better equipped advising centers will help ensure that the United States continues to be the destination of choice for foreign students who seek higher education outside their countries.

Edmund Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program

In the FY2001 budget, the Clinton Administration proposed to eliminate the Edmund Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program. This successful program brings students from the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union and from the Baltic states to the United States for graduate study in fields that are critical to economic reform and political development. U.S. host institutions form a critical public-private partnership in support of the Muskie program by providing significant cost reductions, including tuition and fee reductions or waivers, and by participating in recruitment, screening and interviewing of candidates on a volunteer basis. Their activities save the government a substantial portion of the real cost of recruiting and educating these graduate students. Adequately funding this account will contribute to needed development and reform in the newly emerging nations of the former Soviet Union and its satellites.

Privately Funded Exchanges

Many exchange programs are federally funded, but many more are privately funded. For privately funded exchanges, the United States government has a critical regulatory role to play. To maximize international understanding and cooperation stemming from youth exchange, professional training programs, au pair, summer-work travel, camp counselor, and other Federally-regulated but privately funded exchanges, the regulations governing exchange programs must be infused with clarity, consistency, and flexibility. The relationship between the Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the NGO community can be strengthened. There must be a commitment to facilitation, transparency, and broad oversight rather than micro-management. The development of a regular on-going sustainable mode of communication for positive, creative problem solving should be considered. The U.S. government must be seen as a defender of the value and

[Page 24]

overall positive impact that the exchange programs have on our international relations rather than as a bureaucracy that begrudgingly administers something "problematic and difficult" as many people have perceived to be the case all too often in the past.

International Information Programs

Foreign attitudes and perceptions have always played a significant role in foreign policy considerations. Today, with internet communications making the spread of information and dis-information instantaneous, the U.S. government’s ability to explain its policies and actions to foreign publics and opinion molders is crucial. The State Department’s international information programs play an increasing role in determining the success of America's political and economic actions on the world stage. In today's new global environment our government’s ability to influence the growth of democratic, market-oriented institutions, makes understanding, informing and influencing foreign publics a key element in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals.

In this context it becomes obvious that without adequate funding to pursue U.S. exchange and information programs abroad, the U.S. will not be able to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics and to secure their support for U.S. policies. Additionally, in today’s global information environment formal and public diplomacy have had to become mutually supportive and more holistic in their analyses of international events and their use of reduced resources to reach out to foreign audiences. The internet, international media and the global economy have made more traditional communication between governments almost anachronistic. While foreign publics and their attitudes are far more important to U.S. interests than ever, our government’s ability to influence public attitudes in other countries has been weakened. COLEAD believes that the State Department must have the resources to enable it to communicate as effectively with foreign citizens as with foreign governments.

The State Department’s Office of International Information Programs carries the primary responsibility for effective U.S. information programs and activities in foreign countries. Among its long-standing and effective tools is The Washington File, a daily compendium of official statements and documents whose predecessor The Wireless File was first established in the Roosevelt . The Washington File is sent electronically to U.S. embassies, posted on official State Department web sites, and disseminated to overseas target audiences and individuals. The State Department’s professional speaker programs enable informed American experts to interact with foreign audiences in crucial areas of international relations. Additionally, the State Department uses satellite teleconferencing services, U.S.-based foreign press centers in Washington and New York and a variety of publications and electronic media to reach out to foreign audiences. Around the world, U.S. embassy information resource centers provide on-line access to foreign government officials, academics and opinion makers and respond to their requests for official U.S. policy statements and other informational needs. The Broadcasting Board of Governors’ international radio (Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia) and television programs help explain U.S. government policies and actions and American values to foreign audiences in many languages.

COLEAD recommends that increased funding be committed to sustain and expand these long-standing and very effective State Department and BBG public diplomacy programs.

International Organizations and Global Governance

Strengthening the United Nations System for the 21st Century, By Steve A. Dimoff, United Nations Association

United States support for international organizations and U.S. involvement in the United Nations system and peacekeeping operations are indispensable and cost-effective ways of promoting America’s values and purposes abroad. President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, and the new Congress need to move ahead on several initiatives: 1) begin to implement a plan to enable the United States to make its assessed contributions early in the calendar year in which they are due; 2) reverse America’s insistence on a policy of zero nominal growth in the budgets of international organizations; 3) create a small contingency fund for unanticipated UN peacekeeping operations; 4) increase voluntary contributions to international organizations such as UNICEF and UNDP; 5) rejoin UNESCO; and 6) resolve the issue of outstanding arrears to international organizations.

United States participation in international organizations and peacekeeping is an indispensable and cost-effective way of promoting America's values and purposes abroad. Through our membership in the United Nations, its specialized agencies and voluntary programs, the United States works with other countries to manage relationships and address problems that no one country can handle on its own. Whether working to stem the spread of disease, prevent environmental degradation, fight drug trafficking, promote human rights, control nuclear proliferation, or confront threats to peace, Americans have a compelling interest in leading the effort to build effective international organizations. The benefits are obvious: by promoting collaboration and consensus-building in tackling complex challenges that face us all, multilateral cooperation encourages burden sharing and accountability in support of achieving agreed-upon goals.

While the challenges faced by international organizations over the past decade have grown in areas such as managing intra-state conflict, caring for a growing tide of refugees, and building a foundation for sustainable development in post-conflict societies, the overall resources allocated to these organizations have not kept pace with the demand. In the case of the United Nations system, for example, the United States has insisted on a policy of zero nominal growth for more than six years. The result has been a growing inability on the part of the United Nations and its agencies to respond effectively to new contingencies. And increasingly, member states respond to the UN system's urgent pleas for emergency funding by reducing their contributions to the organizations' programs that address the underlying causes of poverty and instability.

At the same time, the United States has worked with other countries to implement reforms in international organizations with the goal of increasing their effectiveness. In the United Nations, for example, an American-style independent office of inspector general has been in place for more than five years, and it has been instrumental in identifying ways to maximize the impact of the UN's limited resources. On a larger scale, UN system budgets have been developed by consensus for more than a decade. Finally, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has implemented important reforms in the internal governance of the world organization, creating a cabinet-style form of decision making that promotes cooperation and coordination among executive heads of once disparate UN programs.

International organizations have also made significant adjustments to their mandates in order to become more effective and to meet new challenges. The United Nations Development Program

[Page 26]

(UNDP), for example, promotes human development and poverty reduction, but its programs are increasingly focused on developing good governance practices within countries that will enhance overall development efforts. Within the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a new Director-General has embarked on a major reform program that stresses helping developing countries build their own educational systems. At the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), a five-year Process Re-engineering Program will develop new approaches to formulating the organization's projects in developing countries by taking advantage of the use of information technology.

Given this record of reform along with the challenges facing international organizations, how can the United States exercise leadership to help the organizations fulfill their potential?

The response necessarily has financial implications because the United States is the single largest contributor to most of the organizations. Total U.S. contributions to international organizations, however, make up only one-tenth of one percent of the federal budget. First, and foremost, the United States must make a commitment to paying its assessed contributions in full and on time. The current U.S. practice of paying its annual dues to international organizations as much as ten months late has threatened the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's chief agency responsible for controlling the proliferation of weapons, to continue operations. In recent years, the United Nations has regularly borrowed from its peacekeeping accounts in order to finance regular budget operations due to late payment by member states. The result is that troop-contributing countries to peacekeeping operations have foregone reimbursement for lengthy periods of time.

President Bush’s new Administration should begin immediately to implement a phased-in plan that will enable the United States to make its assessed contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations early in the year in which they are due. Until 1980, the United States routinely paid its UN obligations on time. To obtain a one-time bookkeeping savings in 1981, however, the United States shifted its dues payments until late in the year--and it sometimes pays as much as fifteen months later if required certifications cause further delay. A phased-in approach means that Congress and the President must agree on a time frame for implementation of the change and approve a series of advance appropriations in order to reach it. Phasing in the plan over two years would require an additional appropriation of about $350 million per year; over four years the cost would add an additional $175 million per year to the Contributions to International Organizations account in the State Department budget. It is important to point out that this proposal does not result in a spending increase since the goal is to put payment of U.S.-UN system contributions back on a normal track.

Second, whether or not the United States ultimately obtains a reduction in its assessments for international organizations, the President and Congress should reevaluate the current U.S. policy of zero nominal growth in international organizations' budgets. The fact is that after six years of this policy there are no more efficiencies to be gained; further cutbacks will only come at the expense of the institutions' infrastructure. For example, the United Nations has implemented a plan to cut administrative expenses by one-third, and it has taken steps to implement more cost-effective ways of providing administrative and other services. At the same time, over one thousand UN staff positions have been eliminated; the 2000-01 UN budget provides for 8,800 positions compared with just over 10,000 positions in the 1996-97 budget.

[Page 27]

In the face of increasing transnational challenges faced by all governments, including our own, it is unrealistic to expect that the costs of dealing with such problems will not increase over time. The Europeans--who pay more of the UN budget than the U.S. does--now support an end to the zero-growth straitjacket and see Washington's preoccupation with it as driven more by ideological vindictiveness than administrative logic. Ultimately, the United States must join with other countries to consider how to modify the spending cap in international organizations in light of international needs.

Third, in the area of U.S. assessments for UN peacekeeping, it is a fact that the requirements will vary from year-to-year depending on international circumstances and the Security Council's decisions on how to deal with them. It would seem to be reasonable to provide an with at least a $150 million contingency fund for the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities account, which can be subject to the normal congressional procedures for reprogramming such funds. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with the United States has the right to veto unilaterally the creation of or change in mandate of any peacekeeping operation. Because of this the United States has a special responsibility to meet its obligations on a timely basis once a peacekeeping operation has been approved by the Council. While Congress will continue to play an important role in the internal U.S. Government decision-making process on UN peacekeeping operations, the international community ought to be secure in the knowledge that the United States will not "second-guess" its support for a Council resolution by refusing to pay its share once a decision to proceed has been made.

Fourth, in the area of voluntary contributions to international organizations, the United States should strive to increase its contributions which, in some cases, have fallen dramatically in recent years. U.S. support for the UN's voluntary programs, such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), UNDP, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and others, complements important U.S. bilateral development assistance goals and reinforces the overall impact of these programs. At the same time, UN voluntary programs leverage bilateral U.S. efforts in areas where the United States has set its highest priorities, i.e. child and maternal care, HIV/AIDS prevention and control, nonproliferation and disarmament, and refugee and migration assistance, among others. For many years, the United States was the leading contributor to many UN voluntary programs, but this is no longer the case. For example, U.S. voluntary contributions to UNDP have fallen from a high level of $161 million in 1986 to just over $100 million annually during most of the 1990s. In FY2000, the U.S. contribution to UNDP totals $80 million. Given the need to assure the long-term viability of UN voluntary programs, the United States should commit itself to contributing to each organization at the level for which it is assessed a share of the UN regular budget and the budgets of the specialized agencies, i.e. 25 %. The budgetary impact of such a commitment would not be significant--no more than an additional $150 million per year in voluntary contributions.

Fifth, the United States should make good on its long-stated intention to consider rejoining the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from which it withdrew in 1984. The Clinton Administration has acknowledged UNESCO's efforts to reform and to meet America's requirements for rejoining the organization. That time has come. Under the leadership of a new Director-General, UNESCO has cut staff, increased auditing and oversight of programs, and implemented a plan to consolidate and strengthen its field offices. By rejoining the organization and assuming annual dues of about $65 million annually, the United States will be able to engage in a process of renewal in the agency's mandate and its programs--all of which have value to America's scientific and educational communities.

[Page 28]

Finally, the United States should take immediate action to resolve the issue of outstanding arrearages to international organizations. Current U.S. Government policy disregards the UN's

calculation of U.S. arrears, for example. The amount in dispute--i.e., assessments for which Congress has chosen to refuse payment--reaches as high as $500 million. On the disputed amounts, the U.S. should resolve the issue through negotiation with the other member states or submit the 'dispute' to third party adjudication. As for U.S. arrears to the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United States should pay the $66 million that it owes for the two years that it was a member of the organization prior to its withdrawal in December 1996. Final disposition of the arrears issue will make it possible for the United States to open a new chapter in its relationship with the United Nations, and this effort should be undertaken in the context of resolving all arrears owed by all member states. If international organizations are to enjoy a secure future in which to carry out their mandates, then financial solvency and predictability are a necessary foundation for their operations.

COLEAD recommends that the United States government meet its obligations to support international organizations and increase funding for peacekeeping, non-proliferation activities and other UN-sponsored international initiatives to increase political and economic stability, regional stability and human rights.