Funding for the international affairs account of the United States budget—in addition to saving lives—is a critical investment toward advancing national security interests. Unfortunately, common misconceptions have reinforced a view that national security is provided solely through defense spending. This view sidelines critical international affairs programs, which puts U.S. interests at risk. Combating these misconceptions among policy makers offers a crucial opportunity.
The White House
Top Government Officials Connect State & USAID Funding to National Security
The United States Government funds the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through discretionary funding accounts. Discretionary accounts are allocated each year and offer Congress the opportunity to decide how much money will be spent on specific programs. As part of the process, each U.S. President submits a budget to Congress in advance of the upcoming fiscal year and top Government officials publicly defend the needs of their program.
On March 2, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on State Department funding saying:
It is no longer possible in the 21st century to say that you are walling off national security by going after non-defense discretionary spending. We are so much more integrated and interdependent, and it would force us to scale back dramatically on critical missions that are absolutely supported by Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus and others.
Although almost exclusively involved in defending his own budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made groundbreaking statements on the relationship between national security and non-defense spending. Almost a year after taking the secretary position during the Administration of President George W. Bush, a New York Times article detailed comments made by Gates:
One priority is money, Mr. Gates said. He called for “a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security—diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development.”
Critically—throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense—Gates has continued to call on Congress to fully fund the State Department and other civilian-led programs citing their importance for national security.
Secretaries Clinton and Gates appear on Meet the Press in April 2010 Photo Credit: William B. Plowman/Meet the Press/AP
One of the best examples of this coordinated effort to protect civilian funding in the interest of national security occurred almost a year ago when Secretaries Gates and Clinton appeared together on Meet the Press to oppose cuts to the State Department Budget.
USAID has been engaged in a similar fight. Most notably the current head of the agency, Rajiv Shah, defended funding as a national security issues in an interview conducted by Foreign Policy:
Shah pointed out that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and [International Security Assistance Force] Commander Gen. David Petraeus have all come out in strong support of increasing USAID’s capacity to do foreign aid.
“In the military they call us a high-value, low-density partner because we are of high value to the national security mission but there aren’t enough of us and we don’t have enough capability,” he said. “This is actually a much, much, much more efficient investment than sending in our troops, not even counting the tremendous risk to American lives when we have to do that.”
Shah’s comments underscore that spending on international affairs would actually need to be increased, not decreased in order for the United States to meet its national security objectives.
Members of Congress Jeopardize National Security through Budget Cuts
Despite repeated calls from top military officials that State Department and USAID programs be adequately funded in the interest of national security, Congress continues to put civilian-side funding on the chopping block. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed a funding bill, H.R.1, that cuts the international affairs budget by 21 percent over the President’s request. In fact when announcing proposed cuts in the bill that would fund the U.S. Government for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, the entire international affairs budget was put in the category of “non-security” spending. These cuts (100 million as promised by some members of Congress) were focused solely on “non-security” discretionary funding and did not touch the sections of the budget that constitute the vast majority of U.S. spending. The result was a disproportionate impact on the international affairs account that makes up approximately 1 percent of the entire budget.
Unfortunately, some leaders of the movement to drastically reduce foreign aid spending include many of the members of Congress that you would expect to support this critical funding. These members include Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger (R-TX), Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. Both of these Representatives have pledged to cut international affairs funding in 2011 and 2012.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations
Fortunately, many on the Senate side—including a leader on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Aid, Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—understand the importance of the international affairs budget. Speaking of the need to increase funding to support the work of State and USAID in conflict areas, Graham said, “The way I look at it is, it’s national security insurance that we’re buying.”
It will be left to members of the Senate to fight to restore critical funding for the remainder of 2011. Specific to our work on genocide prevention and response, this funding includes accounts related to life-saving humanitarian aid and genocide prevention. Investing resources to effectively prevent and respond to crises is cost-effective and a critical means of advancing our security interests abroad.
As violence increases in Darfur, the arms embargo – put in place by the UN Security Council five years ago to help reduce violence – is still a joke. 
