By John Erath with Sarah Kirchner-Barney
“We prefer a diplomatic solution.”
This is inevitably the first sentence uttered by a U.S. government spokesperson in response to any international crisis. And with good reason. What would be the alternative to a diplomatic solution? Another war with no end in sight? Obviously, resolving issues without resorting to violence would be the preferable policy. Yet, despite the acknowledgment of the importance of the diplomatic tool of statecraft, it receives relatively little attention in the federal budget process. As the FY 25 budget comes under discussion on Capitol Hill, it is time once again to look at the relative neglect of diplomacy.
In the 2024 budget, total defense spending should come to around $900 billion, or around 13% of government spending. By contrast, the total appropriated for the State Department ran to $83 billion, about 1.2% of the grand total. But the real story is worse. Of the State total, only around $10 billion is designated for “diplomatic programs.” The majority goes to fixed expenses and other costs, especially foreign assistance. Most of the modest increases in State budgets in recent years have been for Ukraine — a priority, but not one that enhances diplomatic capabilities.
This is not to say that defense is unimportant. Since the United States became a world power in the early 20th century, a near consensus that the country’s global interests require a strong military has persisted. Leaders of both parties have generally agreed that national security has been worth spending money on and overseen development of a military with unmatched capabilities — with an unmatched price tag. Although there have been numerous examples of waste, such as the recent revelation that the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile is disastrously over budget and behind schedule, the perception has been that the deterrence provided by a strong military, including nuclear forces, make the costs acceptable.
No such perception exists for diplomacy, even if it remains the favored recourse of national leaders. When a President faces a crisis and opens the metaphorical toolbox of statecraft, do they want to find only military means? Would anyone go to a dentist whose only tool was a drill? Certainly not the U.S. military, whose leaders have repeatedly called for greater funding for the State Department.
Instead, Congressional leaders are pressing in the opposite direction. The House Appropriations Committee’s proposal for next year’s Foreign Operations Bill includes an 11% cut in overall funding. It requires no advanced statistical analysis to see that defunding the State Department is against the country’s interest, especially during a time when international crises demand more, not less U.S. engagement. When U.S. delegations attend international conferences, the message is clear. The people in uniform (at least at senior levels) arrive on an official plane, with a full array of aides, subordinates and support staff. U.S. diplomats, except for the Secretary of State, typically travel commercial, with little or no staff. Foreign counterparts can reasonably believe that Americans prefer military means over diplomatic ones when dozens of people in uniform show up for a meeting, even when supposedly led by two or three civilians who attend.
Cuts to budgets for diplomacy come at a bad time, particularly for arms control. With the last major arms control agreement negotiated 13 years ago, the State Department’s best experts in the field are retiring or moving on. The two bureaus in the Department that deal with nuclear issues suffer from chronic understaffing and little bureaucratic influence in State’s regional bureau-dominated hierarchy. With scarce funds and a low priority assigned to non-proliferation and arms control, the situation seems likely to remain bleak.
It needn’t though. Congressional leaders should understand that adequate funding for diplomacy goes hand in hand with the concept of a strong national defense. Resolving international crises without requiring military force would allow the military to focus on the major challenges to national security. An agreement featuring verifiable limits on nuclear weapons, for example, could help avert an arms race and obviate any perceived pressure for increasing nuclear forces, while making the country safer, as potential adversaries would likewise not be building more nuclear weapons that could target America. Although such an agreement may seem unlikely, the benefits would be too great not to be ready to negotiate. Without adequate funding for diplomacy, it will not be possible to prefer a diplomatic solution, and we will be left with the alternatives.
