Arms Control Now
As many policy experts know, the true dividing line between fact and fiction in international security is drawn in the budget.
You want to know the real policy priorities? Follow the money.
And that is exactly what policy experts are doing now in the United States, as the Trump administration unveils its FY2018 budget to Congress this month.
A few weeks ago, guidance documents hinted at cuts to international organizations that are the backbone of the international order that the U.S. has championed for seventy years. The U.S. budget, according to the Trump administration, should “reduce or end funding for international organizations whose missions do not substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests, are duplicative, or are not well-managed.”
This not-so-subtle threat to slash annual U.S. contributions to the United Nations and all other international regimes would be a very dangerous step backwards in global security and sustainability.
Most Americans would agree that promoting global health, regulating arms sales, banning nuclear weapons tests, safeguarding nuclear bomb-making materials, abolishing chemical weapons, and promoting surveillance of deadly diseases, among many other worthy goals, are all important efforts vital to national and global security, and therefore advance U.S. foreign policy interests. And yet the FY18 State Department budget documents show contributions to International Organizations dropping 44%, to Nonproliferation and Disarmament 83%, and to Anti-terrorism and Demining 33%.
