THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2024 21 looks like, and proposes five steps needed now to make it fit for purpose in the coming decade. The Three Ds’ Division of Labor The three Ds are interdependent and work together throughout the world, but they each have particular areas of responsibility, and depending on the foreign policy situation, one or the other may be primary at any given time. To get a clearer perspective on the role of development and appreciate what it means, it is useful to review who does what in national security. Where there is war, the Department of Defense (DoD) is the most important national security tool, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance—but of the 195 countries recognized in the world, that’s at most three countries at a time. DoD is also the most effective tool in North Korea, where diplomacy and development are of marginal impact. Even where diplomacy is engaged, DoD may still play a central role, for containment (think Iran). Defense is also critical in Eastern Europe to contain and prevent Russian aggression. It guards against Beijing’s encroachment on Taiwan and in the Pacific, and ensures the safety of the Gulf countries. All told, defense may be the most important national security tool in, perhaps, 15 countries. Yet in terms of the White House and public attention, defense is what takes up most of the “national security” interest. And DoD gobbles up the lion’s share of the national security budget (about 13 percent of the federal budget), too. The State Department, of course, leads on diplomacy. This includes everything from arms control to commercial relations, trade sanctions, human rights, climate change, and narcotics control. Diplomacy is certainly the most important foreign policy tool for like-minded countries, such as the nations of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, India, Brazil, Argentina, and perhaps 30 other countries. After defense, this is what most people think of when they think of national security and foreign policy. While the State Department leads diplomacy, others also play critical roles, such as the Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, and Treasury Departments; the White House; USAID; the Development Finance Corporation; the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and others. That leaves about 80-100 countries where the most important tool in the national security toolbox is development. For these countries, defense is not a significant component: We are never going to invade Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Sudan, Egypt, Niger, or Pakistan. In these places, though it can be important, our diplomacy is not getting the same traction as it would in Europe. However, here our foreign assistance can play an outsized role. These areas include the conflict countries, where there will be famines, civil war, food insecurity, organized crime, extreme poverty, and human rights abuse. How Development Assistance Works Despite being the least developed, the nations where development assistance is most important are allocated a meager portion of the national security budget—about $51 billion (or 1 percent of the budget). USAID receives about half of that (i.e., 0.5 percent). In other words, as a government, we put our fewest financial and personnel resources into the most problematic, most difficult places. The public hears little about these programs, and the White House is engaged mainly in bigger issues—not development. So, Congress has an outsized role. In any given year, there are about 450 congressional directives or earmarks on foreign aid. In Nigeria, for example, the U.S. embassy and USAID may want funding for democracy, conflict, or trade, but most of the money it gets will be for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Ukraine, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan have specific assistance earmarks. The exact wording of earmarks varies from year to year. Congress straitjackets the use of funds and creates an accounting nightmare when it comes to tracking and monitoring funding against results by multiple funding year streams. The limited foreign assistance is spread across 100 countries; yet it manages to have a real impact. By helping other countries address poverty, health crises, and political instability, the U.S. reduces the likelihood of conflicts that may require more costly military interventions. Aid programs that combat infectious diseases like Ebola and HIV/AIDS prevent these diseases from spreading to the U.S., protecting American citizens. Foreign assistance works best when Washington leadership allows initiative to come from the embassy team–level to respond to emerging problems in real time. For example, in South America, my team at USAID worked with the U.S. Congress straitjackets the use of funds and creates an accounting nightmare when it comes to tracking and monitoring funding against results.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=