Supporting Civilian Peace & Security Programs Through the Power of the Purse
Views of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) on the
Fiscal Year 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill
April 30, 2007
This is a remarkable vision. It mirrors the goals put forth by many conflict prevention and resolution experts and the growing body of research produced by institutions such as the United Nations, the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation. State Department documents are now stating that the “United States and our international partners share a commitment to preventing state failure and resolving violent conflict.”
Unfortunately, the vision has not moved far beyond rhetoric. Appropriators now have an opportunity to translate rhetorical support into concrete policies. In order to facilitate these changes in U.S. policy, effective non-military foreign policy tools should receive adequate funding so that decision-makers see civilian responses as credible alternatives to the use of military force. Just as governments require trained soldiers, guns, bombs, and tanks to engage in war, governments need to be equipped with the tools of peace to pursue the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict. Even if the administration decided tomorrow to start preventing deadly conflict peacefully, it will fail until capable personnel with adequate skills and well-funded programs are put in place. Without filling the U.S. foreign policy toolbox with viable non-military tools, the massive U.S. government war machine will remain the instrument of choice. As the maxim reflects, “when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When the only tool in the U.S. toolbox is a military hammer then all its problems will look like war. Adding non-military tools to the president’s toolbox could change the picture of options that a president sees.
The list of tools mentioned below is not meant to be exhaustive. Yet, by funding these programs the U.S. would be more likely to succeed in realizing the vision of transformational diplomacy. A state and foreign operations appropriations bill that reflects the U.S. commitment to “preventing state failure and resolving violent conflict” would include:
| President's Request | FCNL's Request | Difference | |
| Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) | $1,354,400,000 | $1,484,000,000 | +$130,000,000 |
| Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) | $22,600,000 | $80,000,000 | +$57,400,000 |
| Conflict Response Fund | $25,000,000 | $75,000,000 | +$50,000,000 |
| Transition Initiatives | $37,200,000 | $50,000,000 | +$12,800,000 |
| Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) | $1,107,000,000 | $1,607,000,000 | +$500,000,000 |
| Humanitarian Demining | $66,485,000 | $70,000,000 | +$3,500,000 |
| Small Arms Destruction | $44,721,000 | $44,721,000 | $0 |
Strengthening Preventive Diplomacy
Preventive and traditional diplomacy represent the first line of defense against violent conflict. Years before conflict erupts, U.S. and international diplomats are able to work with governments to remove the sources of danger. Diplomatic initiatives have also proven effective in guarding against the re-emergence of violence in states emerging from deadly conflict and civil strife. Through moderate funding of diplomacy, the United States can prevent and resolve conflicts so that a military response is not necessary. Funding Contributions to International Organizations (CIO), the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS), and the Conflict Response Fund would increase the effectiveness of preventive diplomatic efforts.Contributions to International Organizations
The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account provides money to pay U.S. assessed dues at 45 international organizations including the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the United Nations. These organizations help the U.S. to advance a wide range of foreign policy objectives, including promoting economic growth, monitoring weapons proliferation, creating global trade norms, and addressing global health pandemics.
For several years, Congress has underfunded the State Department’s request for this account. While adjustments were made in 2006 to minimize the effects of funding shortfalls, the FY 07 continuing resolution will lead the U.S. to incur arrears of $130 million. We encourage you to appropriate an extra $130 million to fully pay the U.S. assessment to international organizations.
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)
Recent failures to prevent conflict and adequately plan for post-conflict situations illustrate the fact that the U.S. has minimal capacity to coordinate and summon resources for civilian tasks such as restoring law and order, establishing good governance, and promoting economic development. Understanding that the U.S. should be better prepared, former Secretary of State Colin Powell established the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) in July 2004. The goal of the S/CRS is to “lead, coordinate and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife, so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market economy.”
Since its creation, congressional support and funding for S/CRS has been inadequate and inconsistent. Absent consistent funding, S/CRS has had to rely on other resources within the Department of State, as well as on funding transfers from the Department of Defense. Even with the funding shortage, the office has managed to begin moving forward with its goal to monitor and plan for potential conflicts. However, without a financial commitment from Congress and the administration, the office will be unable to accomplish this and other crucial operational tasks.
On February 15, 2007, Senators Richard Lugar (IN) and Joseph Biden (DE) and Representatives Sam Farr (CA) and Jim Saxton (NJ) introduced the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act of 2007 (S. 613, H.R. 1084). If enacted, this legislation would authorize up to $80 million for the operational expenses of S/CRS and the development of a Response Readiness Corps of civilians with expertise in various conflict prevention and statebuilding tasks. While the authorization bill has yet to pass both houses of Congress, funding S/CRS is too important to wait. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2007, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, argued, “if we’re going to be able to prevent having to send thousands of troops, we need to be able to get folks over [to a country of concern] to be able to help with judiciary systems, be able to help with engineering, be able to help with electricity and the like, before a country devolves into a state where the terrorists can find a home.”
We encourage you to include $80 million in Diplomatic and Consular Programs for the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.
Conflict Response Fund
Associated with S/CRS is the proposed Conflict Response Fund. This fund would allow the Secretary of State to respond quickly by providing resources that can be drawn upon at the onset of a crisis. These modest funds are a critical step toward giving the U.S. the civilian capacity it needs to respond faster, help reconcile warring parties, and support local peace and development initiatives.
Unfortunately, the nature of quick response to emerging crises does not allow the luxury of long-term budget planning. Instead, the administration is forced to borrow money to pay for these necessary tasks. According to Secretary Rice, “very often, between budget cycles, we have to borrow money from accounts and then try to pay it back because things happen that we did not expect. I can give you many examples: Liberia, Haiti; positive examples like Ukraine. And we want to be able to be more responsive to those kinds of emergency situations.” The establishment of an annual contingency budget for conflict mitigation, similar to existing funds addressing refugee crises and international disasters, would allow for the quick response without State being forced to move money from other essential programs.
The State Department should not have to rely on borrowed money to pay for these necessary global security tasks. The Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act (S. 613, H.R. 1084) would authorizes $75 million for the Conflict Response Fund, including $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Response Readiness Corps. We encourage you to fund the Conflict Response Fund with $75 million within the Peacekeeping Operations Account (PKO).
Assisting Countries Break Out of the Conflict Trap
The choices made once the guns fall silent often dictate the quality and durability of the peace that follows. Post-conflict societies face a number of challenges on the road to lasting peace, from rebuilding basic infrastructure to addressing political grievances to healing broken communities. U.S. and international resources and skills, if effectively applied, can help break the cycle of violence that results in half of all post-conflict societies falling back into conflict within five years. The following programs have proven effective in assisting states to break out of the conflict trap and should receive support from appropriators.Transition Initiatives
The Transition Initiatives (TI) account is used by the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development to address the challenges facing conflict-prone countries and those making the transition from the initial crisis stage of a complex emergency to the path of sustainable development and democracy. The vast majority of U.S. foreign assistance funds are directed to relatively stable countries, such as those meeting the criteria of the Millennium Challenge Account. Programs funded by the TI account, such as demobilization and re-integration of ex-combatants, conflict resolution, and community self-help programs, are examples of a handful of programs that are specifically designed to prevent and resolve deadly conflict and civil strife.
The administration’s request for FY08 represents a decrease of 7.5% below the current year’s level. With the ever increasing number of conflict-prone countries in the Horn of Africa and Central Asia and South Asia struggling to maintain stability, this decrease is unwarranted. We encourage you to increase the TI account by 25% above FY07 levels to $50 million.
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
Deployed United Nations peacekeepers reached historically high numbers at the end of October 2006, with 80,976 non-U.S. military and police personnel and some 15,000 civilians serving in peace operations around the world. Currently the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations leads 18 different missions in Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. While the United States has voted for the expansion of UN peacekeeping efforts in the Security Council, the United States has consistently failed to appropriate enough money to meet U.S. obligations. At the beginning of FY07, U.S. arrears for UN peacekeeping stood at around $560 million.
Beyond this current debt, peacekeeping experts conclude that the president’s FY08 budget will add $450 million to the U.S. peacekeeping debt at the UN based upon existing UN peacekeeping missions. And, if the proposed UN missions in Chad and Central African Republic and Somalia are undertaken, estimates are that U.S. arrears would grow by another $300 million. This would bring U.S. debt to UN peacekeeping to more than $1 billion – even though the U.S. has been pressing and voting for several new and expanded UN peacekeeping missions.
This funding shortfall seriously hinders the ability of peacekeeping missions to succeed. We urge you to increase the administration’s request by $500 million to pay for the current year’s dues to the UN and to repay a small part of the existing peacekeeping arrears.
Humanitarian Demining
Unlike other humanitarian tragedies such as natural disasters and disease, the global landmine threat is human-made and can be rectified by human actions. While tremendous progress has occurred over the past decade, millions of people worldwide remain under threat.
The United States leads the world in donations to efforts to clear mines, provide assistance to victims, and educate communities on the risks of landmines. Since 1993, the U.S. has donated over $1 billion, funding research and development on new demining technologies. When announcing its new policy in 2004, the Bush administration pledged to increase the funds available to support the State Department’s portion of the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program by an additional 50 percent over FY03 baseline levels. This raised the level to about $70 million per year. At $66.4 million, the FY08 Humanitarian Demining budget falls just short of the earlier target. When the president fails to live up to his pledge, Congress should step in and act. We urge you to fund the Humanitarian Demining account with $70 million.
Small Arms Destruction
Millions of weapons in excess stockpiles, most often small arms and light weapons, are left poorly secured throughout the world and susceptible to theft or illegal transfer. Sold on the illegal market, these weapons have found their way into the hands of militants and criminal organizations. Recognizing the threat posed by unsecured stockpiles of conventional weapons, the Department of State initiated a program to assist countries in securing and destroying excess stockpiles of small arms and light weapons. For the past 5 years, the budget for this program remained less than $10 million per year. Due to the success of the program and the support it has recently received from Congress, the request for FY08 was increased to $44.7 million
The SA/LW Destruction program is a highly effective conflict resolution tool whose expansion is justified. Given that destruction is relatively inexpensive (costing generally between $1-$5 per weapon destroyed) and can generally be accomplished using locally available infrastructure and personnel, the program offers large returns for a modest investment. We encourage you to fully fund the president’s request.
Conclusion
The aforementioned programs represent critical efforts that, when adequately funded, will lead to less deadly conflict and more global stability. The Friends Committee on National Legislation looks forward to working with members of the appropriations committee in the future to further facilitate a shift away from expensive military response toward effective programs that peacefully prevent deadly conflict. In the meantime, we urge you to generously fund these programs.