TACOMA, Washington — In July of 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with an overwhelming (and veto-proof) majority. Few dissented in allocating over $740 billion in war funds to the Pentagon as the crux of the annual bill. One of these few protesters was Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) who warned that “We should prioritize eradicating poverty, not war.” His discontent was an anomaly, as evidenced by the 86-14 vote. There are close to a billion people who go hungry every day and somewhere around 700 million who live on less than $1.90 per day. The billions dedicated to the United States’ ever-expanding military would be better used to help the billions of people suffering through poverty. The United States should fund aid, not war.
Funding the International Affairs Budget
The NDAA has a “soft-power” counterpart in the International Affairs Budget (IAB). This budget allocates funds to international diplomacy and development rather than guns and bombs. It is the financial backbone of the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Peace Corps and other important development agencies and programs. These organizations have helped millions of people establish a secure source of food and water, in addition to building adequate housing and increasing economic opportunities. At the same time, they’ve maintained a strong and positive U.S. influence abroad.
At $56 billion for the present year 2020, the International Affairs Budget may seem like a large allocation of money, but these funds constitute just 1% of the total U.S. budget and pales in comparison to the $740 billion dedicated to death and destruction. Startlingly, the current administration is seeking to cut the International Affairs Budget by over 20% for 2021.
More than 120 retired generals and admirals are on record urging the Trump administration not to cut the International Affairs Budget. They cite the crucial role agencies like USAID and the Peace Corps play in “preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.” Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis bluntly states, “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
Development, Not Death
Instead of further undermining the already limited operational capacities of these agencies, a better and more cost-effective solution would be to shave off a portion of the massive defense budget. The United States has somewhere close to 800 military bases around the world while there are 193 countries in the United Nations. U.S. military installations quadruple the number of internationally recognized nations.
The U.S. Armed Forces control more than 6,000 nuclear weapons, 20 aircraft carriers, 2,000 fighter jets, 6,200 tanks, 39,000 armored vehicles and an incalculable amount of ammunition, guns and bombs. It is difficult to imagine how these stunning military capabilities contribute to alleviating global poverty. Surely the military can do without a few bases or nukes to make room for a full International Affairs Budget. As the shining “city upon a hill,” surely the U.S. can do more to fund aid, not war.
Reduce War and End Extreme Poverty
Economist Jeffrey Sachs estimates that extreme poverty (less than $1.90/day) could be eliminated by spending $175 billion a year for 20 years. This is less than 25% of the new NDAA. If the U.S. diverts this money and spends only $565 billion on its military for the next 20 years, then global extreme poverty will be eliminated. Chief among the reasons why the U.S. authorizes these gargantuan war budgets is terrorism. The never-ending Global War on Terror siphons hundreds of billions of dollars a year from U.S. taxpayers.
As it happens, terrorists frequently come from severely impoverished backgrounds. Military solutions have yet to solve the problem of terrorism but perhaps economic aid could. With better standards of living, people across the globe would have less reason to resort to violent extremism. The U.S. would then have less reason to spend more on military efforts.
Fund Aid, Not War
Ending extreme poverty is idealistic but not unrealistic. What is being suggested is not to suddenly de-fund the entire U.S. military and become a helplessly isolated state. The present suggestion is just to take a more humanistic approach and help people struggling around the world. The proposal is simply to fund aid, not war. The U.S does not have to go at it alone either. If the most powerful nation in the world sets the example, others will soon follow. For the United States, this starts with the International Affairs Budget. Although the $740 billion NDAA has already been approved, the IAB can still be saved from a $12 billion cut. You can help protect the International Affairs Budget by emailing your congressional representatives here. It takes only 30 seconds.
– Spencer Jacobs
Photo: Flickr