Budgeting for Peace?

By Bridget Moix on 09/21/2011 @ 05:30 PM

Today, International Peace Day, President Obama addressed the UN General Assembly as it opened its annual sessions in New York. He framed his speech around the theme of building peace and preventing war, noting that the UN was founded as "an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes," and that " Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible."

It's nice to hear the U.S. president saying such things to the world community, but back here in Washington U.S. policies are moving in the opposite direction. The House is preparing to move legislation that would radically undercut the UN and the prospects for peace in the Middle East. And the Senate is marking up legislation that will reduce funding for the tools to prevent war - diplomacy, development, and international cooperation. Meanwhile, the new congressional "Super Committee" charged with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion is sharpening the budget-cutting knives for even deeper cuts across the federal budget in years ahead.

So what would a budget for peace really look like? We'd have to debate the details, but here are some general principles that should guide it.

Invest in preventing, not fighting, wars. Research shows that preventing conflicts from erupting into violence is 60 times less expensive than military interventions after crises erupt.

Invest in people, not bombs. International development assistance not only saves lives, it also builds more resilient communities that can manage problems without resort to violence and addresses root causes of conflicts. That means less costs to the US and the international community in dealing with poverty, humanitarian crises, and resource-driven conflicts that cost billions to address.

Share the costs - and responsibilities - with the world community. US contributions to the UN, regional groups like the African Union, and international organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency, provide critical support to cooperative global efforts that promote peace and security and help costly avert war and military intervention. The Government Accountability Office has reported that UN peacekeeping is eight times more cost effective than the US "going it alone".

Lead with civilian power, not military force. Admiral Mike Mullen has himself said that the US needs to reduce the militarization of its foreign policy. But the current massive budget imbalance between military and civilian tools undermines effective diplomacy and leaves soldiers trying to do civilian jobs.

As Congress considers how to reshape the federal budget in the months ahead it should also reshape U.S. foreign policy to focus on that hard work of making peace possible that President Obama proclaimed to the world today.

You Type	You See
`italics`	italics
`bold`	bold
`[ask google](http://google.com)`	ask google
`+ item 1 + item 2 + item 3`	item 1 item 2 item 3
`> a really cool quote from a nice person`	a really cool quote from a nice person

Budgeting for Peace?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Comment Preview

Authors

Categories

Connect on Facebook

Our Blog Archives