Last week the Obama administration sent its budget request for fiscal year 2011 (FY11) to Congress. The $3.8 trillion request will most likely look far different by the time it is approved by Congress, but it does shed some light on the direction President Obama wants to take for the future of his presidency. As part of the budget process, each department in the executive branch submits a request for funding along with a justification for these funds. While policies and priorities may change between now and 2011, when the requested funds will be used, these documents help identify the direction the administration would like to take for coming years. To see which way Obama would like to steer US policy, one need only examine the budget request and justifications of the US State Department and, in particular, the changes in foreign aid funding. For FY11, the State Department requested $52.8 billion, of which $36.4 billion is devoted to foreign aid, the remaindering being used for department operations. This request represents a slight increase over previous years; FY09’s total came to about $52.6 billion and FY10 will most likely cost around $55 billion. The biggest increase in the budget for FY11 represents what the State Department calls ‘frontline states’. This category, which will grow by about 7.5 percent, includes aid to the most pressing foreign relations problems, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason for this increase is two-fold. The first is that as military operations ramp down in Iraq, the US presence there will be increasingly run by civilians, mostly from the Department of State. Likewise, as part of President Obama’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan, the country will see an increased number of diplomats and civil servants sent deployed to compliment the pledged increase in US and NATO troops. The State Department is also focusing FY11 funding on what it has labelled ‘targeted investments’ throughout the world. These categories include food security, health, climate change and women’s rights. Also included is what the budget request memo calls ‘global engagement’, a drive to address global challenges, “in a spirit of understanding, cooperation, and peace.†As part of this drive, the document specifically mentions Obama’s speech in Cairo and the promises he made to begin a new relationship with the Muslim world. The problem is, it is hard to find anything in this budget request that represents a radical change from the past, especially in regards to engagement with the greater Middle East region and the government’s treatment of Arab-Israeli relations. In fact, the figures don’t look substantially different from the international affairs budget under Bush. In some ways the budget reflects confusion by the administration on how to deal with engagement in the Middle East, particularly within the context of the Arab-Israeli peace process. The Obama administration has endorsed a two-state solution and, while it has had some trouble with how to solve issues like settlement freezes, has pursued this goal through determined diplomacy. The FY11 budget request reflects a significant increase in economic support for the West Bank and Gaza. In FY2007, the total economic support package came to $50 million. In 2009, the US government spent over $700 million in aid to the Palestinian territories, much of this going to provide assistance to the people of Gaza after the military action by Israel last year, and the department is requesting $400 million for 2011. This represents a huge increase in aid by the Obama administration and shows the president is ready to “put his money where is mouth isâ€. Of course this seems to be only significant difference in regards to aid to the Middle East. Unfortunately the budget request brings to light some other, unresolved issued within the US government, one of which is that while Obama wants to bring about a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli situation, much of the policy remains the same. In his speech in Cairo, Obama pledged that, “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace.†Yet a large chunk of US aid is still funneled to the Israeli military, a legacy policy that Obama has yet to address. In fact, he is doing just the opposite. Under the Bush administration, the US committed over $2.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing to Israel in FY07. Despite Mr. Obama’s pledge to align US policy with those that pursue peace, something Israel has clearly not done between 2007 and now, the FY11 request for military aid has ballooned to $3 billion. The money dedicated for the Israel military has increasing by about a quarter of a billion dollars each year since 2008. These funds are significant in light of the fact that the annual Israeli defense budget is currently only about $16 billion. If the Obama administration is committed to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, it must make some significant policy, and therefore fiscal, changes. First it must make explicitly clear to Israeli that the funding it receives is conditional and will be withheld, in whole or in part, if the Israeli Defence Forces are used in any illegal fashion in occupied territory. While the debate about war crimes and the recent Gaza War still goes on, this type of diplomacy could have halted such a large-scale operation before it even started. Of course, this was not the fault of Obama, who was not in office at the time, but, in the event of a future conflict, he has no one else to blame. Second, the Obama administration must get tough and let the Israelis know that next year’s request for international aid will look substantially different if there is not significant progress in peace talks. There is no reason for the US to spend such substantial amounts of money on what is ostensibly an occupying force; it is an especially unwise idea to continue this support while the president speaks of a new era of outreach to Muslims worldwide. It is hard to say you are ready for a peaceful relationship when you send billions to the Israeli military. Finally, Obama must begin to tailor this budget to his priorities throughout the greater Middle East, not just in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. So much of the US’s international affairs budget looks like a holdover from the Bush administration that it is hard to believe Obama ever campaigned on a platform of ‘change’. He must make it clear to governments throughout the region that the funds already requested are not without conditions. By setting goals for progress in areas like the Arab-Israeli peace process, as well as issues like democratic participation and religious freedom in countries like Egypt or Jordan, Obama can ensure these and future funds do not become ‘slush-funds’ for Middle Eastern leaders. Progress will not happen overnight, but by tying US aid to clear, short-term goals, the Obama administration will be able to make significant progress, year over year, in some of the more difficult situations in the Middle East.
