President Obama’s first budget proposal reveals the possibility for increased non-military involvement in the Middle East and potential for additional aid to the Palestinian territories, with the State Department and other international programs receiving $51.7 billion, $4.5 billion more than 2009 estimates and nearly $10 billion more than 2008. The 142-page document briefly mentions the foreign aid and State Department budgets, although the Administration intends to submit its detailed budget request to Congress in April.
Initially, the budget emphasizes a desire to double foreign aid, with an emphasis on the exportation of democracy, ending poverty, improving healthcare, and developing economies. Similarly the budget request sustains aid relief to conflict-ridden regions, particularly refugees. The budget proposal states:
“Through increased foreign assistance funding, the United States will embark on several new initiatives that will give children in the poorest countries access to education ensuring they can participate in the global marketplace; foster global food security through sustainable agriculture; expand goodwill and inspire service by increasing the size of the Peace Corps; and stabilize post-conflict states, creating room for them to plant the seeds of democracy.”
While the budget does not explicitly mention the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, these goals clearly reflect the needs of the Palestinians. Further, the Obama Administration already intends to make economic promises in the region with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expected to announce $900 million for Gaza relief efforts next week in Cairo. Administration posture and increased funding could provide the Palestinians with an opportunity to develop a sustainable economy, particularly in the Gaza Strip, that would remove their reliance on Israel and prop up the Palestinian Authority. However, the success of any aid to the territories relies predominantly on the Palestinians’ ability to effectively use obtained funds, a prospect the PA struggled with in the past, particularly in the mid to late 1990s.
The budget also ensures funding for foreign aid by removing the need for supplemental appropriations for recurring programs. Instead of requiring a massive additional appropriations bill half-way through each fiscal year, the foreign aid section of the budget would fund these programs in full without relying on the need to fight Congress to appropriate additional funds in the future. The budget proposal states:
“the Budget includes increased funding for humanitarian assistance accounts and U.N. Peacekeeping Missions that reflect ongoing costs. While emergency supplementals may be required in the future, they should focus on truly unanticipated events and not be used to fund regular programs.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) declared support for this budget strategy stating:
“Today’s budget outline is refreshingly transparent, dispensing with the fiction of ‘emergency’ supplemental requests that were previously a routine practice. Failing to include such supplemental requests in budget projections of the past only served to obscure the real extent of annual spending.”
By including most foreign aid in the budget proposal, recipients such as the Palestinians would know precisely how much funding they can expect in a given fiscal year and dispense these monies accordingly. In the past, delays in promised funding to the Palestinians prevented the success of certain initiatives. Without reliance on supplementals for foreign aid, recipients may be able to properly budget and execute any governmental programs.
However, the budget proposal relies on Congress passing appropriations bills respecting the Obama Administration’s goals and figures. Over the past few years Congress failed to pass many individual appropriations bills and relied on omnibus spending packages. These massive appropriations bills often lack the same precision as individual spending bills that more accurately reflect the budget proposal’s intent.
