Category Archives: Budget

FY1929: Wife Gets One Year Salary of Deceased Husband, the Late U.S. Consul in Panama – $4,500

— By Domani Spero

The following is an extract from the Congressional Serial Set via Google Books.  In fiscal year 1929, the US Government paid $4,500 to the spouse of the U.S. Consul in Panama who died while in the Service.  This is about $61,000 in 2013.  By far, the most expensive allocation was for the transportation and travel expenses of FS members at $80,000.  Printing and binding was barely $12,000 but still a lot more than a death gratuity at the time.  Indemnity for the death of a Chinese citizen in Peking killed by a car driven by a mission guard was $875.

The total Diplomatic and Consular funds appropriated by Congress in 1929 was $88,375.  That’s $1,201,750.12 in today’s money.  Not even enough to run the current US Mission in Baghdad for a month.

 

About these ads

Leave a Comment

Filed under Budget, Congress, Counting Beans, Diplomatic History, Foreign Service, FSOs, Govt Reports/Documents, State Department

Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Assistance in FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request

Extracted from the CRS: The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request, April 18, 2013 via Secrecy News:

The list is dominated by strategic allies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, as well as top global health program recipients in Africa. Israel would continue to be the top U.S. aid recipient, at $3.1 billion, a $25 million increase over FY2012 funding. Afghanistan would again rank second among recipients, though with a slightly smaller allocation compared to FY2012. Iraq would drop out of the top five, with elimination of the Police Development Program driving a 55% funding cut, while Nigeria would move up to number five with a proposed allocation of $693 million, or 7% more than actual FY2012 funding. Together, the top 10 recipients would account for about 37% of total bilateral economic and security assistance funds in the FY2014 budget proposal.

Screen Shot 2013-05-22

 

 

–DS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Budget, Counting Beans, Follow the Money, Foreign Assistance, Govt Reports/Documents, Pakistan, Snapshots, State Department

US Army Activates “Warrior Diplomats” … Unlike State’s Expeditionary Diplomats, These Got Guns

I almost forgot this item I saw from the US Army a few weeks ago.  After the “build phase” is completed, we can expect at least five battalions of “warrior diplomats.”  Since a battalion has around 300–1,200 soldiers, the new warrior diplomats brigade can have a as low as 1,500 soldiers or as high as 6,000 for a brigade consisting of five battalions.

FORT HOOD, Texas, Sept. 22, 2011 — A brand new unit now has a home at Fort Hood. The 85th Civil Affairs Brigade officially stood up at the “Great Place” Sept. 16, after years of planning and coordination.
[...]
“In 2007, the Army saw a need for additional civil affairs capabilities,” Ruth explained. At that time, only one active-duty brigade-sized civil affairs unit existed — the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) which is aligned under U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

After the surge in Iraq was announced in 2007, Ruth said nearly half of the USASOC civil affairs Soldiers were deployed to the Middle East to support ongoing operations. Plans were made to build another brigade, although that process took some time.

“We are in the build phase now,” Ruth said. “By the time we finish building the brigade, we will have five battalions. Each battalion will be oriented on a geographic combatant command.”

The 85th Civil Affairs Bde. is a direct-reporting unit to U.S. Army Forces Command. In addition, the brigade’s first battalion, the 81st Civil Affairs Battalion, stood up Sept. 16 at Fort Hood. That battalion is oriented to Southern Command.

In September 2012, two additional battalions will stand up. They include the 83rd Civil Affairs Battalion at Fort Bragg, N.C., which will be oriented to Central Command, and the 82nd Civil Affairs Battalion at Fort Stewart, Ga., which will be oriented to Africa Command.

The two final battalions will activate in September 2013 and will include the 80th Civil Affairs Battalion at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., which will be oriented to Pacific Command, and the 84th Civil Affairs Battalion at Fort Bliss, which will support European Command.

There’s a simple reason for the roll out of the brigades, according to Command Sgt. Maj. Mark Berry, the brigade’s senior enlisted advisor.

“Part of the challenge of what we have (is) the MOS (military occupational specialty) and the branch have only existed since 2007,” he said. “So as we’re building capacity in the branch, we’re expanding the units at the same time.”

Soldiers that are interested in the civil affairs branch have a challenging road ahead of them before they can join a battalion or a brigade.

“We recruit from inside the Army,” Berry said. “The process is quite lengthy.”

Interested Soldiers must first meet the qualifications and go through a screening process. If they make it through that level but are not yet parachutists, they must complete Airborne school. After that, there is the official civil affairs MOS qualification course, and finally, the Soldiers must learn a foreign language, which means months of additional schooling.
[...]
“It’s very busy, but it’s also very rewarding to do something that not very many people have an opportunity to do in the Army, and that’s stand something up from nothing.”

Standing up a brigade requires identifying unit facilities, creating procedures and policies, and working closely with Human Resources Command to make sure positions are properly staffed, in addition to dozens of other tasks on a daily basis.

“I don’t think we could do this at any other place except Fort Hood, and that goes back to the superb level of support we’re getting,” Ruth said.

The Civil Affairs brigade at Fort Hood equips FORSCOM with a crucial tool, a team of “warrior diplomats,” eager to leave their mark on the world.

“The mission is to provide FORSCOM with a civil affairs capability,” Ruth said. “It can do three things, (including) support the Army Force Generation cycle with civil affairs operators. The second capability that we provide FORSCOM is the ability to provide peacetime engagement throughout the world, and then the last thing we provide is the ability to support any emergent operations.

“So if we have another Haiti (earthquake) or flood in Indonesia, now we have civil affairs Soldiers who can go out and lend their expertise in mitigating those disasters,” he added.

Civil affairs Soldiers play a crucial role in both war and peace, although Ruth admitted that the branch is sometimes misunderstood.

“There’s a misnomer out there that what we do is hand out MREs (meals, ready-to-eat) and dig wells,” he said. “That’s not exactly what we do. We can facilitate that, but we do things for specific reasons, and that’s really to legitimize the local, regional or national government, and facilitate the commander’s ability to operate in theater.”

At the tactical level, civil affairs Soldiers serve as an intermediary between a commander on the ground and local village representatives. That’s where the in-depth training and language skills make all the difference in the world.

“Because of all that training and the way we select those Soldiers, we’re going to be able to provide the Army with a mature Soldier, a Soldier that has the ability to think on his or her feet,” Berry said.

“You can put them in a situation and they may not know the answer when they get there, but they’re going to keep working at it until they figure out what the answer is. They also have the ability to work with people and understand people.”

“Our motto is ‘warrior diplomat’ because we have to be warriors. We have to be Soldiers,” Ruth said. “But the Soldiers also have to add the diplomatic capability to where they can diffuse dissension, identify what the local vulnerabilities are and really bring people together.”
[...]
To mark the brigade’s activation, the unit will host a ceremony at the flagpole in front of III Corps Headquarters Sept. 30 at 9 a.m. The public is invited to attend.

The full article is here.

By September 2013, the full brigade with an upper count of possibly 6,000 soldiers will be in place. One battalion of warrior diplomats will support each combatant command: Central, Southern, Pacific, European and Africom.

To put this in perspective: the diplomatic service, officially called the United States Foreign Service and tasked with carrying out the foreign policy of these United States in over 270 posts overseas has about 13,000 staff members.  Only about 6,500 are Foreign Service officers.  Indeed, they could easily fit aboard a single aircraft carrier.

In the FY2012 budget State requested an addition of 197 full time Foreign Service and Civil Service – a growth of 1 percent, and 165 new positions for USAID. I can’t tell how many additional staffing was granted. But the FY2012 budget request for the State Department was $62.7 billion, and only $53.4 billion was enacted.

For FY2013, State has again requested additional staffing, this time, for 121 new positions (83 Foreign Service and 38 civil service) in high priority programs and regions.

And that’s that for the chopping block, until the next round.

Also — the State Department’s hiring effort called Diplomacy 3.0 to increase its Foreign Service workforce by 25 percent by 2013 was derailed due to emerging budgetary constraints. It is anticipated that this goal will not be met until 2023.

8 Comments

Filed under Budget, Counting Beans, Defense Department, Follow the Money, Foreign Service, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends

Which region gets the most US foreign aid in the FY2013 request? Go ahead take a guess …

The following figure extracted from the CRS report on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations:

Extracted from CRS report

Via the CRS:

Under the FY2013 budget request, aid to Africa would decline by 10% from the current level to $6.4 billion; U.S. aid to the Near East would increase by 12% to $9.0 billion, largely due to support for the Arab Spring; and aid to South Central Asia would increase by 6% to $5.3 billion. Aid to Africa primarily supports HIV/AIDS and other health-related programs while 88% of the aid to South Central Asia is requested, largely for war-related costs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Near East region continues to be dominated by assistance to Israel ($3.1 billion), Iraq ($2.0 billion), Egypt ($1.6 billion), and Jordan ($0.7 billion). The Western Hemisphere’s projected relative decline in FY2013 is attributable to a reduction in funding of ESF and INCLE for Colombia. Europe and Eurasia’s 14% decline is largely due to progress made by many countries in the region and other more pressing global priorities. Aid to East Asia and Pacific remains relatively low and consistent with past years’ levels.

Here are the countries in the Near Eastern Affairs bureau:

Map of Countries in the Near Eastern Affairs Regional Bureau

Domani Spero

Leave a Comment

Filed under Budget, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Assistance, FS Funding, Govt Reports/Documents, Regional Bureaus, State Department

Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid in FY2012 and FY2013 Request

Via the CRS | State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations

Leave a Comment

Filed under Budget, Counting Beans, Countries 'n Regions, Follow the Money, Foreign Assistance, Govt Reports/Documents, Snapshots, State Department, USAID

State Dept Anticipates Spending $25 Million on Internet Freedom This Year

What kind of Internet freedom support has the State Department provided in the Middle East region? The official non-response says an average of $19 million from 2008-2011 but did not break it down by region. And in 2012, despite the budget cuts, Internet freedom programming is up by 7 million in the Middle East and worldwide. Below is the official State Department response to that question:

ANSWER: Advancing Internet freedom is a priority for this administration. From 2008 through 2011, the State Department and USAID have spent $76 million on Internet freedom programming. This year, at a time when we are making significant budget cuts in many areas, we anticipate spending $25 million in Internet freedom programming. Through these programs, we provide training and tools to civil society activists, in the Middle East and throughout the world, to enable them to freely and safely exercise their freedoms of expression, association, and assembly on the Internet and via other communication technologies.

Across the Middle East, we have seen that access to technological tools enables people to tell their story to the world when they are otherwise silenced by repressive governments. Our Internet freedom programming is aimed at making sure that voices for peaceful democratic reform in the region can be heard.

As Yusuf (CatStevens) sings it – “Oh baby baby it’s a wild world, it’s hard to get by just upon a smile.” You need spending money, too. Absolutely!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Budget, Countries 'n Regions, Follow the Money, State Department

Insider Quote: Top State Dept Official on Doing Less With Less

“People talk about doing more with less… [...] What we are going to have to look at is doing less with less.”

Quote from top State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
in State Department cutbacks won’t affect work in Iraq, Afghanistan
Stars and Stripes, Published: March 24, 2012

Leave a Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Budget, Iraq, Outside the Box, Quotes, State Department

Introducing the Lunch Scholars – Cover Your Eyes But Listen

This video was created by two junior students from Olympia High School in Washington State.  It was directed by one and filmed and edited by another, both 16 year old students. The project was for  theolympus.net, the “longest running student publication in the state of Washington since 1904.” It was originally posted at http://vimeo.com/theolympus but had since been placed for private viewing.  The embed below is from YouTube.

After the video was posted in The Huffington Post and went viral (currently shy of 800,000 hits), the young filmmakers gave a statement published by Kirotv.com:

“The video that we made as a school project has received a lot of unexpected media attention, and has been co-opted into an ongoing political debate that has become quite volatile.  It should be known that we filmed for several hours, during which time many students gave correct responses; the film represents a short segment of the most entertaining answers.   The bottom line is that we made the video to get a few laughs around our school, and it turned into something bigger.  It was not our intent to polarize people, set off a firestorm, or get people to point fingers.  Having said that, people will take from it what they will.  We want to continue our work as student journalists in a productive manner.”

It probably was not a coincidence that kirotv.com also has the reactions from school district officials who said that “the video doesn’t accurately reflect the strong academic performance of Olympia students.”

“Olympia High School is one of the top five-percent performing high schools in the state,” said Ryan Betz with the Olympia School District.

I’ve seen the original post and I thought the students did a great job.  Aside from the “Bin Laden” answer, I think the best response was probably from a student who said, “I was never taught that knowledge.”  The young filmmakers, no doubt, picked a hot button issue for their “fun” school project.  It’s funny and shocking, but is that enough to get our politicians off their collective asses?  Probably not.

In typical response, the video was yanked from the school’s website.  In a kirotv interview here (scroll down to the bottom for the video interview), the reporter asked, “And certainly it was not a condemnation of the education system….” One of the students replied, “Oh, absolutely not…”  The high school principal released a statement here (pdf).

End of conversation, ya?

But wait — the Lunch Scholars school project has resurfaced in YouTube. It was posted by SENIOR12913612 on Feb 2, 2012, around the time the sh*t hits the fan in Olympia. Let’s see who will write a take down notice to YouTube.

Now imagine if the Lunch Scholars project is deployed in high schools across America?  No teaching the tests. Not showing off “skills in many areas” — just answering questions  on their toes. Now, that would potentially be a real wake-up call on educating America.

Below is an item from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (October 7, 2011):

“Elementary and high schools are receiving less state funding than last year in at least 37 states, and in at least 30 states school funding now stands below 2008 levels – often far below. These cuts are attributable, in part, to the failure of the federal government to extend emergency fiscal aid to states and school districts and the failure of most states to enact needed revenue increases and instead to balance their budgets solely through spending cuts. The cuts have significant consequences, both now and in the future: They are causing immediate public- and private-sector job loss, and in the long term are likely to reduce student achievement and economic growth.”

In Washington state, after a 28% cut to higher education funding since 2007, a new $360 million in cuts have been proposed. That’s just one state.  And while we’re building schools elsewhere, and as we pour funds into endless wars to protect our future, we are undermining our future right before our very eyes.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Funnies, Video of the Week

Senator Nelson’s Reasonableness Test: US Should Bill Iraq for US Embassy Security

Last year, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
the 12th term Republican congressman from California’s scenic 46th District
and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee made the news when he called for Iraq to repay a portion of the “mega-dollars” that Washington has spent since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.  Mr. Rohrabacher for the record did not actually say we should ask for a repayment now but once “Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country…”

This past week, it was Nebraska’s retiring Democratic Senator Ben Nelson turn at bill collection (TSB has a post on this here) Below is a letter sent by Senator Nelson to Secretaries Panetta and Clinton telling them that the Iraqi government should be responsible for shouldering the cost of US Embassy security in Iraq:

Dear Mr. Secretary and Madam Secretary:

As you know, the United States concluded its military mission in Iraq in 2011. With that end, the U.S. Department of State now assumes responsibility for the civilian mission, which I understand will be heavily reliant on private contractors for security. I support ensuring the success of our efforts in Iraq, but am concerned about continuing to provide assistance to Iraq’s government, with the total cost being borne by the United States.

As a nation, our government continues to look for ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies within the U.S. Department of Defense. Therefore, I believe it is completely reasonable and in line with our agreements with other nations for the Government of Iraq to pay for the security of our remaining State Department personnel.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2011, General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the costs of retaining an American presence in Iraq. He noted that “in any nation in which [the United States is] present diplomatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation.” Thus, if Iraq is unable to provide security for U.S. personnel, then the Iraqi government should pay for the cost of doing so – rather than our nation’s taxpayers. Therefore, I encourage your departments to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government to underwrite the costs associated with our continued diplomatic presence there.

During that same hearing, I also asked General Dempsey whether it was possible to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government for cost-sharing in order to continue providing for the security training of Iraqi troops and every other mission we might accept to help the country secure, stabilize and self-govern. General Dempsey responded that such agreements are possible and that there is always a negotiation on the cost and who will bear it.

I want to ensure that the burden of such operations is placed primarily on Iraq, in line with those agreements we share with other nations when we conduct multilateral or bilateral exercises around the world. The Iraqi government is more than capable of sharing or underwriting costs associated with a U.S. advise-and-assist presence, as the Iraqi economy continues to grow and government revenues are beginning to increase to that of pre-war levels.

While I understand there are many challenges facing the Government of Iraq, it is important for the United States to make it clear that we expect the new government to be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate learning from the Administration what agreements are being made with the Government of Iraq for further missions and how the cost of those missions will be covered. Thank you both for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

E. Benjamin Nelson
United States Senator

It is true that the host country is responsible for providing protection to diplomatic personnel and missions, as established by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 22(2) says that “The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.”

One could argue that Syria did not lived up to its responsibility to prevent “impairment of its dignity” when it allowed a mob to attack our embassy in Syria in July last year. But other times, the local police protecting diplomatic and consular premises can pay dearly with their lives. During the February 2003 attack of the US Consulate in Karachi, for instance, the gunmen killed two police officers and wounded five
other policemen in front of the consulate.  The 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen resulted in 19 deaths and 16 injuries including six Yemeni policemen. 

Iraq is responsible for the protection of the US Mission in Iraq, just
as the United States is responsible for the protection of all diplomatic
premises within the United States. But while the host country is expected to provide the outermost security of diplomatic missions, it cannot be expected to provide guard services for the embassy compound. 

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, of course, is like no other diplomatic mission in the world.  According to Stratfor’s assessment of diplomatic security after the troops withdrawal,  there are some 16,000 personnel, 5,000 of whom are security contractors working inside our heavily fortified embassy and consulates in Iraq.  The remaining 11,000 include diplomats, intelligence officers and analysts, defense attaches, military liaison personnel and aid and development personnel.

If the Government of Iraq decides that it should have a corresponding number of personnel – 16,000 Iraqis -  attached to its embassy in Washington, D.C., how would that work?  Congress would be up in arms!

But perhaps the more tricky part is Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says that “1) In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission; 2) The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a nondiscriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category.”

With that number of personnel, there probably is a specific agreement in place. But let’s just say that there is none and Senator Nelson gets his way and bill Iraq for the cost of diplomatic security in Iraq.  The Iraqi Government may just decide that 16,000 diplomatic, security and support personnel at U.S. Mission Iraq is a tad too much. Due to ongoing security challenges in the country, it may just decide that a, say 150-member US staff is all it could support. Which would actually save the US Government money, and would allow the State Department to reallocate its tight resources to other areas not considered the center of the bureaucratic universe.

 

 
 
 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Budget, FS Funding, State Department, US Embassy Baghdad

US Funds 90% of Afghanistan’s Total Security, Will Afghanistan Go Back to Rock-Paper-Scissor When US Leaves?

President Karzai Welcomes President Obama to KabulImage via WikipediaImage via WikipediaSecretary Rice meets with Afghan President Ham...Image via WikipediaIn 2009, I wondered out loud in this blog — Did we legally adopt Afghanistan while we were asleep? It’s like Alan Harper of Three and a Half Men asking to stay in his brother’s house, who then end up staying forever ( or at least, until his brother died). Only, in our case, it’s the reverse; we’re like the dead rich brother, before he died.

In August, I finally came to a sad conclusion that our pretend 51st state of Afghanistan is no longer a laughing matter. 

Do you know how bad is the state of our public schools in this country?  I’ve seen 5th graders who can’t even spell, locate their state on the U.S. map, much less, do simple arithmetic when buying a chocolate bar.  If we want to be competitive in the 21st century, we need our limited money invested on the future of this country. But our public officials and politicians seem to think that our work in Afghanistan is essential to our future in the new century. So we pour money over there like there is no tomorrow. Saving Afghanistan means saving us? Right.

Then you read this GAO report that says that the United States have been responsible for 90% of funds that go to Afghanistan’s security expenditures from 2006-2010. So we have propped up this government, underwrite most of its expenses and what happens when we leave? Is Hamid Karzai going back to rock-paper-scissor? No? So, then, does that mean we’re going to stay until the Government of Afghanistan grows its revenue from 9% to 100%, or when it is able to pay for its own soldiers’ salaries and its own electric fuel, etc. etc. , whichever happens first?

I am not against foreign aid or even military aid per se. But let’s keep some perspective here. We’re not running on a surplus. We have an exploding boomer population, we have dilapidated public infrastructures, and we have our future suffering through some major budget cuts right now.  

And we’re stuck in the muck called Afghanistan. And this is for our own good? Excuse me if I don’t drink that kool aid, sir. And I really would like us to leave and let them get on with their own nation building while we do ours at home. 

Excerpted from GAO’s report on Afghanistan’s Donor Dependence:

Afghanistan’s estimated total public expenditures.
Afghanistan’s estimated total public expenditures more than doubled from solar year (SY) 2006 to 2010, growing from $5.5 billion to $14.3 billion, an increase of 160 percent. Over this 5-year period, about 79 percent of Afghanistan’s estimated total public expenditures of $54 billion were off budget.

Donor funding.
The United States and other donors funded about 90 percent of Afghanistan’s estimated total public expenditures from SY2006 to 2010. In particular, donors funded on average 57 percent of on-budget expenditures and 100 percent of off-budget expenditures. Over this period, the United States provided 62 percent of estimated total public expenditures, while other donors provided 28 percent. The United States funded an estimated 90 percent of Afghanistan’s total security expenditures during this time period. The United States funded an estimated 39 percent of Afghanistan’s total non-security expenditures during SY2006 to 2010.

Afghanistan’s domestic revenues.
The domestic revenues of GIRoA grew by an average annual rate of 30 percent from SY2006 to 2010, increasing from an estimated total of $0.62 billion to $1.66 billion. Customs duties and taxes such as income and property taxes provided the largest share of domestic revenues. However, domestic revenues funded only about 9 percent of Afghanistan’s estimated total public expenditures from SY2006 to 2010.

GAO _Afghan Donor Dependence | September 2011
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/69620987/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-16u1d9c7r76j9e7mk004

(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Leave a Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Budget, Foreign Assistance, Govt Reports/Documents, War