August 06, 2017

From abstract to urgent, a test of US global leadership

In Washington, the issue of American leadership — much in the news after US President Donald Trump’s interactions with counterparts in Europe and the Middle East — has a distinctly abstract air. However, 4,500 miles away in Tunisia, where the preservation of security and democracy are urgent concerns, the issue is anything but abstract.
The United States is needed in Tunisia. The Americans’ economic assistance, military equipment and know-how and most of all their consistent partnership as this pioneer country of the Arab upheaval, six-and-a-half years after ousting its last dictator, seeks to make irreversible its embrace of representative government.
American global leadership, a guarantor of stability, security and peace for the country and its allies since the end of the second world war, is the opposite of a fixed asset. Squandered or abandoned, leadership diminishes over time. It requires continuous assertion — and continuous investment.
It hardly needs repeating that the benefits of this expensive investment are nearly incalcula­ble. US investment in NATO enabled Europe to enjoy decades of freedom and growth, protected from Soviet expansionism.
Forceful American advocacy of democracy and universal human rights; generous US support for global economic development, entrepreneurship and disease prevention; strategic American recruitment of many of the world’s best and brightest stu­dents and rising political leaders; the United States’ steady shatter­ing of scientific boundaries and US-led humanitarian intervention in response to natural disasters — these and other pursuits and commitments, none of them cheap, have saved lives, bolstered American political influence and affirmed the United States’ indispensable role in the interna­tional order.
Robust and bipartisan American commitment to military superior­ity has backstopped and enforced US global leadership and must never be neglected but strength is an ingredient of leadership, not a substitute or a synonym for it.
It is in this context of necessary investment in US global leader­ship and of the definition of leadership that one must view the debate over Trump’s proposed international affairs budget and congressional moves to reshape it.
In setting forth the US State Department’s spending blueprint for fiscal year 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that it “addresses the challenges to American leadership abroad and the importance of defending our national security interests,” while recognising that “US diplomacy engagement and aid programmes must be more efficient and more effective.”
Efficiency and effectiveness in the expenditure of tax dollars — on an international aid and diplo­matic architecture that consumes approximately 1% of the federal budget — must always be a management priority but when a new administration proposes a 32% cut in international affairs spending, as the president’s blueprint outlined, it suggests that the priority is not efficiency but withdrawal: Withdrawal from active diplomatic engagement in the world’s trouble spots and future trouble spots, withdrawal from a seat at the table in interna­tional negotiations, withdrawal from the day-to-day demands not only of US leadership in a complex and unpredictable world, but even of American global citizenship, withdrawal from support for good friends in need.
Congress may reverse this backward-looking budget plan. The House Appropriations Committee is poised to discard much of its disinvestment in international affairs and rum­blings in the Senate suggest it may be on a similar path.
In the president’s proposed budget, US economic and military assistance to Tunisia, a country that bravely established and has steadfastly defended democracy for more than six years, while fighting off Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists and confronting chaos on its Libyan border, would be cut from $177 million in fiscal year 2016, the last full programme year, to $55 million in fiscal 2018. Military aid would shift from grants to loans, loans the cash-strapped Tunisian treasury can ill afford. The US-Middle East Partnership Initiative, which, among other projects, provides US scholarships for a cadre of the next generation of Tunisian leaders, would be slashed by more than 60%.
Tunisia is imperfect. Its democ­racy is not fully developed, one of its major parties bears the biases and dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and endemic corruption — a target of the determined new prime minister — is a drag on the economy and good governance. Its foreign policy would benefit from fresh thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Tunisia has been a friend of the United States for more than two centuries and, as it seeks to fulfil its citizens’ aspirations, fight common enemies and defend common values, it deserves consistent US engagement and support. Whether it and other needy friends get that support will be another in this season’s tests of US global leadership.

14