Latest U.S. Bout of Isolationism May Be Ending

WASHINGTON — Signs are growing that the United States is emerging from its stiffest bout of isolationist sentiment since World War II.

The impending arrival at the State Department helm of Madeleine Albright, an aggressive activist and a dedicated communicator whose instincts are to get involved, is one indicator that internationalists point to hopefully.

Another is President Clinton’s realization that involvement by the United States in global affairs is crucial to protecting its interests at home.

But by far the most important development is a shift in the mood of Congress, where the fervor of the Republicans who arrived in 1994 to slash foreign affairs spending and “handouts” of aid has given way to a more precise review of U.S. foreign ties, backed by an understanding that these ties usually advance U.S. interests.

As a result, sources in the State Department and on Capitol Hill say, Clinton’s request to boost foreign affairs spending next year probably will get one of the more sympathetic receptions in recent memory when he submits his 1998 budget to Congress early next month.

His $19.3-billion request, roughly $1 billion above this year’s spending level, would halt--though not reverse--the erosion of capabilities that has accompanied a 12-year period in which international affairs spending, after adjustments for inflation, has dropped 51%.

“It’s no panacea, but it’s a strong budget that would enable us to maintain America’s [world] leadership,” said L. Craig Johnstone, the State Department’s director of resources, plans and policy. “It allows us to stop eroding further.

“I don’t want to overstate it,” Johnstone said, “but I think [the isolationist mood] hit bottom with the incoming Congress in 1994, and I believe we’ve begun coming back up. We’re certainly not out of the woods yet, but the prospects look better today than a year ago.”

*

Those familiar with the mood on Capitol Hill agree.

“Members will be looking at this $19.3 billion line by line . . . but the direction is clearly up,” said a congressional staff member familiar with the administration’s budget request.

When Congress passed the 1997 budget last year, it projected foreign affairs spending of $16.1 billion for the 1998 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

Congressional pressure to abolish three foreign affairs agencies--the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency--and fold their functions into the State Department also has eased.

An apparent compromise would have the AID administrator report to the secretary of state rather than directly to the president.

“There’s going to have to be continued belt-tightening, but I don’t think there’s going to be much impetus on Capitol Hill to impose that level of draconian cuts on international affairs spending,” Johnstone said.

Many believe the level of Clinton’s personal involvement will determine the fate of his budget.

“This is now the president’s battle,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “He’s got to decide if he wants it and, if so, what he’s willing to trade.”

A congressional staff member familiar with the issue added: “If the president’s not there--and he hasn’t been during the first four years--then things won’t go much further. The key for Congress is to see if [Albright] can deliver the president’s time and show he’s willing to make trades for foreign affairs. If she can’t, we’ll end up with a budget about the same as last year’s.”

The new budget also contains $1 billion to help pay off money owed to international organizations, including the United Nations, since the United States has withheld funds in an effort to force cost-cutting reforms at the organizations. Congressional sources believe that this piece of the budget will face tougher sledding in Congress than the rest.

The issue of paying dues to the United Nations provided a rare point of open disagreement between Albright and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) during Albright’s recent Senate confirmation hearing for secretary of state. Helms rejected her contention that the time has come to pay up.

“What’s happened so far is fine, but it’s not enough,” Helms said of reforms carried out at the United Nations.

Several forces have combined to erode Congress’ determination to slash foreign affairs spending. Among them:

* Many believe that the 1995 budget clashes between the president and the Republican-controlled Congress, which twice resulted in the shutdown of much of the government, played a role, even though they had nothing directly to do with foreign affairs spending.

The closures, which proved extremely unpopular with voters, took steam from the fiscal radicals in Congress and shifted power toward the White House.

Clinton’s own conversion to the goal of balancing the budget by 2002 also reduced the distance between the administration and Congress on spending levels.

* Sources in the State Department and the country’s foreign policy establishment believe that many of the 1994 Republican freshman members of Congress, elected with a mandate to slash the federal bureaucracy, came to Washington with little idea that further cuts in the international affairs budget would seriously affect such services as assistance to American business people and American tourists abroad.

“I believe a lot of good people [in Congress] are older and wiser now,” one State Department official said.

* After decades of neglecting the task, the State Department has revived efforts to lobby its cause with the public. The effort was hardly deemed necessary during the Cold War but now is considered essential.

At town meetings in such cities as San Diego, Nashville, Miami, Lexington, Ky., and Portland, Me., senior department officials have addressed assemblies ranging from 200 to 600 people in an attempt to dispel many widely held but false perceptions.

As demonstrated by opinion polls, these include the mistaken belief that foreign affairs spending amounts to about 20% of the federal budget (it is currently 1.2%); the notion that recipients can use foreign aid for whatever they want (most aid is tied to the purchase of U.S. equipment, goods or services); and the conviction that the United States is the world’s most generous aid donor (in percentage of national income, it ranks last among the globe’s 21 richest nations).

“This all usually comes as a revelation to people who don’t follow the issues closely,” said Johnstone, who has spoken at such events, which the State Department increased from six in 1995 to 23 last year.

State Department officials also have gone on talk radio, with spokesman Nicholas Burns and his deputy, Glyn Davies, averaging 50 interviews a month, some on syndicated shows.

At another level, outgoing Secretary of State Warren Christopher has quietly and persistently lobbied members of Congress on the funding issue, and he and other senior figures consistently refer to the issue in public speeches.

That is unlikely to change under Albright, who has served for the past four years as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She reportedly expressed her concerns about the foreign affairs budget when Clinton offered her the new job, and she returned to the subject in her first comments as his nominee.

Senior White House officials note that Clinton sought Albright to succeed Christopher because of her ability to sell the relevance of foreign affairs in language that the public can understand.

*

At her Senate confirmation hearings, she wasted little time proving him right. She emphasized that U.S. economic leadership in the global economy matters to the millions of Americans whose jobs depend on it, that U.S. efforts to reduce international terrorism matter to Americans who travel abroad and that the U.S. fight against international drug cartels matters to American families.

These factors may have helped stem further decline in the foreign affairs budget, but there is little sense of celebration in the foreign affairs community as officials look over the damage of a decade of reduced funding.

“Averting disaster is no great triumph,” Richard Greene, the State Department’s chief financial officer, contended as he described the impact of operating U.S. embassies abroad with less money at a time when the workload is increasing.

In Tokyo, for example, staffing of the U.S. Embassy’s information section has dropped from 28 to 16, and Japanese nationals working there have lost their right to overtime pay.

“It used to be you’d work hard but still be ready to go into fifth gear for two or three weeks at a time to prepare a major visit,” noted the embassy’s press attache, Emi Yamauchi, a 20-year Foreign Service veteran. “Now everyone is working in fifth gear all the time, and there’s no room to do anything more.

“For this office to operate efficiently, I’m living off the goodwill of the [Japanese workers] and their belief in the Japanese-American relationship,” she added. “It’s not sustainable. One day, someone’s going to make a big mistake because you can’t go at this pace and not pay the price at some point.”

*

Elsewhere, repairs to embassy buildings and the replacement of outdated computer hardware are said to be long overdue. Albright noted that during her four years as U.N. ambassador, the State Department’s antiquated telephone link between New York and Washington frequently failed, forcing her to conduct diplomacy from public phone booths.

Senior State Department officials say reduced funding also directly affects policy.

They cite the delay of international economic support for the recent Guatemala peace agreement--the $25-million U.S. share will start only with the new fiscal year in October--as one example.

“There was a time when we had the flexibility to move money around, to delay a project for a year to finance something more urgent,” one official said. “Now it’s so tight that this flexibility is gone.”