On Tuesday I attended the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "National Security & Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY 2013 International Affairs Budget," which featured  Secretary of State Hilary Clinton as the key witness.  While the foreign assistance portion of the U.S. budget is around 1%, this area of funding has been slightly reduced.  In her testimony, Clinton identified the State Department's top five priorities for the coming year within the State Department's proposed budget. 

The first priority is to sustain the current missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Clinton reminded the committee that "as troops come home, civilians remain to carry out the critical missions of diplomacy and development. Our request reflects the temporary, extraordinary costs of operating on the frontlines."  There is now an important diplomatic role for the U.S. to play in Afghanistan. 

The second priority the Secretary mentioned is Asia, where the U.S. needs to strengthen its relationships and maintain its Pacific presence.   This effort is called "forward deployed diplomacy," in which the U.S. is seeking out better relations within the region. 

"I'm concerned that our interest and our challenge is incongruous with the essence of what we are trying to do here."  These words, spoken by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), marked the first sign of any contention in the first meeting of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Sen. Menendez was referring to the issue of drug trafficking in Latin America and the affects of such trade on Latin American and U.S. citizen security.  His concern was over the fact that the President's proposed FY12 Budget decreases funding for counter-narcotics efforts and law enforcement by 7% in the region at a time when drug trafficking remains a major problem.

Sen. Menendez asked Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela, "how do we [cut funding] at a time when we are seeing still a very severe challenge?"  And Sen. Menendez's question is by no means exclusive to counter-narcotics efforts in Latin America.  At a time when the Arab world is democratizing and Latin America is progressing democratically and economically the United States can play a critical role in international affairs...pending on adequate funding. 

Yesterday the Senate adopted by unanimous consent the Kerry-Lugar Amendment to restore $4 billion to the International Affairs Budget cut by the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate budget now includes the President's request for this account of $53.8 billion in FY 2010 to fund next year's budget ' an increase of 8%, or $4 billion, over last year's funding level of $49.8 billion.

In his statement on the Senate floor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) said:

From pandemics to climate change to failed states, this century's security challenges demand that a new level of commitment to diplomacy and development. With this relatively small investment, we are making significant strides toward restoring America's leadership role in the world. It will make the world safer, and it will make us safer.

Citizens for Global Solutions staff and members along with other members of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign worked hard to make this happen. Thank you Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar.

I've had something of a one-track mind these past few months, as regular readers of this blog might have noticed. The Law of the Sea has been the subject of at least half of my recent posts and an even greater percentage of my advocacy focus.

The case for the Law of the Sea was essentially made by Matt Stoller's post and the response from Steve Clemons last week, though neither mentioned it by name. Steve writes:

"What is needed is more strategic thinking in progressive circles about what battles are worth having in order to achieve more systemic success. I think that consensus is impossible in the left -- and thus we need the Matt Stollers of the world to find some like-minded associates and begin hatching the campaigns that matter, and ignoring the ones that don't."

I couldn't agree more and I think the example that Steve offers - the opposition to the Bolton nomination - was a battle well chosen. It was very important on its merits: it successfully weakened and then partially removed an extremely negative element from the administration. But just as important was its execution. Thanks to some smart group decisions on strategy and message, the Bolton campaign is making current battles against pugnacious nationalism more winnable than before.