Ambassador Mark L. Asquino (ret.) Senior Public Diplomacy Fellow (SMPA 2010-11)
In his 2004 book, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Power,” Joseph Nye defined “soft power” as follows:
“A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries –admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness –want to follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics, and not only to force them to change by threatening military force or economic sanctions.”
In announcing the preliminary, 2018 budget proposal in March, which includes a nearly 10% proposed increase in defense spending, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, could not have been clearer about the Trump administration’s view of soft power, when he announced:
“This is a ‘hard power’ budget. It is not a ‘soft power’ budget.”
In my view, such a reliance on military hard power at the expense of soft power is not only unfortunate, but also indicates a fundamentally different approach to international engagement from what we’ve seen since the end of World War II.
During the past seven decades, U.S. foreign policy has combined “soft power” with “hard power.” In 1948, the passage of the Informational and Educational Exchange Act was a major initiative by the U.S. government to use the power of cultural diplomacy, which relied on attraction, to counteract Soviet propaganda. It was followed by the 1961 Fulbright-Hays Act, which expanded educational exchanges even further. Both pieces of legislation focused on promoting “mutual understanding,” through employing U.S. information, cultural and educational exchange programs as a means of engaging foreign audiences and governments to promote dialogue.
Similarly, the establishment of USAID and the founding of the U.S. Peace Corps, both in 1961, indicated the importance John F. Kennedy and all presidents since him have accorded “soft power” tools.
There has already been strong bipartisan opposition to what I regard as a short-sighted approach regarding the vital role soft power plays in foreign policy. In this present fiscal year, Congress rejected the Administration’s proposed cuts to the State Department’s budget, and instead actually increased funds for exchange programs by 9%.
During tough Senate hearings with Secretary Tillerson in June, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham criticized the Trump Administration’s putting hard power above soft power. Graham said:
“I want the country to know that this budget request is radical and reckless when it comes to soft power.”
Such opposition is a hopeful sign for me that our representatives in Congress will provide adequate resources for the sort of soft power tools, including highly successful exchange and cultural programs, that have been a mainstay of U.S. foreign policy during both Democratic and Republican administration.
Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Diplomacy or The George Washington University.
Ambassador Mark L. Asquino (ret.), SMPA Senior Public Diplomacy Fellow (2010-11)
In Phoenix on September 22, President Trump once again bitterly complained about his alleged ill-treatment by journalists. He disputed criticism of his reaction to white supremacist violence in Charlottesville from the media and others, including some in his own party.
Speaking to supporters, the president praised Fox News’ Sean Hannity and defended former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt by a U.S. District Court. Mr. Trump said the sheriff was being unfairly punished for “doing his job.” Mr. Trump signaled that based on this he might pardon Mr. Arpaio, who has long been accused of racially-profiling Hispanics.
But there were no such words of praise from the president for Heather Heyer, the 32-year-old woman murdered as she peacefully protested racism, white supremacy and hatred in Charlottesville. He made only passing reference to her as “Heather,” saying the driver of the car that killed Ms. Heyer was a “murderer.” What Mr. Trump failed to mention is the fact that the accused killer was a professed Nazi sympathizer. Just hours before allegedly taking Ms. Heyer’s life and injuring nineteen other peaceful protesters, the man being held for the crime had demonstrated with white supremacists.
During her short life, Heather Heyer was courageous and outspoken in opposing racism, unfairness and cruelty. No one would ever have questioned her willingness to condemn the KKK or neo-Nazis. Ms. Heyer died as a direct result of her attending a rally to protest against such groups. Earlier this month, I participated in a “Rally Against Racism” here in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I took a photo of a woman with a sign that read: “I am Heather.” I found her message a simple, moving tribute to Ms. Heyer’s memory.
All of us would do well to emulate Heather through advocating the values she died defending.
Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.