November 12, 2007
No money for soft power
American academics are constantly on the look-out for the latest foreign policy slogan. A few years ago, Joe Nye had a big hit with the idea of "soft power". Now he and others are back with a new idea called "smart power", which the FT gave a cautious welcome to this morning.
But amidst all the arguments about the need for the US to re-build its influence, it is worth invoking that useful old principle - "Follow the money". If you do that, it suggests the argument is already over. America spends hugely more on missiles and the military than it does on diplomacy and all the paraphenelia of soft power. The State Department’s budget is $10 billion a year. The Department of Defence’s annual budget is $460 billion - plus, at the moment, a further $200 billion a year for the Iraqi and Afghan wars. The entire State Department costs less to maintain than just one of the US’s eight carrier battle groups.
Under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the diplomats often find themselves sidelined in the big foreign policy arguments. It was the Pentagon that took the big and - in retrospect - disastrous decisions about how to conduct the occupation of Iraq. And it is military needs that are dictating policy towards Pakistan. A policy like backing General Musharraf is clearly disastrous if you are intent on building American "soft power". If your top priority is to maintain a close military co-operation with Pakistan - well, that’s another matter.
1– “smart power” is not torturing people (using waterboarding or other similar techniques) and planning what happens after you invade another country.
Posted by: kc | November 12th, 2007 at 7:47 pm | Report this comment2– the correct spelling of the p word is paraphernalia.
kc
The advantage of soft power is that many people can be in your side just because they like you more and want to live the way you live.
For most of Latinamerica the USA is something like the USSR for Eastern Europe: a military invader which threatens their lives and their resources, and when people is so afraid Hugo Chavez comes and Fidel Castro is still there.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe the USA is considered the source of their Freedom against their Soviet Masters so you find Vaclav Klaus, who hate Europe and loves America, and are ready to send troops to Iraq or anywhere just to be with America.
All the opposite in Spain where even if the PP Government was completely pro-American (on the verge of stupidness) the People wanted to pull out.
Posted by: Enrique | November 12th, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Report this commentI think GR has hit the nail on the head perfectly.
The belief in Washington, under the present administration, has been to project the American military and economic power aggressively and subdue others by force. Moreover, in a very propic way, they seem to ignore that other have their own national interests which they are entitled to pursue.
The initial success in Iraq seemed to back that vision but the setbacks since then have not dampened their ardour either.
Perhaps more pain is required for the lesson to be learned and remembered?
As for Pakistan, is anybody fooled by the charade of trying to present Benazir Bhutto as the genuine leader of an opposition, when two weeks ago she was entirely happy to share power with Gen. Musharraf? Clearly this is a US/K attempt to repackage her to continue as a Satrap, in case Gen. Mush is beyond reprieve.
I wonder if the junior ranks of the army will sweep away the whole corrupt ruling class and start anew.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
Posted by: kc | November 13th, 2007 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentTo what end would additional funds for the US State Department be allocated? Hasn’t the aggregate number of US State Department employees increased during the Bush II administration? Doesn’t policy focus really depend on who the President is and who he chooses as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, not the overall personnel budget? After all, during the 1950s, President Eisenhower stood up against his entire cabinet and the US military-industrial complex (despite that being where the money is — on a GDP basis it was a large percentage than today) on four separate occasions when they demanded (once in a written document signed by the entire cabinet) that he use nuclear weapons against China.
kc
Mr. Rachman is absolutely correct that the U.S., especially under Bush, has vastly underfunded the institutions of diplomacy. But his comment might be confusing to some because it leaves the impression that Mr. Nye has neglected this point. But in reality Mr. Nye, as I understand it, totally agrees we spend too much on the military and that is central to his notions of soft power and smart power.
Posted by: L. Golino | November 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm | Report this commentHow do we know the State Department is underfunded - maybe soft power comes in on the cheap? Why give up another carrier group - how many more bottles of wine can the diplomats drink?
Posted by: RCS | November 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Report this commentactually, SWOOP asserts that this defense/State Dept $$$$ imbalance has its roots not in this administration but goes back to the 1980’s…it is a sign of the times…proxy wars have become foreign policy statements/positions…even with a new US Administration it will be difficult to turn this mindset and /or bias around…moreover, US State dept officials were so limited, intellectually, skill sets etc…it’s hard to defend them …at least in the past …much brighter people have traditionally been at defense…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm | Report this commentFirstly, I believe Washington ought to respond to the previous post. As I believe Ms Lawson is related to Mr Nigel Lawson, I am surprised she would have an opinion on staffing trends in the US government.
Secondly, nearly everything written on this topic, beginning with GR’s piece, presumes the world would have a tremendous void if the US is 1) not trying to dominate it through wars, weapons programmes, dubious Great-Game alliances, and marketing marketing marketing; and 2) if we were to find a day when America’s (or Hillary’s) “message” is not being crammed down our throats.
The best “soft power” we can hope for from Washington is clear evidence that US Government still works where it counts: at home. Failed trillion-dollar wars, declining schools and health care, wreckless governance of the financial sector, unspeakable social and economic divides, and a once-inspired media that today increasingly appeals only to the dumbed down amongst us on this planet; these are how too many see the US today.
This is not a call for US isolationism. It is a call for leadership, and leadership may recognise some painful truths about current US foreign policy, beginning first with the fact that it appears more than anything else to be an outsourcing programme for those in the lower ranks fo its society and for the hundreds of thousands of “educated” consultants who no longer can find employment in a bloated and soft US market.
It is also clearly time to not use the word “America” when referring to the US. Canada is more and more a different place. Mexico and Latin America are finally showing signs of escaping from the US shadow.
I do not hate the US. I expect more of it while it still has a chance to give. It’s society is failing — and a generation’s void of true leadership and vision has failed it — and no one wants to speak of that or why.
Posted by: WCM | November 13th, 2007 at 11:31 pm | Report this comment“‘Big picture’ ’soft power’ diplomacy initiatives need to be evaluated by the US & its allies, such as the United Kingdom”
“Winning the minds” of potential terrorists/terrorist nations’ leaders- ought to be at the centre of war-on-terror-related ’soft power’ initiatives of the US.
Unfortunately, for over 1/2 a decade- this seems to have been forgotten by many US & other nations’ diplomats & politicians…
The last 5-years of unsuccessful negotiating efforts re Iran’s & N Korea’s* nuclear & weapons programmes are good examples of this.
* Unsuccessful, as recent improvements in the conduct of N Korea’s (& to some degree, Iran’s) leaders re their countries’ nuclear programmes is being done under duress: the developed world’s threats leading to this has done nothing to generate the internal changes these nations need most: “democratic, rule-of-law & economic-development INERTIA”!!
The obvious motivations for Iran’s & N Korea’s aggressive over-sensitivity + their proceeding with nuclear & missile programmes:
- objectives to feel “heard”, & respected as viable nation’s; &
- wishes to be viewed (by other nations) as equal, & valued, players at “the head table” of the world stage…
… call out for being “constructively addressed” with ‘Soft Power’, instead of- in a perceived-as-bullying, hostile way- opposed.
The main ‘Soft Power’ policy-objective of leading-world nations like the USA, United Kingdom & France re Iran’s & N Korea’s nuclear programmes & their oppositional relationship with developed world nations, ought to be these 2 countries’ ‘planned development’: in ways that enable their productively interfacing with the world.
This requires setting a “direction of development”.
Underpinning such with structures & international agreements that mandate these troubled nations to work towards well defined long-term objectives- with the comprehensive participation of developed-world countries- is vital.
How?
Led by the United Kingdom, USA & leading EU nations such as France, + perhaps, Japan, the developed world ought to:
- Offer both Iran & N Korea the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project, ITER (in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France, http://www.iter.org ).
The ITER project is, by its design & nature, international in function, thereby enabling competent oversight, precluding Iran or N Korea from misusing the project’s resources.
Publicly offering Iran & N Korea the ITER project would, in effect, call their bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes.
It would also neutralize their basis for alleging that many developed-world nations’ harbour unseemly motives for being against their development of advanced nuclear technology.
- Offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support.
Other states in the region could be approached for participation, with a “regional” Olympic games the optimal objective.
- Additionally, offer to pay for, & partner in the building of significant infrastructure for N Korea, & possibly Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for his country.
These objectives could be accomplished productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect North & South Korea’s capital cities to each other & to China.
A pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail link could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent, but very limited, trade & industry connections between these two culturally similar states.
If accepted by Iran & North Korea, ‘Soft Power’ altruistic overtures such as the ITER project, the 2012 Olympics & high tech infrastructure mega-projects, would enable global stages where these 2 egotistically defensive country’s (& many Islamic nations) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements, & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Furthermore, & of utmost importance, offering Iran & N Korea the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + simultaneously committing to pay-for & partner-in-the-building-of much needed infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating their (+ many Islam nations/people’s) perceptions of threat from developed world & “Judeo Christian” country’s- removing their leaders’ main argument for alleging a requirement for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes.
Equally importantly, this approach would, albeit indirectly, “by ‘SOFT POWER’ example” serve to act as a potent neutralizer of factors existent within developed world nations that contribute to the ‘radicalization’ of Muslims and others against their resident nations/the USA.
If attempts to constructively “set directions of development” for Iran & N Korea & do not work- the developed world has sufficient fire-power to revert to heavy handedness, & “bash” till both these mal-governed countries are moonscapes.
_________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | November 14th, 2007 at 3:41 am | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
WCM:”As I believe Ms Lawson is related to Mr Nigel Lawson, I am surprised she would have an opinion on staffing trends in the US government.”
Well, If Obama and Cheney are related, I suppose anything is possible!…but to my knowledge I am not related to Nigel… I am related to a gifted journalist (now deceased, who is loved and missed very much) in the Baseball Hall of Fame, in Cooperstown NY…so I promise I will never comment on Baseball!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 14th, 2007 at 4:57 am | Report this commentTo: Lisa-Helene Lawson
Embarrassed for jumping to such a conclusion on reading it here a couple of weeks ago in another post, I apologise.
On your point as to whetehr there are better minds in Defense than at State, I am perhaps less qualified to have a position than you. However, in my experience, such a differentiation between two such vast bureaucracies seems pointless. The issue more likely lies with their leadership and is unlikely reflective of comparative IQs, but power holds of certain influences.
State has reportedly suffered brain drain since Ronald Reagan and then Bill Clinton weakened its staffing and imposed more political appointees. Defense, I thought, had just as profound a shift towards political appointments.
Today’s divide appears more linked to State’s “soft power” mandate and Defense’s “hard power”. Neither seems to know where the lines are drawn and now they’ve become dramatically tangled over Pakistan.
Posted by: WCM | November 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am | Report this commentMany new ideas hold merit that would augment/replace the old noblesse-oblige approaches characterisitc of post-War multilateral programmes. Much of the talk on “soft power” has been on borderline prosletysing and propaganda efforts, or on goody-goody-two-shoes, but limited-in-scope Habitat-type investments (up-dated noblesse oblige).
If the US can demonstrate the success and value achieved in its society again, then it need not worry about aggressive tactics to win respect. Sadly, it has spent its goodwill and either generations must pass or a very clear mea culpa must be heard before it has a chance to regain it. Assuming the geopolitical landscape remains as it is, which it unlikely will.
The internet is one symbol that nearly every human being understands originated in the US. No marketing is needed when such a capitalist system can generate such wonders. At the same time, wonders do not and need not come every day.
Posted by: WCM | November 14th, 2007 at 8:53 am | Report this commentWCM, actually I agree with everything you said. In my post I was actually lamenting that we have not chosen a more aggressive soft power approach especially since the fall of USSR…the State Dep, where familartment became a haven for many mediocre social network was more important in getting a job there than expertise or any sort of merit. Thus it became easy for Defense to run circles around them…Watching Pakistan play out…stayed up late to see wwhat would happen to Imran Khan…Unless General Kayani joins Bhutto, Musharraf may get away with all this…it is difficult to believe the US would continue to support Musharraf knowing that they are pushing her into a coalition of Islamists parties that post- Musharraf will not support her!?!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentshould read: the State Dept became a haven for mediocre, familiy ties and social network were more important in getting a job than expertise or any merit… NOW clearly need a latte double shot!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm | Report this commentSmart power would be good to have. As an American I think of my country as a blind giant.
You have yourself detailed Russia’s direction, Chinese arming, Mushareff’s duplicity, and the US misguided by its mideast “allies” in Iraq. Trust me the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t get it. I favor good works: but to approve the repackaging of the mostly fatuous soft power as smart power is absurd. What is the opposite of smart: blind, ineffectual, dumb?
How blind are we? You should read Legacy of Ashes, and Fixing Strategic Intelligence. You will find not only the abject failure of US and western intelligence but the massive consequent failure of policy: of which Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq II are only the visible low points. High points like Iraq I were only achieved with Powell doctrine overkill and limited objectives. Think we “won” the cold war? think again.
According to our foreign policy geniuses its not China and Russia that are causing problems. Our “victory” made them good world citizens and trading partners. Its those out of control bad boys North korea, Iran and Venezuela.
Space limits me to only citing our “friends” like Pakistan, Saudi and Israel, the former nuked up by China by the way. Think anything good will come out of pushing Bhutto forward? you can figure out for yourself where i am headed with the “friends”
Posted by: Andrew Hodge | November 15th, 2007 at 4:54 pm | Report this commentRe: Andrew Hodge’s post — Spot on.
Many on this blog are on the same page with you. European commentators, in the FT, but also in NZZ, Le Monde/le Figaro, El Mundo, and FAZ, note the excessive folly in the Administration’s efforts to “manage” their stories. Why is such reasoning so absent in US media discussion, except when it becomes farcical?
Do you think that the cynical/sarcastic tone of debate, which is most visible on European television in Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, is helping the US debate on key issues? Or is it evidence of the success of firm’s like Sawyer Miller and Burston Marstellar in moving the public opinion game even further away from actual policy making?
Agree. Legacy of Ashes is must reading. Will research the second title you note.
Posted by: WCM | November 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am | Report this commentthanks WCM
Posted by: Andrew Hodge | November 19th, 2007 at 7:23 pm | Report this commentthe dumbing down of US opinion is a deep trend, driven by education, values, partizanship. The PR efforts, Stewart/ colbert, our feckless nearly useless media, etc, are symptoms.
I will confess that I watch both at least once a week, mainly as a useful reminder of how low we have sunk.
“We” cannot face the truth. In a democracy, failures are in the end the citizens fault. We confuse blind optimism with patriotism: we think sticking with our leaders and policy shows support for the troops. both may turn out to produce the opposite effect