The Trump administration has proposed shuttering USAID and cutting some of the State Department’s critical diplomatic programs; it has also announced tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China. As scholar Borja Santos Porras has noted, these measures may lead to modest savings, however, the long-term damage to the reputation of the U.S. abroad will likely outweigh any such gains.
As an expert on how nations manage their reputations, particularly in terms of rebuilding diminished ones, I believe the recent foreign-aid cuts are undermining a critical foreign-policy tool that is often undervalued, if not outright ignored, within the Trump administration: soft power.
Soft power is the ability of nations, in this case the U.S., to use its appeal – and others’ affinity and often friendship toward it – to induce cooperation. In other words, it is a strategy to get others to do what the U.S. government wants them to do, but without coercion.
Since the end of World War II, it has been this soft power that has been the heart and soul of American foreign policy.
How nations manage their reputations
The phrase soft power was coined by a professor at Harvard University, Joseph S. Nye Jr., in 1990. It refers to the ability of nations to influence other countries in pursuit of their interests without having to bully them into doing so.
The central idea is that others are likely to be compelled to partake in friendly behaviors, such as taking a more favorable trade stance or investing in your nation, when they understand your needs and have affinity toward you.
The core benefit of soft power lies in its cost to implement. It is lower-risk and lower-cost than hard power strategies, such as tariffs, sanctions or even the threat of military force. Hard power also requires the maintenance of a strong military to coerce or bully others through abrasive interactions and to constantly mitigate threats.
Soft power is a product of how others perceive the nation’s culture, including its internal and external economic, social and political values and policies. If others generally have affinity and respect for those characteristics, they are more likely to listen to you, to respect your positions and interests, and to follow your example. The goal is to develop a more sustainable, long-term relationship than one based on coercion and control.
To [wield soft power], the U.S. has since the 1960s used the distribution of foreign aid through USAID as central to the promotion of a positive image of itself to others. Over the past 60 years, USAID has worked to eradicate or combat smallpox, polio and malaria; it has worked to decrease infant and maternal mortality rates and contributed to the overall decrease of global rates of extreme poverty and food insecurity.
Such actions, combined with the broader appeal of the U.S. economy and popular culture, have produced a world where the U.S. government frequently gets what it wants without having to resort to hard power. In contrast with a nation like China that relies much more on coercive economic relationships, the U.S. has been effective at maintaining an extensive network of friends with common values and interests. At this time, the Chinese approach is beginning to make inroads with some African and Asian nations, which, I argue, makes it even more critical for the U.S. to maintain its soft power presence.
Financial costs of reputation
A 2017 study conducted by three professors at Drexel LeBow College of Business found that every spot a nation dropped on a ranking of global reputations produced a 2% decrease in export volume to that nation. They found that a move up the rankings produced an equally positive result.
shaunl/E+ via Getty Images
In the context of the U.S. trade relationship with a nation like Canada, they noted that this would amount to as much of a decrease as US$5 billion in exports for each spot in the rankings dropped. The tariff threat has produced a deterioration of Canadian perceptions of the U.S., with more than 1 in 4 viewing the U.S. as an “enemy” and 68% perceiving it less favorably after the threat of American tariffs against Canada.
The financial costs to the U.S. are likely to be in the billions of dollars. Taking into account other trade partnerships under similar threats, the total costs of this strategy are likely to be substantial.
Limits of soft power
Soft power has limitations as well. For example, during the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. worked extensively to win over global public support, particularly from France and Germany. Despite the strong affinity and partnership with those nations, the Bush administration found that soft power’s influence only goes so far.
In some cases, persuasion and affinity simply aren’t enough to overcome national security concerns. In these instances, the U.S. can still choose to act unilaterally using its hard power, like the Trump administration’s approach to trade. However, such actions often produce significant, long-term reputational damage.
This doesn’t imply that diplomatic options are lost. Rather that some combination of soft and hard power, or what Nye coined as “smart” power, makes diplomacy and engagement possible in even the most difficult cases. In American foreign policy, smart power entails proactively preventing threats and challenges to U.S. interests and security. This is done through diplomatic engagement, development projects through programs like USAID and the State Department, and collaboration with friends and allies.
The key for the U.S., I argue, is to use soft power when it can and hard power only when it must. It will be this balance that will ensure the U.S. maintains its extensive network of allies and partners. Such alliances have been the backbone of U.S. foreign policy and have distinguished the U.S. from other past global superpowers.
