Trump administration failed to understand that successful communication requires credibility and that a broadcaster with journalists who are free to criticize their sponsor is more effective than one whose every word tracks a party line
There are many indicators that international politics is moving into a new era but few as readily legible as the astonishing reversal in the approach to world affairs practiced by the United States. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has adhered to a view that power in the world requires not only military and economic strength (hard power) but the so-called soft power of attraction that comes from being admired for one's culture and values. Harvard professor Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" around the end of the Cold War, as the US began to reconsider its long-term global strategy.
Through Nye's lens, American analysts came to understand that their country's Cold War success flowed not only from its moon landings and hit movies but from such soft power enhancing activities as state-funded scholarships to study at US institutions, state-subsidized international media to share objective news, and development projects intended to cultivate democracy overseas. During the Cold War, US governments built expo pavilions, promoted appealing commercial culture, fostered respectful bilateral relationships, and showcased an attractive way of life. Post-Cold War governments in the US and elsewhere looked to do the same. As the policies were refined for the post 9/11 era Washington broadened its understanding to tie economic development more closely into its policy framework, naming the hybrid of hard and soft power "Smart Power."
Sometimes the US even corrected its policies to align with international views on matters like race relations. The best example of this was during the former US Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy years when the US government understood that the best way to defeat Soviet claims that the US was a racist country was to actually be less racist. But that was the past. It seems these days of soft power theory and practice are gone. In a stunning series of decisions, US President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of most of the US government's soft power outreach work and closed its mechanisms. Fulbright, Voice of America and other programs have been all-but abandoned. The chief smart power tool of USAID is now just a memory. What does this mean?
- Prioritizing budget over soft power
The doctrine underpinning the Trump axe is one of "America First" which holds that spending tax payer resources on things like international development or foreign student scholarships is a waste of funds that could or should be spent at home or used for tax cuts. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he believes that every element of his foreign policy should contribute to US security. The approach is flawed. It fails to recognize that a positive image in the minds of others is not a luxury on the international stage it is rather an essential element of security. America's generals know this. Admiral Mike Mullen famously remarked that money not spent on diplomacy would need to be spent on ammunition. America's enemies know this. Adversaries underscore the importance of Reputational Security every time they use disinformation, misinformation, or disruption to undermine the standing of a rival. Soft power tools were just as integral to US security as aircraft carriers or marines. More than this, reputations do not form only when we intend them to. The world will still be learning about and judging the US from its exports, entertainment and policies without exposure to the tools of soft power. The US will still be compared to other states, it has simply reduced its ability to shape that process. If others can offer leadership, can uphold the best international standards at home and abroad and present a credible vision of a better future, they will inherit the leverage which the US once enjoyed. In short, the universe of reputational security and soft power still exists, it is just that the US is no longer the central star in that cosmos and may even be an obstacle.
The destruction of Voice of America and the other US government-funded broadcasters is an especially counterproductive move. During the first Trump administration the White House was irritated that the stations sometimes included reports critical of the president. The administration failed to understand that successful communication requires credibility and that a broadcaster with journalists who are free to criticize their sponsor is more effective than one whose every word tracks a party line. It is hard to imagine why a state which has championed democracy and free speech would make a gift of silence to those who wish to control dissent. It appears that the Trump administration still hopes to attract global admiration through its "values and culture" — though not from advocates of free expression, but from authoritarian leaders and oligarchs. Something important has been lost.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.
