In the first two weeks of his second term, President Donald Trump has proven he believes threatening US counterparts, like Canada, Mexico, China, Colombia and more, is the best way to accomplish his foreign policy agenda.
The New York Times’ Peter Baker examines whether the president’s “hard power” approach – opposed to “soft power” — will get him the results he seeks.
Baker notes:
Hard power has long been an instrument of influence for American presidents, going back to the days of gunboat diplomacy through more than two decades of war after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the United States has also employed what is called soft power, a term and concept popularized in the 1990s by Joseph S. Nye Jr., former dean of the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, who served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.
READ MORE: ‘Tied directly to inflation’: GOP senator hoping this key Trump tariff will be ‘short-lived’
“President Trump’s confrontational style has resulted in foreign policy gains and can result in more — provided he is careful about the targets of his pressure and the specific implied or actual threats,” ex-Pentagon official and Arizona State University’s McCain Institute Executive Director Evelyn N. Farkas told the Times.
Baker points to last week, when “Colombia refused to accept U.S. military flights of deported migrants unless they were treated with more ‘dignity,’ as an example of the power of Trump’s threats.
“Even though Colombia has been an important U.S. ally, Mr. Trump did not bother with traditional diplomacy and went instantly to his version of DEFCON 1 by threatening a trade war,” Baker writes. “It worked. Colombia backed down.”
However, Baker reports “veterans of foreign affairs and international trade said that quick and easy wins may do long-term damage. By basing relations with other countries on brute economic force and naked self-interest rather than shared values and mutual goals, they said, Mr. Trump may push some away from the U.S. orbit and toward the likes of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia or President Xi Jinping of China.”
READ MORE: ‘That is not his platform’: Trump at odds with Republicans over major budget issue
Former President George W. Bush trade adviser Daniel M. Price told Baker, “Our allies struggle to differentiate Trump from Putin or Xi. They feel not like allies but like vassals. U.S. coercion and bellicosity create incentives for increased alignment with, or at least accommodation, of our geopolitical rivals.”
Nye suggests that Trump might benefit from exercising soft power, which Baker notes “is noncoercive and includes foreign aid to fight disease and poverty while encouraging development, which beyond altruism has been viewed as beneficial to the United States. Among other things, experts say, it can discourage illegal immigration to the United States — a Trump priority — by helping improve living conditions in other parts of the world.”
Nye told Baker, “Trump does not understand soft power — the ability to get what you want by using attraction rather than coercion or payment. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power, but the long-run effects may be the opposite.”
The former Clinton official added, “And even in the short run, while you may have to use hard power, if you also have soft power, you can economize on the costs of sticks and carrots. Trump is squandering this resource. It may work in the short run, but will cost the U.S. in the long term.”
READ MORE: Trump’s tariffs won’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis — here’s why
