Do all foreign policy questions really come down to the carrot and the stick? Maybe. Irregardless, Joesph Nye
made the case yesterday in Foreign Policy for not cutting the state department's budget (in the interest of "soft" power or in other words the "carrot"). I don't think he is nearly in depth enough about the cost of undercutting our ability to influence foreign affairs non-militarily if he wants to make a serious case for the spending, but it is a welcome wake-up call and acts as a reminder that budget cuts do have consequences. Here is his conclusion:Nowhere is this more true than on Capitol Hill. While Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken about the importance of soft power, they do not have to face the American electorate. As a friend in Congress once told me, "You are right about the importance of combining soft power with hard power, but I cannot talk about soft power and hope to get re-elected." The defense budget affects almost all congressional constituencies in the United States; the budgets for State and USAID do not. The result is a foreign policy that rests on a defense giant and a number of pygmy departments. For example, when Gates and Clinton recently agreed to transfer an aid program from the Pentagon to the State Department, the program's budget was cut in half. And now, Foggy Bottom faces cuts across the board.
Congress needs to be serious about deficit reduction, and it also needs to be serious about foreign policy. The events of the past week suggest it is serious about neither.
