Smart power under threat

It was supposed to be a policy shift which would move the US away from the over-militarization of its foreign engagements and into a new era of diplomacy. Nothing, however, seems immune to the drastic slashing of departmental budgets in Washington - not even President Barack Obama's concept of "smart power," an idea which was designed to enhance America's global standing.

Despite increasingly impassioned calls from senior US officials who believe that the influence and impact the US has on the world has been damaged and diminished by its reliance on "hard power," foreign policy spending at the heart of "smart power" tools such as development aid, financial support for fragile governments, disaster response and even contributions to the United Nations is at risk.

Obama, along with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, has argued that the US can only guarantee its long-term security by combating the root causes of instability around the globe, including poverty.

But after striking a deficit-cutting deal with Congress designed to save $917 billion (669 billion euros) in total, Obama has already seen $8 billion cut from his proposed $55.1 billion budget for the State Department and economic and humanitarian assistance agency USAID this year.

Some officials suggest that the State Department and USAID could see operating budgets cut by as much as 35 percent.

Supporters of the cuts say that the US has for too long measured its foreign policy successes by the size of the check it has written and that it's time prioritize with more cost-effective models which have a quick impact while furthering US national security.

The massive cuts could have a crippling effect on "smart power" initiatives such as the Economic Support Fund, which helps stabilize fragile foreign governments, the "Feed the Future" program - Obama's initiative for fighting global hunger, and US contributions to the United Nations and international organizations which could compromise UN peacekeeping missions and the operations of the World Food Program.

"The US is going to need to think more clearly about which tools can be most effective under which circumstances to effect what change," Xenia Dormandy, a US policy expert at Chatham House, told Deutsche Welle.

Drop in funding

Given the desire of advocates of the cuts to down-size foreign operations and concentrate on those with a US national security angle, the decision to reduce financial support to fragile governments from the Middle East to South Asia appears counter-intuitive.

Some of the nations benefiting from Economic Support Fund support, such as Yemen and Afghanistan, rely on the US to shore up governments facing internal and external threats which in turn threaten global security.

However, the State Department may get a financial lifeline from a new $8 billion contingency fund for operations in frontline countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, revenue from which could be diverted to ease the strain on areas most drastically affected by the shortfall in funding relating to these fragile countries.

The US is also more likely to look for new, more reliable and financially viable partnerships to deal with its commitments around the world as the cuts take effect.

"The US will certainly prioritize in its engagements around the world and will be less interested in its traditional partnerships," Dr. Josef Braml, a US foreign Policy expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, told Deutsche Welle.

"We will see the US shift away from Europe, as the Europeans can’t really offer that much themselves, it will look to share the burden of global involvement with expanded and globalized relationships with Asian powers and countries like Australia."

Down-sizing development aid

When it comes to tackling the poverty that Hillary Clinton highlighted as one of the main causes of instability, the US will find that it will be handing out aid with one hand tied behind its back.

Obama's "Feed the Future" program stands to lose 29 percent of its $580 million budget for 2011 at a time when East Africa is suffering its worst famine in decades with over 12 million people in danger in Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

There is a concern among many at the State Department and among Obama loyalists that the slashing of "smart power" funding may force the United States to again rely on "hard power" military might to exert its influence in the world.

There are fears that Congress may prioritize and protect defense spending - which, at $688.6 billion for 2011, dwarfs the foreign policy budget - by making cuts everywhere except at the Pentagon.

Military muscle

Professor Chris Brown, a US foreign policy expert at the London School of Economics, believes that it is unlikely that an increase in military might will come as a consequence of reduced funding for diplomatic efforts.

"I doubt that military power will become more important than 'soft power' as a result of these cuts, because the military will also be taking very heavy hits," he told Deutsche Welle. "I suspect the big story will be the way in which the US will be looking to slim down its engagement with the rest of the world in all areas; witness the so-called leading from behind in the Libyan case."

With the cuts contributing to a scaling back of Washington's interaction with parts of the world, there are concerns that the US role in global politics will be detrimentally affected.

"The US already has a credibility problem, especially in the Middle East where there is a lot of confusion over what exactly its foreign policy is," said Braml.

"Should it be forced to choose and engage more sparingly in global affairs, we could see many allies looking for alternative partners. Russia and China are already being considered as alternatives to the US by some."

Author: Nick Amies

Editor: Rob Mudge