The US needs to rediscover how to be a "smart power." That was the conclusion of a bipartisan commission that I recently co-chaired with Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration.
The Smart Power Commission, convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, comprised Republican and Democratic members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military officers and heads of non-profit organizations.
We concluded that the image and influence of the US had declined in recent years, and that it must move from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope.
We are not alone. Recently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for the US government to commit more money and effort to "soft power," including diplomacy, economic assistance and communications, because the military alone cannot defend US interests around the world.
Gates pointed out that military spending totals nearly a half-trillion dollars annually, compared with the State Department's budget of US$36 billion. He acknowledged that for the head of the Pentagon to plead for more resources for the State Department was odd, but these are not normal times.
Smart power is the ability to combine the hard power of coercion or payment with the soft power of attraction into a successful strategy. By and large, the US managed such a combination during the Cold War; more recently, however, US foreign policy has tended to over-rely on hard power because it is the most direct and visible source of national strength.
But while the Pentagon is the best-trained and best-resourced arm of the government, there are limits to what hard power can achieve on its own. Democracy, human rights and the development of civil society do not come from the barrel of a gun. True, the US military has impressive operational capacity, but turning to the Pentagon because it can get things done creates an image of an over-militarized foreign policy.
Diplomacy and foreign assistance are often under-funded and neglected, in part because it is difficult to demonstrate their short-term impact on critical challenges. In addition, wielding soft power is difficult because many of the US' soft power resources lie outside of government in the private sector and civil society, in its bilateral alliances, multilateral institutions, and in transnational contacts.
Moreover, US foreign policy institutions and personnel are fractured and compartmentalized, and there is no adequate inter-agency process for developing and funding a smart power strategy.
The effects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have also thrown us off course. Since the shock of those attacks, the US has been exporting fear and anger rather than the country's more traditional values of hope and optimism. Guantanamo Bay has become a more powerful global icon than the Statue of Liberty.
The Smart Power Commission acknowledged that terrorism is a real threat and likely to be with us for decades, but pointed out that over-responding to extremists' provocations does more damage to the US than terrorists ever could. Success in the struggle against terrorism means finding a new central premise for US foreign policy to replace the current theme of the "war on terror."
That premise should be a commitment to invest in the provision of public goods that people and governments worldwide want but cannot attain without US leadership. By doing so, the US could rebuild the framework that it needs to address tough global challenges.
Specifically, the Smart Power Commission recommended that US foreign policy focus on five critical areas:
* Restoring alliances, partnerships and multilateral institutions, many of which have fallen into disarray in recent years owing to unilateral approaches.
* Elevating the role of economic development to help align US interests with those of people around the world, starting with a major initiative on global public health.
* Investment in a public diplomacy that focuses less on broadcasting and more on face-to-face contacts, education and exchanges that involve civil society and target young people.
* Resisting protectionism and promoting continued engagement in the global economy, which is necessary for growth and prosperity at home and abroad, while seeking inclusion for those left behind by changes that an open international economy implies.
* Shaping a global consensus and developing innovative technologies to meet the increasingly important global challenges of energy security and climate change.
Implementing such a strategy will require a strategic reassessment of how the US government is organized, coordinated and budgeted. The next president should consider a number of creative solutions to maximize the administration's ability to organize for success, including the appointment of senior personnel who could reach across agencies to better align resources.
This will require innovation, but the US has been a smart power in the past, and it can become so again.
Joseph Nye teaches at Harvard University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
RSS