US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently spoke about the Bush administration's global war on terror. "In this war, some of the most critical battles may not be in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq, but in newsrooms in New York, London, Cairo and elsewhere. Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in the media age, but for the most part we have not."
The good news is that Rumsfeld is beginning to realize that the struggle against terrorism cannot be won by hard military power alone. The bad news is that he still does not understand soft power -- the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion. As The Economist commented about Rumsfeld's speech, "until recently he plainly regarded such a focus on soft power as, well, soft -- part of Old Europe's appeasement of terrorism."
Now Rumsfeld finally realizes the importance of winning hearts and minds, but, as The Economist magazine put it, "a good part of his speech was focused on how with slicker PR the US could win the propaganda war."
In other words, in blaming the media for the US' problems, Rumsfeld forgot the first rule of marketing: If you have a poor product, not even the best advertising will sell it.
Rumsfeld's mistrust of the European approach contains a grain of truth. Europe has used the attractiveness of its Union to obtain outcomes it wants, just as the US has acted as though its military pre-eminence could solve all problems. But it is a mistake to count too much on hard or soft power alone. The ability to combine them effectively is "smart power."
During the Cold War, the West used hard power to deter Soviet aggression, while it used soft power to erode faith in Communism behind the iron curtain. That was smart power. To be smart today, Europe should invest more in its hard-power resources, and the US should pay more attention to its soft power.
During US President George W. Bush's first term, secretary of state Colin Powell understood and referred to soft power, whereas Rumsfeld, when asked about soft power in 2003, replied "I don't know what it means."
A high price was paid for that ignorance. Fortunately, in his second term, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes at the State Department and Rumsfeld's reputation dented by failures that in the private sector would have led to his firing or resignation, Bush has shown an increased concern about the US' soft power.
Of course, soft power is no panacea. For example, soft power got nowhere in attracting the Taliban government away from its support for al-Qaeda in the 1990s. It took hard military power to sever that tie. Similarly, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il likes to watch Hollywood movies, but that is unlikely to affect his decision about whether to give up his nuclear weapons program. Such a choice will be determined by hard power, particularly if China agrees to economic sanctions. Nor will soft power be sufficient to stop Iran's nuclear program, though the legitimacy of the Bush administration's current multilateral approach may help to recruit other countries to a coalition that isolates Iran.
But other goals, such as promoting democracy and human rights, are better achieved by soft power. Coercive democratization has its limits, as the US has learned in Iraq.
This does not mean that Rumsfeld's Pentagon is irrelevant to US soft power. Military force is sometimes treated as synonymous with hard power, but the same resource can sometimes contribute to soft power. A well-run military can be a source of attraction, and military cooperation and training programs can establish transnational networks that enhance a country's soft power. The US military's impressive work in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 helped restore the US' attractiveness, and enhanced its soft power.
But the misuse of military resources can also undercut soft power. The Soviet Union possessed a great deal of soft power in the years after World War II. But the Soviets' attractiveness as liberators was destroyed by the way they later used their hard power against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Brutality and indifference to "just war" principles of discrimination and proportionality can also destroy legitimacy. The efficiency of the initial US military invasion of Iraq in 2003 created admiration in the eyes of some foreigners. But this soft power was undercut by the inefficiency of the occupation, the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and the policy -- originally initiated by Rumsfeld -- of detainment without hearings at Guantanamo.
To be sure, no one expects that we can ever attract people like Mohammed Atta or Osama bin Laden. We need hard power to deal with such cases. But today's terrorist threat is not Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations. It is a civil war within Islam between a majority of normal people and a small minority who want to coerce others into a accepting a highly ideological and politicized version of their religion. We cannot win unless the moderates win. We cannot win unless the number of people the extremists recruit is lower than the number we kill and deter.
Rumsfeld may understand this calculus in principle, but his words and actions show that he does not know how to balance the equation in practice. Doing so -- and thus being in a position to win the war -- is impossible without soft power.
Joseph Nye is Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS