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
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS