/ Articles&Interviews
Smart Power: Revolution in Foreign Policy Decision-Making in Response to Modern Threats
The 21st century has been the cradle of shifting the formal theories of politics, with a new actor in the field: transnational terrorist threats. The reaction to this, namely the foreign policy of the previous administration of the USA, has shown that American values are diminished by the misapplication of liberal tenets into a militaristic unilateralism. I will argue in this paper that the use of smart power is the only viable tool in fighting the ‘unknown’ variable called terrorism. Smart power, as coined by Nossel, is a synthesis of hard and soft powers, engaging all possible tools available on the floor, with trade, diplomacy, aid, spread of liberal values and military power perceived equal in their efficiency but varying in application to specific contexts. In building my assumption, I will tackle in depth two main arguments within Nossel’s article: the reinvention of liberal institutionalism as a conflict resolution mechanism and the need for collective action (i.e. community of power) and spread of liberal regimes in dealing with the new global menace.
The new century seems to urge and at the same time provide a historic opportunity for the progressives to reinvent liberal institutionalism. With the end of the Cold War powers and the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower, the terrorist threats after 9/11, the nuclear proliferation, and the militaristic skepticism of the public, it clearly seems that alternatives to foreign policy are not only welcomed, but even needed. Historically seen, after a certain crisis, liberal institutionalism has been the force that has pushed world politics away from destruction. Be it Wilson, Truman, or Kennedy, all of them have proved that only with smart use of all available tools can one portray themselves as willing to be part of the change.
The central role of the U.S. has never been threatened by liberal tenets; rather, it has been reinforced by the perception it managed to portray within the domestic public and the international society. The usage of sole military power has lead in many instances, such as the Vietnam War or the Bush administration’s two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to loss of credibility. As Nossel underlines in her article, “[…] resort to illiberal methods of subversion and secrecy […] undercut Washington’s credibility as force for liberal change.” Through the amalgamation of free trade and economic development in addition to the militaristic solution to terrorism within the agenda of foreign policy, liberal institutionalism opens doors to the USA for cooperation with Latin America, Asia and Africa, which view the Bush administration’s antiterrorist agenda as neglectful of their needs, thus giving the U.S. the opportunity to spread its values and make friends instead of enemies.
A community of power is the other solution to building a strategy for a more efficient and less coercive foreign policy, i.e. smart power, with regard to the unseen actor in the field. After the two World Wars, both Wilson and Truman saw it as of utmost importance to build a community of power vested in the hands of an international institution which would work to fight any kind of aggression by a single state or a group of such. Liberal institutionalism, combined with a smart usage of the available tools in specific time frames and political contexts, has always been a proponent of collective action. Such a move in the modern foreign policy agenda would give the U.S. the credibility of spreading liberal values by attaching its own action to such, while leaving space for it to act as a superpower that has all the necessary equipment and training to lead that community.
I consider it quite visible that the undermining of alliances and international institutions has lead to the weakening of American credibility in the international community, especially during the Bush administration, which seems to have depleted U.S. power in its extreme. The European countries’ attachment to collective security and post-conflict resolution would be met by linking the struggles of this century to commitment in a community of power, while letting the USA take a leading role due to their lack of will to engage in such action. Pledging multilateral action would assist the U.S. in burden sharing, while at the same time, the use of retail diplomacy would allow it to build alliances within international institutions such as the UN and NATO. The last point in this argument is the building of stabilization corps, which until now has proven to be a much needed reform in American action. Without postwar stabilization and reconstruction, all military humanitarian actions are doomed to failure. This would enable the USA to implant democracy in the rogue countries, which would further be able to breed terrorists unless they are liberalized. At the end of the day, most agree that liberal democracies don’t go to war.
In conclusion, I would state that smart power is not simply a tool, but a revolution in modern foreign policy. I strongly believe that through liberal institutionalism and community of power, smart power can show its best effects due to the favorable conditions those two have set for it. The use of military power solely is not only inefficient in fighting terrorism, but it also causes the diminution in the credibility of being a pioneer of the spread of liberal values. The war against terrorism, rehabilitation of rogue states, building of long lasting alliances, human rights promotion and liberalization of repressive societies are all transformed into a single smart struggle that, in addition to providing domestic support for the American foreign policy agenda, also sets it as a champion of this modern war on the international community.
Orhan Ceka
--
