메인메뉴 바로가기본문으로 바로가기
네이버 공유 카카오 공유 트위터 공유 페이스북 공유

Smart Power and the ‘War on Terror’

American foreign policy has focused around a “global war on terrorism” since President Bush used the phrase in a prayer meeting to pay condolences to the 9/11 victims. The words “war on terrorism” the Bush Administration has used, however, has serious problems. It has been criticized so far that the term “war” not only reinforces Al Qaeda’s narrative but also help their recruiting efforts to make a more number of Muslims participate in “jihad (holy war).” Although the phrase “war on terrorism” was helpful in rallying popular support in the first phase of the struggle against terrorism, it is not good enough any longer as the struggle has become prolonged. Therefore, “war on terrorism” cannot be the main theme of the next president’s foreign policy.

Bush’s Legacy
Some pundits believe that no matter who wins the 2008 election, he or she will be bound to follow Bush’s foreign policy strategy. Vice President Richard Cheney has argued the foreign policy of the Bush Administration would be seen as policy to liberate people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and effectively cope with the terrorist threat. President Bush has pointed out that President Truman suffered low ratings in the last year of his presidency because of the Korean War, but was later reevaluated as president who went into the war to protect democracy. But this is an over-simplification of history. It is overlooked that President Truman had built major cooperative institutions such as the Marshall Plan and NATO during his presidency.
The crisis of September 11, 2001 produced an opportunity for President George W. Bush to express a bold new vision of foreign policy, but one should judge a vision by whether it balances ideals with capabilities. Anyone can produce a wish list, but effective visions combine feasibility with the inspiration. Among past presidents, Franklin Roosevelt was good at this, but Woodrow Wilson was not although he suggested a new ideal, League of Nations, but could not fully realize it because he failed to get domestic consent. President Roosevelt taken as a model by President Bush was more patient than President Bush, informing the people about the changes and choices the nation faced, cultivating public opinion, building up a sturdy foundation of support for policy he wanted to implement.

Advice to Next President ­- Contextual Intelligence
First of all, the next president will need what I call “contextual intelligence” in my new book, 「The Powers to Lead」. In foreign policy, contextual intelligence is the intuitive diagnostic skill that helps you align tactics with ives to smart strategies in varying situations. It starts with a clear understanding of the current context of American foreign policy.
Many foreign policy experts have often been mistaken about America’s position in the world. The conventional wisdom two decades ago was that the United States was in decline, suffering from “imperial overstretch,” but with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. became a sole superpower with hegemony. Such “new unilateralism” heavily influenced the Bush Administration even before the shock of the attacks on September 11, 2001 produced a Bush Doctrine. This new unilateralism was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of power in world politics. Power is the ability to get the outcomes one wants. In the past, it was assumed that military power dominated most issues but in today’s world, the contexts of power differ greatly on military, economic and transnational issues.
Contextual intelligence must start with an understanding of the strength and limits of American power. We are the only superpower, but preponderance is not empire or hegemony. The context of world politics is three dimensional: unipolar military power, multipolar economic relations, and chaotically distributed transnational relations (such as climate change, illegal drugs, pandemics, and terrorism). Military power is a small part of the solution in responding to these new threats.
Second, the next president must understand the importance of developing an integrated grand strategy that combines hard military power with soft attractive power. If the misuse of hard power s more new terrorists, we will lose the struggle against terrorism. Right now many official instruments of soft power, such as public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, and disaster relief, are scattered around the government.
A third aspect of contextual intelligence for the next president will be recognition of the growing importance of Asia. Bush’s theme of a “war on terrorism” has led to an excessive focus on the Middle East. We will need to spend enough attention on the rise of China and India. A century ago, Britain managed the rise of American power without conflict, but the world’s failure to manage the rise of German power led to two world wars. In this regard, the democratic and economic development of South Korea offers a promising prospect for Asia’s future.

Soft and Hard Power
The Bush Administration had drawn analogies between the war on terrorism and the Cold War. The president is correct that this will be a long struggle. But it has been neglected that we won the Cold War by a smart combination of our hard coercive power and the soft attractive power of our ideas. The Socialist system collapsed from within, not from the outside. We cannot win if the number of people the extremists are recruiting is larger than the number we are killing and deterring. The Bush Administration is beginning to understand this, but it does not seem to know how to implement such a strategy.
In the information age, success is not merely whose army wins, but also whose story wins. Terrorism will not come to an end unless the Muslim mainstream wins over the extremist minority. We need the soft power of attraction to win the hearts and minds of the majority. However, we are not winning in this regard. Despite these failures, there has been little political debate about the squandering of American soft power. It has taken hold in academic analysis and in other places like Europe, China and India. It is because post 9/11 emotions left little room for anything described as “soft” in the United States. But the good news from the 2006 Congressional election is that the pendulum may be swinging back to the middle. Of course soft power is not the solution to all problems. We may need hard military power after all to deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il or Al Qaeda.

Smart Power
The U.S. needs to rediscover how to be a “smart power.” That was the conclusion of the Smart Power Commission and also of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Smart power is “the ability to combine hard power with soft power.” Recently U.S. foreign policy has tended to over-rely on hard power. Diplomacy and foreign assistance to build soft power are often under-funded and neglected, in part because of the difficulty of demonstrating their short term impact. In addition, wielding soft power is difficult because many of soft power resources lie outside of government in the private sector and civil society.
The effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have also played an important role in making the U.S. government heavily rely on hard power. Since the shock of 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than hope and optimism. The United States should become a smart power by investing in the global public goods. Implementing a smart strategy will require a strategic reassessment of how the U.S. government is organized, coordinated, and budgeted. It is time for the United States to once again export hope rather than fear, and that must be the agenda of the next president.

The Smart Power Commission recommended that American foreign policy should focus on the following five critical areas :

- Restoration of alliances, partnerships and multilateral institutions
- Global development
- Public diplomacy
- Economic integration
- Energy security and climate change

SEARCH

통합검색

통합검색버튼
통합검색닫기

전체메뉴

전체메뉴 닫기