Obama's Foreign Policies Must Combine Hard and Soft Power

President Obama faces a dilemma in foreign policy. On the one hand, he will inherit a legacy he cannot ignore: an economic crisis, two wars, a struggle against terrorism, and a set of problems in the Middle East among others. If he fails to fight these fires successfully, they will consume his political capital. On the other hand, if all he does is fight fires, he inherits Bush's priorities.

Beyond dealing with urgent trouble spots, a key priority for Barack Obama will be to set his own tone that helps to educate the public at home and abroad. The "Bush Doctrine" of preventive war and coercive democratization, coupled with a unilateralist style, was based on a flawed analysis of power in today's world. The paradox of American power is that the strongest country since the days of Rome cannot achieve its objectives acting alone.

Obama's election itself has done a great deal to restore American soft power, but he will need to follow up with policies that combine hard and soft power into a smart strategy of the sort that won the Cold War. Democracy promotion is best accomplished by soft attraction rather than hard coercion, and it takes time and patience. Here he should lead by example and remember the historical wisdom of being Reagan's "shining city on a hill." Closing Guantanamo, while it raises tough questions about the future of some detainees, will give such a signal. As for democracy promotion, it is in our cultural genes. The United States should always encourage the gradual evolution of democracy but in a manner that accepts the reality of diversity. Right now, Bush's calls for democracy are heard as an imperial imposition of American institutions. We need less Wilsonian rhetoric about making the world safe for democracy, unless combined with John F. Kennedy's calls to "make the world safe for diversity."

Obama should go beyond the false dualism of liberal vs. realist. American leadership remains crucial. A "liberal realist" policy should look to the long term evolution of world order and realize the responsibility of the largest country in the international system to produce global public or common goods as Britain did in the 19th century. As the largest country of the 21st century, the United States should similarly promote an open international economy and commons (seas, space, internet), mediate international disputes before they escalate, and develop international rules and institutions. Early signaling that the U.S. will take the lead in dealing with global climate change will be an important start.

The United States can become a smart power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of leadership by the largest country. That means support for international institutions, aligning our country with international development, promoting public health, increasing interactions of our civil society with others, maintaining an open international economy, and dealing seriously with climate change. President Obama cannot afford to fumble any of the hot potatoes he inherits from Bush, but showing that America is back in the business of exporting hope rather than fear must be a top priority.

Joseph S. Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard. His latest book is The Powers to Lead.

Comments

[Brandon99]

You know, 22 comments and not one mention of the idealist position. Wasn't the dichotomy always realist vs idealist?

[pokemon]

Never been so interested in chess in my life, cannot wait to watch this unfold over 8 years.

[Warthog]

I am fervently hoping that O has read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. To paraphrase: You win battles by gaining territory, you win wars by gaining the hearts and minds of the people. Sun Tzu went into great detail about combining military might with diplomacy and that the two must be integral for anything lasting to be accomplished.

[Flywheel]

@MBadragan

To flesh out what I mean about the powers of gatekeepers in distinction from hard and soft power, consider Nye's proposal that Obama initiate greater US investment in global public goods.

When the US government (or any agent) invests monetary resources and provides technical assistance to those in great need, it demonstrates its gatekeeping power to deploy those resources. The effect of the spending might *consequently* increase the US reputation (akin to "soft power") among observers, but the act of investment would not count as a use of that reputation.

In Nye's view, however, the typical aid package (or investment in say, an environmental regime infrastructure) wouldn't count as hard power either. For this reason I think his categories are too fuzzy to serve as robust analytical tools.

Of course, the metaphor of "soft power" serves a purpose. Suppose you think, as I do, that providing aid to needy nations and building up public goods are sensible policies when designed to move us toward the more humane kind of world in which we want to live. Unfortunately, there are many greedy selfish people (including lots of power mad brutes and quite a few Republicans) who don't want to spend money that way. But if we pose the investment in the context of power (promising a fuzzy way of both acquiring it and displaying it), perhaps they'll find the idea far more attractive.

So the rhetoric of soft power is itself an example of soft power.

[MBadragan]

@Flywheel

First, I have to aknowledge that I might be in error regarding the big picture of Mr. Nye’s theories. I am far away from USA and not its citizen and, consequently, only aware of his positions I could read about on this blog and in some articles that were published in Romanian newspapers. So, I will stick to “as far as I understood”.

Being a metaphor, I guess I gave to “soft power” a meaning of my own. If the distinction is clear: hard equal military action and financial/political constraints and soft equal talk, talk, talk then I do not agree with it. Moreover, I do not see the two forms of power as completely independent variables. A clever and efficient military action may bring so much prestige that can be considered, in my views, soft power. Because it was clever, efficient and went behind the thin ice of evidence. The same for the use of the soft. If USA could convince Iraquian people that Saddam is a criminal and they can and have to get rid of him, without firing an American bullet, the result could also count as hard power.

(To continue in the next comment)

[MBadragan]

(Continuation of the previous comment)
If you ask me about the definition I would give to soft and hard power, I would say that hard power is the one you apply through methods that take more into consideration your own targets (standing, security, wealth) and the soft power is the one where you include your opponent’s same targets in the strategy.

Where I do not agree with you is that his “power theory” should be regarded as a robust analytical tool. It is more a strategy tool. And strategies are always, agree here with you, fuzzy.

[Bonobo]

The basis of our foreign policy should be human welfare. If there is no freedom from poverty and ill health, other freedoms fail. A democratic form of government does not automatically generate these basics, and often even works against them, particularly when there is a lack of education, large population to resource ratios, runaway environmental exploitation, or gross wealth inequities. The Neocons demonstrated dramatically in Iraq the insufficiency of democratic forms, but the world is littered with examples of such failure, from Pakistan to Haiti to Palestine to Russia. Democracy is meaningful only insofar as it improves the human condition, and should not be a goal in and of itself.

A particular caution should be that Global Heating will render any other gains moot. Carbon control is absolutely urgent, and Al Gore, or someone similar, would have been a far better pick for Secretary of State.

[Figerre]

I have listened for 30 years about the UN needing some revions - well fine. But the US hasn't been paying its dues, and under Bush did what it wanted. Until the US pays up his arrears and keeps stead with its dues, the UN will remain a lame duck. I don't have all the answers about what needs to be fixed with the UN, and I have my doubts about the 'security council' but nonetheless, it is what it is. If the International Court system can function - another thing we didn't buy into- than the UN can as well. Let's show some respect for what they HAVE accomplished and make it better. I think Susan Rice is of that mind and I hope, given time, the UN will regain its stature and run much better as an international forum for problems that also provide solutions.

By doing so, America can show that it is a part of the international community, rather than the privileged ONE.

[edva]

America has become the Enemy because of our wholesale identification with what we choose to call "free market capitalism", identified most exactly by our military-industrial complex, our petro-based foreign policy, and our global imperialist exploitation, with an irresponsible and immoral disregard for the consequences to present and future generations, and to all Life on this crowded planet.

Obama's election represents an intrinsic awareness that we are on the wrong track, and that we MUST change our behavior, if we are to survive and prosper.

So, the current tactics, institutions, and goals are in effect a blueprint of what NOT to do.
EVERYTHING must be done differently. That is our only realistic hope for a better world.

[MThomasNC]

Mr. Nye, thanks for your input. One thing for sure, the mere fact that we elected Obama tells the world that we are ready for multi-lateralism again. We want change. We will not force our will at the barrel of a gun. UN Ambassor nominee Rice is another example of the change that will be coming our way. It's time for this country to be govern by thoughtful, educated, progressive realists again and I might add a big dose of pragmatism that Obama is showing too.

[MBadragan]

(Continuation of the previous comment)
Now, on the other hand, you say the goal of the presidency is " to act in ways and structure the circumstances so that the meta-interests of all can be advanced simultaneously". The problem is that throughout the history we experienced accumulations of errors leading to dead-ends. A good leader should try not only to fulfill his subjects' needs but also to oversee the long term result of the fulfillment of their needs. And, if he detects wrong directions, to use soft power to convince the people to do or want diferently.
And, to finalize, what really triggered this answer, your last paragraph stupefied me. Should I understand that the failure of soft power is sure only because it is difficult and it takes long time? If we do not have time and patience to listen to the others we should simply force them to do what we want? But this is exactly what happens in Irak. We do not understand them. Not enough to have an image of what they want, to say nothing about how much we understand to be able to explain to them in their language and concepts what we bring and why this is good, even better.
A scientist should know that if an experiment fails repeatedly then either the theory it was based on or the method is wrong.

[anninroosevelt]

MBadragan, I am not anyone's "subject." I did not vote for Obama as my "ruler" but as a (hopefully) wise leader who will galvanize many of us to contribute to changing our country's focus and behavior.

[MBadragan]

@anninroosevelt

Sorry if you took it in the traditional meaning, king/subject. I only meant that you and USA are the subjects of his job. Obviously, his subject is not designing rockets.

So, sorry again if I hurt feelings. It was without intention and caused by my poor handling of your language.

[MBadragan]

@Flywheel
As far as I understood from various works of Mr. Nye the distinction you made, gatekeeping equal hard power, guiding equal softpower, is not present there. The point is to balance the hard/soft ratio in all the aspects. Gatekeeping in a soft way can also be effective. Even more effective, true, when it comes for guiding. Moreover, USA was not a "soft" peer in the last 8 years.
And when it comes for the costs, I do not recall him saying soft power is cheap. It is only cheaper than hard power.
Seen from the distance, USA did not stop to act like guardians, guides and peers. USA only failed to be efficient while being these. It lost reputation because it acted too rigid and too sure of itself, too "hard".
(To continue in the next comment)

[Flywheel]

(Continued from my prior comment)
Gatekeeping generally corresponds to Nye's idea of classic hard power, but it also accounts for the deployment of economic resources and the kinds of actions that bring about immediate changes in physical reality or the official social status of other agents.

Acting as a guide generally lines up with Nye's concept of soft power, except that Nye often talks about soft-power as if it can be nearly cost free (especially in relation to hard power). In fact, a reputation can be very costly to maintain since the agent becomes obliged to act in congruence with that reputation.

Finally, to act as peer means recognizing that we are not alone, that we act within a world of intersubjective agents, and that we need to collaborate with allies if we hope to get ahead. That introduces other costs, such as sticking to contracts, compromising, and putting some effort into understanding to the needs and wants of others.

The virtue of Nye’s argument is to point out that what he calls “hard power” will not always get us very far, and that excessive reliance on it can be counterproductive. But his celebration of “soft power” fuzzes over how much effort we need to spend on making our values intelligible to others (and even to ourselves), presuming we honestly intend to offer some kind of authentic guidance and moral leadership in the world.

[Flywheel]

Yes, we should be as good as we say we are. Reputation counts. But I would like to add that Dr. Nye's hard/soft dichotomy strikes me as an overly simplistic approach to power. It makes for a nice sound byte, and may help underscore the importance of reputation, but it obscures what I deem to be a critical link between power and interest.

It is the duty of the President to calculate and advance the national interest. All nation-states, like all people, share three distinct forms of meta-interest... standing, security, and wealth (the pedigree for that formulation traces from Thucydides through Hobbes, and up to Onuf).

The challenge for a smart person, as for a smart President, is to act in ways and structure the circumstances so that the meta-interests of all can be advanced simultaneously. That is, to act so that more signs of respect for freedom on my part leads to more signs of respect for freedom among others. So that more security for my neighbor means more for me. So that a rising tide really does lift all boats, etc.

In correlation with those meta-interests, we may act as guides, gatekeepers, or peers.
(Continued in another response due to length limits)

[lawyerboyd]

Being a sometimes writer myself - guess all us posters are by definition - I would throw out the word 'liberal' just 'cause it's been tainted - not unlike the word "God" has been tainted, though through different means. I would use the word "progressive" which as far as I can tell carries none of the baggage of "liberal" and me thinks does a better job, nonetheless, is describing at least what I consider myself to be - as well as any one word can do.

As far as 'realist', I guess that's an ok phrase, though to me a 'progressive' is by definition a 'realist' who understands or at least tries to understand not just what he or she wants to get accomplished, but the overall climate within which it is happening - the context. It's really not that complicated from a conceptual point of view.

[Bluebayou101]

I like the term "liberal realist" in your article as I think that the Obama administration's approach will be to find a pragmatic path towards liberal goals. I'm not sure that the combination of the two terms constitute some sort of Hegelian synthesis, though.

I don't think that 19th century Britain is an appropriate model for what we need in the 21st century. A lot of countries today harbor a suspicion towards the West precisely because of their memories of British Colonialism. And Britain's Opium Wars against China were a major reason for their period of isolationism and continuing distrust of the West.

The use of the term "power" has a negative connotation. It implies the sort of arrogance that the Athenians had at the start of the Peloponnesian War, which has some parallels to the way we have been behaving, especially in the last eight years. Maybe a better term is "influence". Or "leadership", which you use in your concluding paragraphs.

I hope the vision laid out in your concluding paragraphs is realized. But the problem might be that the American hegemony has ended.

[bluescat47]

Liberal realism is an appropriate description, the former accentuating the need to promote multilateral institutions, global coordination on nuclear non-proliferation, global warming, trade, and other issues, and a rule-based system to replace the destructive unilateralism of the Bush Administration. At the same time, realism suggests the necessity to use force in measured doses if circumstances warrant, to protect American allies and the U.S. homeland. But we cannot, like the Bush Administration, attempt to midwive democracy with cruise missiles and cherry pick international law and the Geneva Convention for self-interested purposes.
But all of this depends on our manufacturing and technological base. We cannot sustain the continued trade deficits (especially with China) and continue to borrow abroad and have sovereign wealth funds (China, Saudi Arabia,etc) provide for our prosperity. And the U.S. can ill afford to lose entire manufacturing sectors – such as autos and auto parts, which alone constitute 22% of all NAFTA trade. Neither multilateral diplomacy nor force projection will be possible unless the economic and trade issues are first resolved. Unfortunately, the latter issues received little attention during the campaign.