Obama Walks a Tightrope
According to a U.S. State Department official, the concept of “smart" power – the intelligent integration and interconnection of diplomacy, defense and development, along with other tools of so-called “hard” and "soft” power – is at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy vision.
Now, however, the Obama administration’s strategy finds itself confronting a difficult challenge in the Middle East.
If the Obama administration does not support the governments of Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, it could jeopardize important foreign policy objectives, such as peace in the Middle East, a naval base in the Persian Gulf, the stability of the oil markets or cooperation against Al Qaeda terrorists.
On the other hand, if it does provide support to these governments, it could anger civil society in these countries
that today rely on the power of information, thereby jeopardizing stability over the long term.
Succeeding in balancing "hard" power relationships with governments and supporting democracy with "soft" power is similar to walking a tightrope. The Obama administration has faltered in this balancing act, and it has not gone unnoticed.
Though the Obama administration uses the term “smart" power, some believe it only refers to the U.S., and critics complain that it is just a slogan, like “tough love,” used to make American foreign policy more palatable.
But that strategy is, in no way, limited to the U.S. Combining "hard" and "soft" power is a difficult task for many states, but that does not make it optional.
In fact, some small states have proven to be extremely adept with such a strategy. Singapore invests what is necessary in its military defense program to look as indigestible as a “poisonous prawn” to those neighbors it wishes to discourage.
At the same time, it combines this "hard" power strategy with the appeal of "smart" power initiatives at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, such as using universities as centers of regional activity.
Similarly, Switzerland has long used national military service and a mountainous geography as strategies of "hard" power in the interest of deterrence, while at the same time presenting itself as an attractive country with its banks and cultural networks.
Historically, many rising states have deployed "smart" power strategies in successful ways. In its first decades, Communist China constructed its military power, and simultaneously utilized "soft" power in the form of its revolutionary Maoist doctrine and its purported solidarity with the Third World to encourage international allies.
But when Maoist strategy was exhausted in the 1970s, Chinese leaders turned to the mechanisms of the market to encourage economic growth.
Deng Xiaoping warned his compatriots to avoid external ventures that may endanger internal development. But in 2007, President Hu Jintao proclaimed the importance of investing in Chinese "soft" power.
Given the rising economic and military power of China, it was an intelligent decision.
To accompany its increasing "hard" power with efforts to appear more attractive, China set out to calm the fears of its neighbors and their moves to balance Chinese power.
In 2009, China felt well-deserved pride for its success in navigating the global recession, emerging with a higher rate of economic growth than any other country. But many Chinese erroneously came to the conclusion that this represented a shift in the global power balance, and that the United States was in decline.
Such misreadings have more than once result in conflict. In fact, an excess of confidence when evaluating its power led to a more authoritarian foreign policy by China in the latter part of 2009 and in 2010.
China made a mistake by diverting from a strategy of "smart" power and violating Deng’s doctrine that China should proceed
with caution and “carefully maintain a low profile.”
After Chinese leaders were confronted with international criticism and deteriorating relations with the U.S., Japan and other countries, they opted to return to Deng’s "smart" power strategy.
Thus, while the Obama administration fights to implement its "smart" power strategy in the face of the current unrest in the Middle East, it is worth noting that the U.S. is not the only country that has faced difficulties in successfully combining "hard" and "soft" power.
"Smart" power is a key strategy for success in global politics, but no one ever said it would be easy.
Now, however, the Obama administration’s strategy finds itself confronting a difficult challenge in the Middle East.
If the Obama administration does not support the governments of Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, it could jeopardize important foreign policy objectives, such as peace in the Middle East, a naval base in the Persian Gulf, the stability of the oil markets or cooperation against Al Qaeda terrorists.
On the other hand, if it does provide support to these governments, it could anger civil society in these countries
that today rely on the power of information, thereby jeopardizing stability over the long term.
Succeeding in balancing "hard" power relationships with governments and supporting democracy with "soft" power is similar to walking a tightrope. The Obama administration has faltered in this balancing act, and it has not gone unnoticed.
Though the Obama administration uses the term “smart" power, some believe it only refers to the U.S., and critics complain that it is just a slogan, like “tough love,” used to make American foreign policy more palatable.
But that strategy is, in no way, limited to the U.S. Combining "hard" and "soft" power is a difficult task for many states, but that does not make it optional.
In fact, some small states have proven to be extremely adept with such a strategy. Singapore invests what is necessary in its military defense program to look as indigestible as a “poisonous prawn” to those neighbors it wishes to discourage.
At the same time, it combines this "hard" power strategy with the appeal of "smart" power initiatives at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, such as using universities as centers of regional activity.
Similarly, Switzerland has long used national military service and a mountainous geography as strategies of "hard" power in the interest of deterrence, while at the same time presenting itself as an attractive country with its banks and cultural networks.
Historically, many rising states have deployed "smart" power strategies in successful ways. In its first decades, Communist China constructed its military power, and simultaneously utilized "soft" power in the form of its revolutionary Maoist doctrine and its purported solidarity with the Third World to encourage international allies.
But when Maoist strategy was exhausted in the 1970s, Chinese leaders turned to the mechanisms of the market to encourage economic growth.
Deng Xiaoping warned his compatriots to avoid external ventures that may endanger internal development. But in 2007, President Hu Jintao proclaimed the importance of investing in Chinese "soft" power.
Given the rising economic and military power of China, it was an intelligent decision.
To accompany its increasing "hard" power with efforts to appear more attractive, China set out to calm the fears of its neighbors and their moves to balance Chinese power.
In 2009, China felt well-deserved pride for its success in navigating the global recession, emerging with a higher rate of economic growth than any other country. But many Chinese erroneously came to the conclusion that this represented a shift in the global power balance, and that the United States was in decline.
Such misreadings have more than once result in conflict. In fact, an excess of confidence when evaluating its power led to a more authoritarian foreign policy by China in the latter part of 2009 and in 2010.
China made a mistake by diverting from a strategy of "smart" power and violating Deng’s doctrine that China should proceed
with caution and “carefully maintain a low profile.”
After Chinese leaders were confronted with international criticism and deteriorating relations with the U.S., Japan and other countries, they opted to return to Deng’s "smart" power strategy.
Thus, while the Obama administration fights to implement its "smart" power strategy in the face of the current unrest in the Middle East, it is worth noting that the U.S. is not the only country that has faced difficulties in successfully combining "hard" and "soft" power.
"Smart" power is a key strategy for success in global politics, but no one ever said it would be easy.