Obama’s America, a Smart Power?

Professor of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies and Director of the Asia bureau of IRIS (Institute for International Research and Strategy), Barthelemy Courmont makes a point about the redefinition of American foreign policy by Obama: the end of Bush’s hard power, but also the refusal of a return to Clinton’s soft power. The concept in vogue falls more under smart power: America, the smart power?

Eight years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and following Barack Obama’s arrival at the White House, the United States is engaged in a vast redefinition of their foreign policies. If the battle against international terrorism remains a security priority, today America feels less threatened and turns towards new objectives, combining ambition and realism.

Between smart power and responsibility, the new administration intends to lead American foreign policy on a new course, but with what objectives, and especially, what possible results?

What is Smart Power?

Smart power is the new term that describes the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The concept was first developed by Joseph Nye, already the originator of soft power, and introduced by Hillary Clinton on several occasions during American involvement on the international scene. In substance, smart power proposes to reconcile hard power tools (military power, economy) and soft power tools (diplomacy, culture, ability to influence) in order to propose a foreign policy that is coherent, acceptable, and capable of being implemented. A break with the hard power from the Bush years, but also the refusal of a return to the Clinton year, and a soft power pushed to the extreme, and to sometimes questionable effect. Smart power is a compromise between the need to propose a foreign policy that is firm on matters such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, but at the same time open to cooperation and to listening to requests from Washington’s allies as well as its potential adversaries. Smart power is thus, above all, the mark of realism back in foreign policy.

What Responsibility?

Other slogans a la mode, Washington’s responsibility on the international scene consists of not rejecting its own obligations as the foremost global power. Barack Obama believes that, instead of withdrawing, and without favoring too marked of a commitment, the United States must remain the essential power, present on major international matters, but at the same time acting in concert with its allies and other strong powers. A global policeman refusing unilateralism.

It is above all responsible for multilateralism and the expectations of public opinion, American and international, which do not wish to see Washington withdraw and give in to the temptation towards isolationism. Among the very strong movements of this desire to give a sense of responsibility to foreign policy are the nominations of Special Envoys Mitchell to the Middle East, Holbrooke to central Asia, or even Bosworth to North Korea, but also Washington’s undertakings in favor of global regulations for the economic crisis, and more marked attention towards what is at stake with global warming or the environment.