Towards a Smarter Foreign Policy
The terms alone seem somewhat innocuous in isolation, but the recently released report from the CSIS Commission on “Smart Power” portends that phrase–”smart power”–as potential replacement for foreign policy theories of years past.
The report sets out a new approach to foreign policy that combines the merits of both hard and soft power (coincidentally eminent political scientist Joseph Nye of soft power fame and Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, headlined the Commission). [Paraphrasing here,] they outline the following as the key components to exercising “smart power”:
- Increase policy emphasis on “alliances, partnerships, and institutions”
- Fund more devotedly global development, with particular emphasis on public health
- Improve public diplomacy–especially youth–initiatives
- Further international economic integration (and extend benefits of trade to all)
- Advance technological innovation to fight issues of climate change and energy dependence
Ambitious, and convenient. As the Commission admits in its introduction, they do not intend to tackle the issue of Iraq, but instead to lay out a broader suggestion for the next Administration or even the current, should they be interested. While some would consider Iraq as the most complex and pressing issues facing the next Administration, the group thought it either too controversial or difficult to take up in their proposal.
The public relations campaign that CSIS unleashed has extended to quite a range of media, and therefore comment, in both the blogosphere and in print. Just yesterday the Financial Times gave a luke-warm review of the concept in an editorial, prompting international affairs contributor and blogger Gideon Rachman to point out that a reevaluation of the funding for the diplomacy initiatives might be in order indeed:
The State Department’s budget is $10 billion a year. The Department of Defence’s annual budget is $460 billion - plus, at the moment, a further $200 billion a year for the Iraqi and Afghan wars. The entire State Department costs less to maintain than just one of the US’s eight carrier battle groups.
Earlier this month at Government Executive Greg Grant looked at the implications such a plan would have on the organization of the federal government (which are extensive), and there’s plenty more commentary at FP’s Passport or at the Commission’s own blog, csissmartpower.org.
The lexicon was crafted quite wittily (who wouldn’t want to be have power or intelligence, or both, associated with them?). As the campaigns progress, we can expect to hear more of the “smart power” theory: it’s easy to say and easy to advocate. In the end, the concept has influenced the dialogue and given some academic/think tank credence to a moderate proposal for future foreign policy, and such overtures do little harm.