It’s always relatively easy in retrospect to see what went wrong and analyze the cause of failure. In previous posts, I have offered my own criticism of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War environment, especially during the tenure in office of George W. Bush. To summarize at a high level, I believe we have failed in three fundamental areas.
First, we failed to adequately understand the implications of the shifting balance of power away from the old bipolar system that prevailed during the Cold War to the emerging unipolar system that followed. Second, we failed to develop a clear and consistent vision for the much-talked-about “new world order” and the characteristics that should define it. Finally, we failed to engage other countries proactively to build and maintain effective coalitions and alliances and influence or transform those issues and states that threatened our interests.
The enduring preoccupation of our leaders with the foreign policy tools of the Cold War – those tools that make up what is known in foreign affairs circles as “hard” power, i.e., military and economic might – led them to focus too little attention and resources on building up our capacity to wield “soft” power, those cultural, diplomatic, aid and policy initiatives that have the potential to encourage behavior by other states and international organizations that are consistent with U.S. national interests. Furthermore, the application of hard power was frequently inadequate to achieve the stated objectives and often was perceived as being at odds with the principles of freedom, justice and equality for which we claim to stand, thus eroding our soft power.
As I have admitted, though, criticism of those in power is easy. Proposing a viable alternative is difficult. So, let’s begin the difficult work. What does an effective foreign policy and national security strategy for the United States look like in the 21st century? In order to effectively grapple with that question, I believe we must have a realistic view of our standing in the world today. I’ll invite your assessments before I give you mine.
How would you characterize the standing of the United States in the world today?
First, we failed to adequately understand the implications of the shifting balance of power away from the old bipolar system that prevailed during the Cold War to the emerging unipolar system that followed. Second, we failed to develop a clear and consistent vision for the much-talked-about “new world order” and the characteristics that should define it. Finally, we failed to engage other countries proactively to build and maintain effective coalitions and alliances and influence or transform those issues and states that threatened our interests.
The enduring preoccupation of our leaders with the foreign policy tools of the Cold War – those tools that make up what is known in foreign affairs circles as “hard” power, i.e., military and economic might – led them to focus too little attention and resources on building up our capacity to wield “soft” power, those cultural, diplomatic, aid and policy initiatives that have the potential to encourage behavior by other states and international organizations that are consistent with U.S. national interests. Furthermore, the application of hard power was frequently inadequate to achieve the stated objectives and often was perceived as being at odds with the principles of freedom, justice and equality for which we claim to stand, thus eroding our soft power.
As I have admitted, though, criticism of those in power is easy. Proposing a viable alternative is difficult. So, let’s begin the difficult work. What does an effective foreign policy and national security strategy for the United States look like in the 21st century? In order to effectively grapple with that question, I believe we must have a realistic view of our standing in the world today. I’ll invite your assessments before I give you mine.
How would you characterize the standing of the United States in the world today?
No comments:
Post a Comment