2008.2.12 Joseph S. Nye Lecture Manuscript (Korean and English)

Smart Power and the "War on Terror"

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
(Harvard University)

Following President Bush's use of the term "Global War on Terror" at a prayer service commemorating the victims of 9/11, the "War on Terror" became the central focus of U.S. foreign policy. However, the term "War on Terror," as used by the Bush administration, presents significant problems. Even the United Kingdom, a strong supporter of the U.S. "War on Terror," recently prohibited its civil servants from using the term. Criticisms have arisen that the term "war," in the context of the "War on Terror," not only reinforces the rhetoric of Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organizations but also encourages more Muslims to participate in "jihad" (holy war). Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld also stated that the number of people joining terrorist organizations has increased rather than decreased since the start of the war on terror, indicating a problem with the term "War on Terror." The State Department also pointed out the issues with the term and proposed a change to the White House, which President Bush rejected. While the term "War on Terror" was useful in garnering significant domestic and international support at the outset of the conflict, it has become an inappropriate term as the war has become prolonged. Therefore, the next administration should no longer place the term "War on Terror" at the center of its foreign policy.

What President Bush Left Behind

Some foreign policy experts believe that regardless of who wins the 2008 U.S. presidential election, the next administration will follow President Bush's foreign policy strategy. Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that the Bush administration's foreign policy would be re-evaluated as a policy that liberated the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and effectively countered the threat of terrorism. President Bush, citing the Truman administration as an example, pointed out that although President Truman faced low approval ratings at the end of his term due to the Korean War, he was later re-evaluated as a president who waged war to defend democracy. However, he oversimplified history. He overlooked President Truman's achievements in establishing major cooperative organizations such as the Marshall Plan and NATO during his tenure.

Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush presented a new vision of hardline foreign policy. When evaluating any vision, one must examine the balance between the ideals it espouses and the capabilities available to realize those ideals. A feasible vision should not merely list aspirations; it must strike an appropriate balance between aspirations and feasibility. Lessons from American history show that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a president who achieved this balance, whereas Woodrow Wilson presented the ideal of the League of Nations but failed to fully realize it due to a lack of domestic consensus. President Bush modeled himself after President Roosevelt, but unlike Roosevelt, President Bush did not patiently engage the public, discuss the nation's challenges and choices, and build sufficient public support to serve as a foundation for his policies.

Advice for the Next President

The next president will need what I call "contextual intelligence" in my new book, "The Powers to Lead." In foreign policy, contextual intelligence is a form of intuitive judgment that enables the creation of excellent strategies by deploying the necessary tactics to achieve goals in various situations. This begins with an accurate assessment of the current state of U.S. foreign policy.

Many experts in U.S. foreign policy have misunderstood America's international position. Twenty years ago, the U.S. was predicted to decline due to "imperial overstretch," but after the Cold War, it became the sole superpower. This "new unilateralism" gave rise to the Bush Doctrine after the 9/11 attacks. This stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of power in world politics. Power is the ability to produce the outcomes one wants. In the past, this ability primarily stemmed from military factors, but in today's world, it arises from military, economic, and transnational factors.

Contextual intelligence must begin with understanding the strengths and limitations of American power. We are a superpower, but not an empire or a hegemon. World politics has three dimensions: unipolar military power, multipolar economic relations, and a chaotically distributed network of transnational relations (climate change, illicit drugs, pandemics, and terrorism). Military power now plays only a minor role in resolving international issues.

Second, the next president must recognize the importance of a grand strategy that integrates hard military power with soft attraction. If we generate more terrorists through the misuse of hard military power, we will lose. Currently, soft power resources such as public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development aid, disaster relief, and military-to-military contacts are scattered across various government agencies.

A third characteristic of contextual intelligence for the next president is attention to the increasingly important region of Asia. President Bush's "War on Terror" has been excessively focused on the Middle East. We must pay attention to the rise of China and India. A century ago, Britain controlled the rise of the United States but failed to check the rise of Germany, leading to World War II. Meanwhile, South Korea's democratic and economic development portends a bright future for Asia.

Soft Power and Hard Power

The Bush administration drew a connection between the war on terror and the Cold War. President Bush was correct in predicting that the war on terror would be a long conflict, similar to the Cold War. However, he overlooked the fact that we won the Cold War through a strategy that wisely combined hard military power with soft attraction. Socialism collapsed from within, not from external forces. If more people join extremism than the number of enemies we kill and occupy, we cannot defeat them. The Bush administration acknowledged this but did not know how to implement it.

We live in the information age. In the information age, victory in terms of logic is as important as victory in terms of military power. Terrorism will not end if the logic of mainstream Islam cannot defeat the logic of a small number of terrorists. We need soft power that can attract the hearts and minds of the majority of Muslims. However, we are lagging in this regard.

Despite this lag, discussions about weakened soft power are insufficient within the United States. Instead, discussions are more active in the political science circles of Europe, China, and India. This is because the shock of 9/11 left no room for "soft" sentiments in the U.S. However, the 2006 midterm elections offered a hopeful sign that we are returning to a more centrist orientation.

Of course, soft power is not a panacea. Dealing with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il or Al-Qaeda will ultimately require military force. However, goals such as democracy and human rights can only be achieved through soft power.

Smart Power

The United States must rediscover how to achieve "smart power." This is the conclusion of the Smart Power Commission, and also the conclusion of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Smart power refers to the ability to formulate strategies that integrate hard power and soft power. Recent U.S. foreign policy has tended to rely excessively on hard power, showcasing American might. Diplomacy and foreign aid aimed at accumulating soft power were reduced or ignored because they did not yield short-term influence. Furthermore, because soft power extends beyond the government to the private sector and civil society, it has been difficult for the government to control.

The 9/11 attacks also significantly contributed to the U.S. government's focus on hard power. Since 9/11, the U.S. has expressed fear and anger rather than disseminating values of hope and positivity. Now, the U.S. must become a smart power that strives to spread public goods globally.

The Smart Power Commission has identified five key areas that the U.S. should focus on in its foreign policy:
● Restoration of alliances, partnerships, and multilateral institutions
● Global Development
● Public Diplomacy
● Economic Integration
● Energy Security and Addressing Climate Change

To implement a smart power strategy, a strategic re-evaluation must be conducted across all aspects of the U.S. government's organization, coordination, and budget. It is time for the U.S. to export hope rather than fear. This is the agenda that the next president should focus on.