Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 5 - 2006
US soft power deficit by Sherif Hamdy 
Viewpoint: US soft power deficit Sherif Hamdy Middle East Times, July 7, 2006 MUSCATINE, IA, USA -- In this age of globalization where great hegemonic wars are no longer likely and where asymmetrical, low-intensity warfare has proven to be undefeatable, military superiority is no longer the last word. In an interconnected world, economics and soft power will have an increased say in how the world powers will do in the global scene. Economics aside - we could agree at least that US economic superiority in not guaranteed in the future - soft power, or the power to attract others to your ideas and causes, is where the United States is clearly lacking. But why should that be a concern to US policy makers? A exemplary answer can be arrived at by looking at how China conducts its international relations. China has been doing the exact reverse of what the United States has been doing in Africa and Asia. The "Beijing Consensus" with its emphasis on non-interference and respect for sovereignty and true multilateralism runs counter to what nations dislike about US policy. The United States is viewed as a very imposing presence that is constantly interfering in other countries' internal matters, while the Chinese essentially maintain that "business is business." They will talk to and deal with anyone if there are common issues of concern or interest. It is safe to assume that China and the United States have different visions on what the global scene should look like. Although both countries are currently running along parallel tracks a time will come when a (non-military) struggle will decide whose vision will dictate the world order. The only way this day will not come is if China "collapses" due to internal problems. But China is just an example, for if it is not China it will be another power that will eventually compete. Some US policymakers have already taken steps to try to counter this eventuality, such as getting closer to India - even if it is at the expense of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - if not to counterbalance China, yet, but to try to inhibit its rise. If war will not be a probable determinant then a lot will depend on to whom medium powers and even small ones will align themselves. Right now most align themselves with Washington. But this is only due to their pragmatic assessment of the ordering of the international system. They conclude it is more beneficial to align with the United States at this point. The question is what all those different actors will do when it is equally beneficial to go with a vision that competes with the United State's. Small and medium powers might not have the muscle to directly challenge a world power. But where they will make a difference is in helping decide between two competing world powers and thereby help skew the playing field towards one or the other. That is why medium and even small powers in the future will have an increased role, disproportionate to their hard power capabilities. Middle East countries exemplify such medium and small powers with their geo-strategic positions and natural resources. One can already see how such powers are reacting to the United States. Apart from some of the subtle soft balancing that has occurred even in the ranks of traditional US allies, one could point out the not-so-subtle public diplomacy efforts on the screens of Al Jazeera. Manifested in programs such as "Arabs of Latin America" or increased numbers specials on China, Arabic public diplomacy is making a concerted effort towards acquainting Arab audiences with powers that have alternative visions than the United States on how the world should be run. The concept of soft power, coined by Professor Joseph Nye has been circulating in discussions for a while but has not been getting its due recognition. The concept is usually viewed as a nice side point to "real power" issues measured in terms of military power. But in fact the world is not only getting "flatter" but "softer" as soft power and concepts such as soft balancing become more real. The US's soft power influence has been in continual decline since World War II. After a great start when it emerged as "the leader of the free world" and lead the way into a new era of multilateralism manifested in US-led entities such as the United Nations, US policy makers have repeatedly betrayed the same ideals which have generated that soft power. Unless one subscribes to the idea that the United States is an exception to the historical norms of the international system then one has to concede that America will not be on top forever. The problem for the United States is that its policymakers are oblivious of this inevitability. So while others might be already working to position themselves for that day, US policymakers are still acting like that day will never come. Sherif Hamdy is a Middle East researcher in Muscatine, Iowa, USA. He contributed this article to the Middle East Times. |