Smart power
It is defined by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as "an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand one's influence and establish legitimacy of one's action."
[1] Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under the Clinton administration and author of several books on smart power strategy, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources.
Suzanne Nossel, Deputy to Ambassador Holbrooke at the United Nations during the Clinton administration, is credited with coining the term in an article in Foreign Affairs entitled, "Smart Power: Reclaiming Liberal Internationalism", in 2004.
She writes: "..Trump seems oblivious toward the brand value of what Joseph Nye has called the 'soft power' that comes from projecting appealing aspects of American society and character abroad.
Christian Whiton, a State Department official during the George W. Bush administration, recalled U.S. political influence activities from the Cold War, including CIA-backed programs like the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and called for adapting these to contemporary challenges to the U.S. posed by China, Iran, and Islamists.
Applying smart power today requires great difficulty, since it operates in an environment of asymmetric threats, ranging from cybersecurity to terrorism.
According to Secretary Gates, 'there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security---diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."
In order to successfully implement smart power, the U.S. budget needs to be rebalanced so that non-military foreign affairs programs receive more funding.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report, Investing in a New Multilateralism, in January 2009 to outline the role of the United Nations as an instrument of U.S. smart power strategy.
[14] The report suggests that in an increasingly multipolar world, the UN cannot be discarded as outdated and must be regarded as an essential tool to thinking strategically about the new multilateralism that our nation faces.
[29] Rather than relying on unilateral action, the U.S. and China should combine their smart power resources to promote the global good and enhance the peace and security of the region.
Overall, the report suggests that U.S.-Sino relations should be pursued without the black-and-white view of China as either benign or hostile, but rather, as a partner necessary in serving the interests of the U.S. and the region while promoting the global good.
A smart power approach to U.S.-Turkish relations will expand the leadership role of Turkey in the region and increases its strategic importance to NATO.
The Obama administration's foreign policy was based on smart power strategy, attempting to strike a balance between defense and diplomacy.
"[31] Ken Adelman, in an article entitled "Not-So-Smart Power," argues that there is no correlation between U.S. aid and the ability of America to positively influence events abroad.
Overall, he criticizes the instruments of smart power, such as foreign aid and exchange programs, for being ineffective in achieving American national interests.
