Kristen Hammond explores the paradox of unbridled power.
The Beginning of the End?
Ronald Reagan said of America in his inaugural address: “We have every right to dream heroic dreams. We are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams.” Today, many would argue that these “heroic dreams” have been realised.
As the world’s unrivalled superpower, the United States has the largest and most productive economy in the world, a stable political system based on the attractive ideals of democracy, and a military power that has reached proportions unlike anything the world has ever seen.
However, over the last decade, anti-American sentiment has been stirring, culminating in the horror of September 11, 2001. This tragedy was the catalyst for radical changes in the U.S. assertion of power, with a new, aggressive and fiercely unilateralist form of foreign policy swiftly adopted by President George Bush’s administration.
This exercise of ‘hard’ or coercive power, at the expense of ‘soft’ power capabilities, may result in the demise of the first empire of the 21st century.
Hard and Soft Power
The dichotomy between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power is perhaps the most relevant geopolitical issue of the current global paradigm. In an unstable, unipolar world, failure to achieve a balance between the two facets could be devastating to the U.S. and the world order.
The term ‘soft power’ was coined by Joseph Nye in reference to political influence based not on threats of coercion, but rather on the espousal of attractive values, culture and institutions. Joshua Kurlantzick simplified the effect as: “If I can get you to do what I want, then I do not have to force you.” When soft power declines, it is usually replaced by its polar opposite, hard power, or the exercise of influence through coercive means.
The Bush administration has appeared to delight in its rejection of the Clinton administration’s preferred use of soft power, instead emphasising dominance through militaristic means. In addition to embarking on massive military campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has threatened several states, including Iran, with military action.
Why Soft Power is Needed
The rise of hard power has had dire consequences for American hegemony. Once a charismatic world leader, viewed as both a thriving economy and a respected democracy, the U, S. is more often perceived now as an antisocial, belligerent state.
Doomsayers like Michael Mann argue that if the American empire continues along its current path, it will ultimately fail. The implications for the international community are obvious. In addition to providing strong leadership in a fragmented world, the United States has traditionally been one of the most active proponents of democracy, human rights and economic prosperity.
One may ask why the exercise of coercive rather than soft power has such serious geopolitical ramifications. Charles S. Maier argues that “empires function by virtue of the prestige they radiate as well as by might, and indeed collapse if they rely on force alone.” The flexing of military might alone has diminished that prestige and cemented America’s reputation as an illegitimate sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later.
In addition, the forces of globalisation have made soft power more necessary than ever before. In a largely borderless world, hard power is of very limited effectiveness in achieving compliance with international law, human rights norms and the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
American legitimacy has been further challenged by its own flouting of the ‘non-negotiables’ of the U.S. model, such as human rights, the rule of law, religious freedom and equality for women. The U.S. claims to lead by example, yet refuses to sign important treaties dealing with human rights or partake in instruments for their enforcement, like the International Criminal Court. Likewise, the unfortunate excesses associated with the War on Terror, such as Guantanamo Bay, have proved damaging for America’s image as a bastion of freedom.
The War on Terror
Indeed, the shift away from soft power has been accelerated rapidly by the War on Terror. It is difficult to imagine that military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan would have occurred outside the context of combating terrorism; 9/11, too, has often been invoked by President Bush to justify the diminishing role of soft power in U.S. foreign policy.
The invasion of Iraq was a profound statement regarding America’s new leanings toward hard power. The world’s superpower demonstrated a willingness to act unilaterally in international relations regardless of the norms, conventions and treaties underlying international law. Such dramatic use of hard power was couched in the language of democratisation. Robert Singh has labelled this phenomenon, “democracy by gunpoint”.
The reaction to the subsequent imbalance in the soft/hard power dichotomy has been acute. The Bush Doctrine transformed what was a sympathetic global community in 2001, into a deeply divided world by 2004. Even in America, President Bush’s approval rating has fallen from 90 per cent in the months following 9/11, to 28 per cent this year.
The Crossroads
For now, the U.S. has enough military power, as well as a lack of current serious challengers, to rule the world on hard power alone. But this is not a viable long-term strategy. The U.S. now finds itself in dangerous territory. Weakening American influence and the rise of new world leaders such as China and India could mean that the global political landscape may be radically altered in the years to come.
U.S. military power may be impressive; but hegemony, as Thomas McCormick notes, is not simply the power to vanquish enemies, but the ability to translate that influence into friends and allies. Hard power is fundamentally volatile and if 9/11 taught us anything, it was that there is no such thing as absolute military security.
In contrast, soft power is generally stabilising. For example, as is expressed by the ‘Golden Arches’ theory, no two countries in which McDonald’s outlets exist, have ever gone to war.
Arguably, the world is once again at a crossroads. As America prepares for an election and emerging powers China and India continue to quietly develop their soft power capabilities and, to a lesser extent, their military might, an air of uncertainty lingers. We could be on the cusp of multipolarity. There are now alternatives to the American model.
It would be unrealistic to suggest that the U.S. should completely withdraw itself from deep involvement in global politics. Furthermore, the answer is not as simple as replacing Bush with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton or John McCain.
Is it too late to save the American empire? At this stage, maybe not. For re-stabilisation to occur, U.S. soft power capabilities must be brought into line with the logistics of conflict.
The U.S. must move away from rigid militarism, toward a more multilateral regime. The European Union, China, and perhaps even the Middle East, would clearly benefit from increased autonomy over their own affairs. The United States must begin to recommit itself to espousing core values such as democracy, human rights and international law by leading by example.
Kristen Hammond is in her third year of a combined degree in Arts and Law, majoring in Government and International Relations.
