“IMPLEMENTING SMART POWER:
SETTING AN AGENDA FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY REFORM”
A Statement by
Richard L. Armitage
President, Armitage International
Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Distinguished Service Professor
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
April 24, 2008
Dirksen Senate Office Building, SD-419
Page 2
2
Mr. Chairman,
We would like to thank you and your distinguished colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee for the invitation to speak today on the subject of, “Implementing Smart Power:
Setting an Agenda for National Security Reform.”
As you know, we are co-chairs of CSIS’s Commission on Smart Power, a bipartisan Commission
that included one of your fellow Committee members, Senator Chuck Hagel, as well as Senator
Jack Reed and two distinguished members of the House of Representatives. CSIS’s President
and CEO John Hamre asked the two of us to form this Commission in late 2006, and the
Commission released its findings on November 7, 2007. It is our privilege to sit before you
today to provide our thoughts on implementing a Smart Power agenda in the months and years
ahead.
Smart Power: The Big Idea
Mr. Chairman, as you know, your committee held a hearing on Smart Power in March of this
year, receiving testimony from Admiral Leighton Smith and General Tony Zinni, who is also a
member of our Commission. Admiral Smith and General Zinni spoke on behalf of 52 retired
generals and admirals who are backing the idea of Smart Power, organized by the Center for
U.S. Global Engagement. The pair did an excellent job of explaining Smart Power, so we do not
want to spend too much time here on what you already know. But please allow us to briefly
explain how we came to this idea.
The two of us—one Democrat and one Republican—have devoted our lives to promoting
America’s preeminence as a force for good in the world. What we have seen recently, however,
is that too many people around the globe are questioning America’s values, commitment, and
competence.
Two decades ago, the conventional wisdom was that the United States was in decline, suffering
from “imperial overstretch.” A decade later, with the end of the Cold War, the new conventional
wisdom was that the world was a unipolar American hegemony. Today, we need a renewed
understanding of the strength and limits of American power.
The rest of the world knows that the United States is the big kid on the block, and that this will
likely remain the case for years to come. But our staying power has a great deal to do with
whether we are perceived as a bully or a friend. Humility increases America’s greatness, it does
not weaken it.
Page 3
3
Smart Power has been portrayed by some in the media as simply presenting a “kinder, gentler”
face of America to the world. The thought seems to be that all that is required is a new
administration or shift of style rather than substance. Smart Power is much more than this. It is
an approach that seeks to match our strategies and structures at home to the challenges that face
us abroad.
Our military is the best fighting force bar none, but many of the challenges we face today do not
have military solutions. We need stronger civilian instruments to fight al Qaeda’s ideas, slow
climate change, foster good governance and prevent deadly viruses from reaching our shores.
The uncomfortable truth is that an extra dollar spent on hard power today will not necessarily
bring an extra dollar’s worth of security.
Smart Power is based on three main principles:
• First, America’s standing in the world matters to our security and prosperity.
• Second, today’s challenges can only be addressed with capable and willing allies and
partners.
• Third, civilian tools can increase the legitimacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of U.S.
Government policies.
This is why we have called for an integrated grand strategy that combines hard military power
with soft “attractive power” to create Smart Power of the sort that won the Cold War. Power is
the ability to influence the behavior of others to get a desired outcome. Machiavelli said it was
safer to be feared than loved. Today, in the global information age, it is better to be both.
Smart Power is a framework for guiding the development of an integrated strategy, resource base
and tool kit to achieve U.S. objectives, drawing on both hard and soft power. It underscores the
necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions
at all levels to expand American influence and establish the legitimacy of American action.
The United States can become a smarter power by investing in the global good—providing
services and polices that people and governments want but cannot attain in the absence of
American leadership. This means support for international institutions, aligning our country with
international development, promoting public health, increasing interactions of our civil society
with others, maintaining an open international economy, and dealing seriously with climate
change and energy insecurity.
Elements of a Smart Power approach exist today, but they lack a cohesive rationale and
institutional grounding. U.S. foreign policy over-relies on hard power because it is the most
Page 4
4
direct and visible source of U.S. strength. The U.S. military is the best-trained and resourced
arm of the federal government. As a result, it has had to step in to fill voids, even with work
better suited to civilian agencies. The military has also been a vital source of soft power.
Witness the massive humanitarian operations it launched in response to the Asian tsunami and
Pakistani earthquake.
The U.S. Government is still struggling to develop its soft power instruments outside of the
military. Civilian institutions are not staffed or resourced properly, especially for extraordinary
missions. Civilian tools are neglected in part because of the difficulty of demonstrating their
short-term impact on critical challenges. Stovepiped institutional cultures inhibit joint action.
U.S. foreign policy decision-making is too fractured and compartmentalized. Many official
instruments of soft power—public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development
assistance, disaster relief, diplomacy, even military-to-military contacts—are scattered
throughout the government, with no overarching strategy or budget that tries to integrate them
with military power into a unified national security strategy.
There is little capacity for making tradeoffs at a strategic level. The United States spends about
500 times more on the military than we do on broadcasting and exchanges. How would we
know if this is the right proportion, and how would we go about making tradeoffs?
Furthermore, how should the government relate to the nonofficial generators of soft power that
emanate from our civil society? This includes everything from Hollywood to the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a private sector actor that now has the throw-weight of a
government. These are some of the challenges our Commission identified and sought to address.
Distinguished Members of the Committee, we developed Smart Power in large part as a reaction
to the global war on terror, a concept that we consider to be wrongheaded as an organizing
premise of U.S. foreign policy. America is too great of a nation to allow our central narrative
and purpose to be held captive to so narrow an idea as defeating al Qaeda. We were twice
victimized by September 11—first by the attackers, and then by our own hands when we lost our
national confidence and optimism and began to see the world only through the lens of terrorism.
The threat from terrorists with global reach and ambition is real and is likely to be with us for
some time. When addressing the threat posed by al Qaeda and affiliated groups, we need to use
hard power against the hard-core terrorists, but we cannot hope to win unless we build respect
and credibility with the moderate center of Muslim societies. If the misuse of hard power creates
more new terrorists than we can kill or deter, we will lose.
Similarly, when our words do not match our actions, we demean our character and moral
standing and diminish our influence. We cannot lecture others about democracy while we back
Page 5
5
dictators. We cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it at
home. We cannot allow Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib to become symbols of American
power.
The Cold War ended under a barrage of hammers on the Berlin Wall rather than a barrage of
artillery across the Fulda Gap because we successfully balanced principle with pragmatism. The
United States had a strategy aligned with the challenges at hand and an approach that relied on
all means of national power.
This is an important lesson for the challenges we face today. Americans in their hearts may be
reluctant internationalists, but they also realize that we cannot cut ourselves off from the rest of
the world today. We are no longer protected by our two great oceans in the way we once were.
Foreigners will continue to look to America. The decline in American influence overseas is not
likely to endure. Most want the United States to be the indispensable nation, but they look to us
to put forward better ideas rather than just walk away from the table, content to play our own
game.
The United States needs to rediscover how to be a smart power. Smart Power is not a panacea
for solving the nation’s problems, and it is not about getting the world to like us. It is essentially
about renewing a type of leadership that matches vision with execution and accountability, and
looks broadly at U.S. goals, strategies and influence in a changing world.
An Emerging Consensus
We believe there is a strong and growing measure of bipartisan agreement on the need for
America to become a smarter power. A number of leading Americans and allies have spoken out
in recent months that the United States ought to invest more heavily in modernizing our civilian
tools of national power and increase the emphasis of these tools in our global strategy. The
following five examples stand out:
• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave a major speech at Kansas State last November
making the case for strengthening America’s capacity to use soft power and better
integrate it with hard power. Secretary Gates lamented how civilian tools that helped win
the Cold War were gutted during the 1990’s through Foreign Service hiring freezes, deep
staff cuts at USAID, and the abolishment of the U.S. Information Agency.
• Former and current American political leaders on both sides of the aisle have endorsed
the arguments behind Smart Power. This list includes notable Democrats such as Sam
Page 6
6
Nunn, Madeleine Albright, John Edwards, and Harry Reid, and notable Republicans such
as William Cohen, Frank Carlucci, Christine Todd Whitman and Newt Gingrich.
• Each of the three remaining presidential candidates have made public statements
supporting strengthening some aspect of America’s civilian international affairs agencies.
Each has also advocated a new approach to U.S. foreign policy in which we lead by
attraction rather than primarily by virtue of hard power.
• Military leaders have been some of the most active in calling for a Smart Power approach
to U.S. foreign policy. In addition to General Zinni and Admiral Smith’s testimony
before this Committee on behalf of 52 retired generals and admirals, former CENTCOM
Commander General John Abizaid and SOUTHCOM Commander James Stravridis have
both endorsed elements of the Commission’s findings. Combatant Commanders have
their war plans, but they also recognize that much of how they engage today requires soft
power as they try to shape their environments in favor of peace and stability.
• German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told an American audience last week
that Smart Power is George Marshall’s vision in a nutshell, and precisely what we need
today to repair the trans-Atlantic relationship and better serve the world’s interests.
There are many others who have spoken out in favor of Smart Power who are not included in this
brief listing. It is clear to us that there is something attractive about the pragmatic, common-
sense approach of our Commission’s findings that appeals to Republicans and Democrats alike.
We recognize that there are also others who may oppose our vision, whether because they stand
committed to the grand strategy of the past seven years, doubt that civilian institutions and our
allies abroad can keep us safe, or simply expect the next president to demand less of our foreign
policy instruments. There are also some, including distinguished members of this Committee,
who have voiced frustrations at the slow pace of translating the ideas behind Smart Power into
concrete action.
We share the sense of urgency in moving from rhetoric to action, and realize that if America is to
become a smarter power, this agenda will have to be taken on jointly by the next administration
and Congress alike.
From Rhetoric to Action
It is our view that the emerging consensus on the idea of Smart Power must move in the coming
months toward greater agreement on a specific Agenda for Change. Numerous commissions,
task forces, and experts continue to provide their blueprints for how to build and modernize
Page 7
7
America’s civilian tools and make the United States a smarter power abroad. This activity is a
welcome sign of a rising tide, but there is also a danger that divergent visions on how to
implement Smart Power could unhinge momentum that has accumulated in support of the basic
concept and rationale.
We will outline a few of the strategic priorities our Commission identified, including those
recommendations that concerned specific instruments and institutions of the U.S. Government.
Neither our Commission nor the two of us, however, hold the golden key. It may well be that
recommendations emerging from likeminded initiatives such as those you will hear on the next
panel may prove to have more lasting impact. The critical task is moving toward a set of feasible
action items that can be taken up by the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic
in the months ahead.
First, the next president should create a deputy national security adviser who is “double-
hatted” as a deputy at the Office of Management and Budget.
• The various tools available to the U.S. government are spread among multiple agencies
and bureaus. There is no level of government, short of the President, where these
programs and resources come together.
• The national security adviser is swept up in the urgent challenges of unfolding crises and
lacks the ability to focus on long-term strategy development or manage interagency trade-
offs.
• This “smart power” deputy should be charged with developing and managing a strategic
framework for planning policies and allocating resources, working closely with relevant
Congressional committees.
• The smart power deputy should lead a process parallel to the Quadrennial Defense
Review for the civilian tools of national power that conducts a systematic and
comprehensive assessment of goals, strategies, and plans.
Second, the next administration should request and Congress should resource a personnel
“float” for civilian agencies that allows for increased training and professional development.
• The Defense Department is able to sustain a far superior process for leadership education
because it routinely budgets for 10 percent more military officers than there are jobs for
them in operational assignments.
• This ‘float’ permits the military to send its officers to leadership development programs,
to work as detailees in other agencies to broaden their professional experiences and
judgment, and to meet unforeseen contingencies. Civilian agencies have not budgeted a
comparable personnel float.
• The next president should increase the number of Foreign Service Personnel serving in
the Department of State by more than 1,000 and consider further expansions in other
relevant civilian agencies.
Page 8
8
Third, the next administration should strengthen civilian agency coordination and
expeditionary presence on a regional basis.
• Civilian government agencies do not have a regional command structure comparable to
the Department of Defense. As a result, this prevents the development of regional
strategies that integrate interagency operations on a regional basis.
• The next president should empower the senior State Department ambassadors known as
“political advisors” or POLADs assigned to advise regional military commanders a dual
authority to head a regional interagency consultation council comprising representatives
from all other federal agencies that have field operations in those regions.
• Congress and OMB should work to provide the State Department resources to support
these regional coordination councils.
• The next administration should request and Congress should fund increases in the number
of civilian personnel able to participate in regional expeditionary missions, such as
through the pending Civilian Stabilization Initiative.
Fourth, the next administration should strengthen America’s commitment to a new
multilateralism.
• America needs the United Nations, but we need a better one than we have at present. The
United Nations could play an active role in promoting American interests in
peacekeeping and peacebuilding, counterterrorism, global health, and energy and climate.
• The U.S. alliance system negotiated during the last half century consists of nearly 100
formal treaty arrangements and security commitments. Rather than view these
agreements as hindrances to American action, the next president ought to view this
alliance network as a force multiplier.
• For decades, America has been the global champion of legal norms and standards. The
United States directly benefits from a strengthened international legal order. At those
times, though, when treaties are objectionable, the United States can justify stepping back
but not walking away.
• The main institutional architecture absent today is an effective forum for coordinating
global strategic thinking on a set of specific practical challenges. The G-8 could spin off
a series of yearly meetings on energy and climate, nonproliferation, global health,
education, and the world economy.
Fifth, the next administration should elevate and unify its approach to global development by
creating a cabinet-level voice.
• The next president should task the smart power deputy to work with the cabinet
secretaries to develop a coherent management structure and institutional plan within the
first three months of office for creating a cabinet-level voice for development.
• The Commission on Smart Power heard a range of arguments for how to organize this
aspect of our civilian capacity. Disagreement centers around the degree of integration
that will best serve American interests and the priority placed on effective development.
Page 9
9
Some have called for a Department of Global Development while others have promoted
the creation of a “super-State” Department of Foreign Affairs. Ultimately, we concluded
that a cabinet-level voice for global development was important for putting forward a
more positive face of the United States to the world.
• This new cabinet official should take the lead on launching new, high-profile global
public health initiatives, building on successful Bush Administration and private sector
efforts. These could include developing a global health network and bringing safe
drinking water and sanitation to every person in the world.
Sixth, the next administration and Congress should encourage greater autonomy, coherence
and effectiveness for U.S. public diplomacy and strategic communication efforts.
• Reviving USIA may not be the most practical option at present. The next administration
should strengthen our resource commitment to public diplomacy and consider what
institutional remedies in addition to capable leadership could help make U.S. public
diplomacy efforts most effective.
• One possibility the next administration should consider is the establishment of an
autonomous organization charged with public diplomacy and reporting directly to the
secretary of state. This quasi-independent entity would be responsible for the full range
of government public diplomacy initiatives, including those formerly conducted by
USIA.
• Congress should create and fund a new institution outside of government that could help
tap into expertise in the private and nonprofit sectors to improve U.S. strategic
communication from an outside-in approach. As the Defense Science Board has
suggested, this center could conduct independent polling, research and analysis on U.S.
Government priorities; promote a dialogue of ideas through mutual exchanges; and shape
communications campaigns to help shape foreign attitudes. The center should have an
independent board that could serve as a “heat shield” from near-term political pressures.
• Effective public diplomacy must include exchanges of ideas, peoples and information
through person-to-person educational and cultural exchanges, often referred to as citizen
diplomacy. The next administration should expand successful exchange and education
programs, including doubling the size of the Fulbright program.
Seventh, the next administration should shape an economy flexible and competitive enough to
deliver economic benefits while minimizing the human cost of adjusting to economic
dislocation.
• International trade has been a critical ingredient to U.S. economic growth and prosperity.
The next administration should seek to create a free trade core within the WTO,
negotiating a plurilateral agreement among those WTO members willing to move directly
to free trade on a global basis. While consensus within the full WTO remains the goal,
and could potentially be reached in some areas within the coming months, in many cases
Page 10
10
it is not realistic. The next administration should seek to lock in a minimum measure of
global trade liberalization.
• There is no doubt the benefits of trade are not evenly distributed—within a nation or
across nations. The next president should exercise U.S. influence in international
financial institutions to direct the efforts of these organizations toward aiding poorer
countries that face the inevitable adjustment issues that come with the opening of
markets. We should also reexamine our own trade policies toward these nations. The
next administration should fundamentally reform trade adjustment assistance to facilitate
the reentry of American workers who lose their jobs.
• Global competition today is less for markets and more for capital, talent and ideas. Half
of all patents issued in 2006 were of foreign origin. The United States must do more to
prepare itself for increasing economic competition.
Eighth, the next administration and Congress must make addressing climate change and
energy insecurity more than just a political catch phrase by creating incentives for U.S.
innovation.
• A world operating on different sets of rules and costs associated with carbon dioxide
emissions could have disruptive implications for trade, energy security, competitiveness,
and economic growth. The next administration should create a level playing field to
underpin the carbon-constrained economy. It should work with Congress to place an
economic value of greenhouse gas emissions via a mechanism that sends clear, long-term
price signals for industry.
• As world energy demand continues to rise, the next administration must reduce demand
through improved efficiency, diversify energy suppliers and fuel choices, and manage
geopolitics in resource-rich areas that currently account for the majority of our imports.
The next administration should take the lead within international institutions to establish
a common principles charter for energy security and sustainability. The charter should
outline sound energy policies and practices, including protection of sea lanes and critical
infrastructure; investment-friendly regulatory and legal frameworks that respect
sovereign rights of resource holders; and promote regular dialogues between producers
and consumers to improve information sharing.
• The next administration and Congress should establish and fund a joint technology
development center. International collaboration helps reduce costs and accelerate the
pace of innovation. The U.S. Department of Energy in partnership with major global
energy companies should establish 10-year endowment for funding energy and
technology related research. This could be administered by an international consortium
of the National Science Foundation and equivalents and disburse grants through a peer
review process to researchers to provide venture capital to develop and deploy next
generation energy technologies, such as biofuels.
Page 11
11
Ninth, American leaders ought to eliminate the symbols that have come to represent the image
of an intolerant, abusive, unjust America, and use our diplomatic power for positive ends.
• Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center is an obvious starting point and should
lead to a broader rejection of torture and prisoner abuse. Guantanamo’s very existence
undermines America’s ability to carry forth a message of principled optimism and hope.
Although closing Guantanamo presents practical, legal and political obstacles, these
constraints are surmountable if it is a priority for American leadership. Planning for its
closure should begin before the next president takes office.
• The next administration should continue to expend political capital to end the corrosive
effect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States must resume its traditional
role as an effective broker for peace in the Middle East. We cannot want peace more
than the parties themselves, but we cannot be indifferent to the widespread suffering this
conflict perpetuates and passionate feelings it arouses on all sides.
• Effective American mediation confers global legitimacy and is a vital source of smart
power.
Tenth, the next Administration should not fall into a new Cold War struggle to compete with
and contain Chinese soft power.
• China’s soft power is likely to continue to grow, but this does not necessarily mean that
Washington and Beijing are on a collision course, fighting for global influence.
• The next president should seek to identify areas of mutual interest between the United
States and China on which the two powers can work together on a smart power agenda.
• Energy security and environmental stewardship top that list, along with other
transnational issues such as public health and non-proliferation. Global leadership does
not have to be a zero-sum game.
Mr. Chairman, we would both be happy to go into more detail on our Commission’s
recommendations or discuss our personal views on these matters during our oral testimony.
Thank you again for the opportunity to sit before you today.
BendBubble Phase Three
Haisong Jiang was released in the early hours of Saturday 
![[Prof. Panarin]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GN187_Panari_BV_20081228131701.gif)
![[Igor Panarin]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AO116_RUSPRO_NS_20081228191715.gif)
City of Bend capitalist institutions like Brooks Resources [are] designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice 
