Hillary Clinton, the new US Secretary of State, has made ‘smart power’ the new foreign policy buzzword, using the phrase several times during her recent Senate confirmation hearing. Speaking before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly stressed the need for a more balanced foreign policy to reduce the role of the military and encourage diplomacy, the use of sanctions, and strengthen alliances – measures that would attempt to humanize the US and restore its reputation.

Although these strategies are nothing new to the diplomatic world, the emphasis here lies in their combination: the judicious balance between the use of soft power, in which a country obtains its goals through the power of attraction, and hard power, like coercion or military force, was deemed ‘smart power’ by Suzanne Nossel in her 2004 Foreign Affairs article bearing the same name. She argues that the Bush administration adopted the progressive theory of liberal internationalism in name only, leaving behind the doctrine’s central tenets and ideals – a wolf in sheep’s clothing – and under this banner proceeded to justify its imperious behavior and diplomatic snubs. The theory of liberal internationalism holds that the US should promote a wide range of goals, from human rights and democracy to free trade and economic development, through diplomatic, economic, and military leadership. Nossel asserts that, “Unlike conservatives, who rely on military power as the main tool of statecraft, liberal internationalists see trade, diplomacy, foreign aid, and the spread of American values as equally important.”[1]

In this sense, smart power is realizing that the most effective means are not always those of US action, but are rather those which utilize alliances and international institutions. The US’ interests are often best furthered through careful diplomacy and the power of its ideas.

The Bush administration favored the use of hard power and, despite its later shift towards more diplomatic measures, left a slew of foreign policy issues for the Obama administration to tackle. The administration’s actions strained US alliances and added stress to NATO with its mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan. Its decisions to condone torture and open prisons defying the Geneva Conventions, not to mention its invasion of Iraq, have seriously tarnished the US’ reputation abroad and defiled aspects of the US Constitution. Thus smart power, as advocated by Nossel, becomes relevant for Obama and Clinton, who have repeatedly stressed the urgent need for, and importance of, democracy and other non-military means in the new US foreign policy.

While many are skeptical of what changes the Obama administration will bring, the new president has begun undoing his predecessor’s damage in earnest. Already he has issued executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay within one year, banning the use of torture, and closing the secret CIA prisons. And, his Justice Department appointees, especially Attorney General Eric Holder, have strong records of speaking out against the Bush administration’s use of torture, a sign that these policies have no place in the Obama administration.

Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that Obama has stated his intent to open lines of communication with governments, such as Cuba and Iran, with whom the previous administration refused relations. His decision to grant his first formal interview since becoming president to the Arabic satellite station Al Arabiya is extremely symbolic. Using this opportunity to speak to the Muslim world about a new relationship based on mutual respect, and placing strong emphasis on his administration’s willingness to listen, rather than dictate, Obama told Al Arabiya television "I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."[2] Further signs of the administration’s intentions regarding Iran can be found in the new US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice’s statement that the US will seek direct diplomacy, as well as in Obama’s use of the phrase “mutual respect,” which is an oft repeated and significant term in Iran.

Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to mend US relations, however, improving the current state of affairs requires other states’ willingness to cooperate, and it remains to be seen how much of the Bush administration’s work is irreversible. While the new president has extended a hand, it remains to be seen if others will accept it. For example, Iran’s Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a staunch supporter of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated, “I am warning some of society’s most abandoned and hated groups, who are intending to establish relations with the US, want to meet with Obama and give the US president a green light: do not go in this direction. You are just troublemakers. Do not damage yourselves more. Do not rely on America and do not hurt people."[3]

All negativities aside, though, the new administration’s return to diplomacy is a refreshing change from the past 8 years’ reliance on hard power. In line with the idea of smart power, Obama’s actions indicate his view that public diplomacy is about engaging foreign powers earnestly and directly, and taking time to listen and explain, rather than turning swiftly to the use of force. It appears that he prefers a more measured approach and understands that "people are going to judge me not by my words, but by my actions and my administration’s actions." 2 One hopes the US will promote itself through prudent public diplomacy and the persuasive influence of its ideals, instead of acting irrationally, and becoming further mired in conflict.