And the winner is …..
“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” (Quote from official press release).
Iran, the Taliban, and Fox News condemned the decision.
In justifying the award, the committee emphasized the multilateral basis of the President’s foreign policy, which it believes is “founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population”.
What they’re talking about is soft power. Soft power (a phrase coined by Harvard Professor Joseph Nye in 2004) is the ability to get what you want by attraction. Hard power is the ability to coerce (primarily military and economic power). In foreign policy terms, soft power includes the attractiveness of values, culture, and foreign policy, and critically, the way the country lives up to its own values, culture, and policy. When a country is widely seen to live up to its own values, and those values are widely shared, it creates legitimacy for foreign policy initiatives. The reverse is also true. For example, China has abundant hard power, but does not have the ability to lead global policy on, say, environmental regulation, because its own track record on both legislation and enforcement has been relatively poor.
When a country has a great deal of hard power, it is tempting to use it. However in today’s world, military and economic strength have the most value when they are not deployed. The United States lost a great deal of soft power through things like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and unilaterally deploying hard power – actions that were seen to contradict the US values of humane treatment, due process, and constructive engagement. Values only carry weight when they are adhered to.
What the Nobel committee is recognizing is the amazing shift in US soft power as a result of President Obama’s initiatives. The outcomes of that are not yet complete, and the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons will never be achieved, but the ability of the United States to lead has been greatly enhanced. The Nobel committee obviously sees this as important to world peace.
One measure of this comes from a recent survey of over 26,000 people in 25 countries. On average, less than half the people surveyed in 2007 viewed the United States favorably (44%), but in the most recent survey, 57% have a positive view. The change is particularly marked amongst the US allies in Western Europe. France moved from 39% favorable opinion to 75%, with similar moves in Germany and Spain.
I know that many Americans have no care or interest in what the rest of the world thinks, but this is both short sighted and dangerous. If the US is to have a positive impact on world affairs, it needs effective soft power just as much, if not more, than effective military and economic power.
I agree with Fox News that the prize is premature, but the committee is highlighting to both Americans and the rest of the world the profound implications of returning to the high ground.
Popularity: 8% [?]
