(This paper was written in August 2016, under the guidance of Professor Joan Johnson-Freese, for the class "Globalization and US National Security," through the Harvard Summer School)
In 2017, the new administration faces a complex security
environment with global challenges and a greater diffusion of power
internationally. In drafting the 2017 National Security Strategy, it is
imperative that President Clinton and her advisors consider the following
themes as critical elements of America’s international leadership: effective
use of “smart power,” rebalancing of US priorities and engagements, and firm
protection of American values.
Smart Power
Over the next four years, the US must implement a
“clear-eyed” national strategy that shrewdly assesses the unique factors in
each international conflict and “integrates all of our foreign policy tools"--diplomatic, information,
economic, and military power--with the goal of advancing American values and
the rule of law. 1 Primary reliance on military power “further[s]
dark warnings about the potentially harmful effects of… rebalanc[ing] US
national security spending or trim[ming] the massive military budget” instead
of providing an objective view of US capabilities within the international
environment; thus, a balanced smart power approach is necessary to deploy tools
that can fulfill American goals on a case-by-case basis.2
Effective implementation of a smart power approach requires
investing in and reinforcing domestic sources of power. The US should dedicate
increased funding to the education of regional American experts, allowing for
more informed and impactful intervention in regional crises. It is also
recommended that the administration allocate more funds to conflict assessment
efforts, in partnership with the efforts of think tanks, in order to assess the
consequences of possible US actions and select the course with the least amount
of conflict. Recognizing the increasing importance of the information domain,
the administration should invest in advanced cyber capabilities so as to
prevent non-state or state actors from developing unchecked influence in the
digital sphere.
Smart power, based on the
above national capabilities, must guide the Clinton administration’s
strategy for engagement in different regional crises. In South Asia,
region-specific experts should guide India and Pakistan to expand bilateral
cooperation based on shared historical experiences and cultural traditions,
with the end goal of a regional security framework. 3 In Europe, the
administration must guide the UK’s process of exiting the EU, developing the
economic structures necessary to mitigate the regional and global effects of
short-term economic instability. By ensuring a smooth and “amicable split” and
reassuring allies of the US’s commitment to NATO, America can continue to
cooperate with member states in deterring Russian aggression. 4
Regarding the JCPOA, the US should continue Obama’s policy of lifting
nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran while strengthening cooperation
between intelligence agencies and nuclear inspectors to ensure treaty
compliance.5 American officials must analyze the future economic
effects of lifting sanctions and restrict Iran’s future nuclear ambitions
without constraining its ability to bring about regional peace. The Clinton
administration should also continue the policy of addressing radical terrorism
by curtailing its extensive online influence and empowering local troops.6
Rebalancing
As Secretary of State, Clinton led the “pivot” to Asia,
or realist shift in foreign policy towards regions that are increasingly
important to American security and economic interests.7 This
entailed “innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches” to general
regional crises in order to fulfill security objectives in a sustainable
manner, while avoiding endless commitments to regions with little strategic
importance to the US.8 The principle of rebalancing American
regional commitments should continue to guide international engagement under
President Clinton. The US should engage in the Middle East in a smarter and
more effective manner, while deepening trade and defense cooperation with
emerging regions such as East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America.
“Surging economic growth” and “aggressive military modernization” in East Asia
have made the region an important and capable partner for the US in addressing
international crises.9 China’s growing sphere of influence makes
necessary American regional intervention as a counterbalance. Sub-Saharan
Africa is developing into a strong potential market for American investors due
to its high population growth, rapid urbanization, and expanding middle class.
As a result of normalization of relations with Cuba, the US can stimulate its
economic ties with Latin America and support the expansion of commodity
production, labor, and services in the region.10
Implementation of an “undisciplined… strategy of liberal hegemony”
encourages allies to free-ride on US defense capabilities and provides opposing
states with a rationale to acquire greater military power.11 While
some argue that American deep engagement helps to “maintain an open world
economy,” general exercise of American leadership prevents the government from
dedicating adequate resources to resolve the most pressing international
threats.12 In the globalized world, international threats come from
both regional conflicts and international challenges. Strategic rebalancing
should therefore apply not only to engagement within regions, but also to
engagement among different international issues, to ensure effective allocation
of resources and power in all of the US’s foreign commitments, according to
national interests.
Implementation of this policy requires balancing of domestic
processes and international actions. Despite the US’s leadership in the effort
to combat climate change, popular domestic opposition to energy and emission
regulations obstructs quick ratification and implementation of international climate
agreements by Congress. The US must therefore invest in rebalancing the
public-government relationship and expanding public awareness of the benefits
of climate change-related regulations—such as job growth in clean energy
markets. Free trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership cause similar
public concerns regarding job loss. In order to move workers from
negatively-affected, low-wage fields to areas where they can productively
contribute to the national economy, the US government must provide greater
technical education opportunities for unskilled laborers displaced by foreign
competition.
Firm protection of
American values
As elaborated in founding documents, America is built on the
values of democracy and universal human rights, a foundation that should be
clearly represented in US foreign engagements. However, the US can only extend
its values abroad when it implements them fully at home, a stance that the new
NSS should clearly uphold.13 To this end, the US government must
remain diligent in its prohibition of inhumane
practices such as torture and racial discrimination. The executive
should also restore the “constitutional dynamic between the executive and
legislative branches of government” in order to strengthen democratic
participation in major national decisions.14
Acting in accordance with these values, the US must
acknowledge its responsibility to alleviate human suffering and respect human
dignity by accepting up to 65,000 Syrian refugees into the country over four
years, prioritizing human capital and those who can contribute productively to
the national economy. Internationally, the administration should help local
governments in Syria build the infrastructure necessary to provide civilians
with basic services. This region wide effort should be carried out
multilaterally, through international organizations such as the UN and regional
partners such as the European Union. This approach embodies the US’s liberal
internationalist responsibilities, but realist assessment and implementation of
these responsibilities.15
The Hillary Doctrine states that women’s political and
economic empowerment is an underestimated force for domestic and international
peace, and should therefore be an essential national security priority for the
US.16 Accordingly, the administration should devote more of the
security budget to the Office of Global Women’s Issues, which ensures that
consideration of women’s rights is fully integrated in foreign policy
formulation and implementation.17 Through the Office of Global
Women’s Issues, the US government should reach out to countries in which women
are denied the most fundamental rights and offer economic assistance such as
microfinance loans to encourage economic independence and stability. The Office
should also convene forums for women leaders throughout the world to raise
awareness of the need for women’s active participation in civil society.
Finally, commitment to American values implies that the
US must urge other states to protect human rights and adopt democratic
processes, strategically and in the most impactful manner. While the US seeks
diplomacy and cooperation on shared concerns with authoritarian powers, it
should promote these values, leading to the preservation of the universal
rights of their citizens and a more stable political structure. In negotiations
with China over mutual concerns such as climate change or robust and
sustainable economic growth, the US should quietly pressure China to respect
the freedom of speech and avoid imprisoning dissidents. This method is to be
preferred over publicly confronting China, which has historically been
ineffective in expanding American values and strengthening bilateral
cooperation. The US faces a similar situation with Russia, whose frequent
military expansionism in neighboring countries has violated the international
rule of law. To restore democratic processes in regional matters, the
administration should stand with powerful allies and pressure Russia to resume
peace talks.
Over the past eight years, President Obama’s national
security strategy successfully restored American leadership. By applying a
smart power approach, rebalancing foreign commitments and domestic processes,
and promoting national values, the Clinton administration must maintain the US’s
influence as a firm, clear-eyed, and collaborative power in the international
sphere.
Notes
1 “Clinton’s Speech on the ‘Smart Power Approach to
Counterterrorism,’ September 2011,” Council
on Foreign Relations, 9 Sept. 2011.
2 Zenko, M.A, “Clear and Present Safety,” Foreign Affairs 91.2 (2012): 81.
3 National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds
(Washington DC: National Intelligence Council, 2012) 75.
4 Oliver, Tim and Michael John Williams, “Special
Relationship in flux: Brexit and the future of the US-EU and US-UK
relationships,” International Affairs
92.3 (2016): 559.
5 Sanger, David, and Michael Gordon, “Future Risks of
an Iran Nuclear Deal,” New York Times
23 Aug. 2015.
6 LA Times staff, “Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s
Democratic National Convention speech, annotated,” Los Angeles Times 28 July 2016.
7 Kay, Sean, America’s
Search for Security: The Triumph of Idealism and the Return of Realism
(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield) 183.
8 Kay 187.
9 National Intelligence Council 74.
10 National Intelligence Council 74.
11 Posen, Barry, “Pull Back: The Case for a Less
Activist Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs
92.1 (2013): 116-117.
12 Brooks, Stephen, et al. “Lean Forward: In
Defense of American Engagement,” Foreign
Affairs 92.1 (2013): 3.
13 Obama, Barack, National Security Strategy (Washington DC: The White House, 2015):
19.
14 Kay 275.
15 Zenko 83.
16 Traub, James, “The Hillary Clinton Doctrine,” Foreign Policy 6 Nov. 2015.
17 Kerry, John” “Why Women are Central to US
Foreign Policy,” op-ed. US Dept. of State
8 March 2013.
