The Foreign Policy of the Lone Superpower

On the Way to Being the Only Superpower

The advent of the Cold War has brought the “superpower squeeze” from the sole control of the European nations to the hands of the United States, battling it out with the last European superpower, the Soviet Union. Holding it out for a few more decades, the Soviets did not last and its demise left the United States as the only super power in the world.

Being the lone superpower, the United States has a lot in its hands. First of all, its main concern is to keep itself on top. In order to do this it must keep itself abreast with the concerns of the world, make itself visible in all the other regions apart from North America, and make the other nations' business its business.

Thus, the United States cannot help but entangle itself in the affairs of the world to either ensure that they retain their superpower status, or simply project an image that first, they are a friendly nation, and that other states need not be afraid of their existence in their backyard, in their shores, and even in their own territory; but also to project an image that they are a force to reckon with.

Consequently, the United States must meticulously calculate and painstakingly come up with acceptable forms of instruments of foreign policy; in which they would yield the expected outcomes and results and at the same time do not invite the ire of the rest of the world.

This dilemma of the United States is further aggravated by the divided support that is given to them by the domestic population. For although it would seem that the United States has its hand on all matters of international concern, a majority of the Americans are still more concerned about what their domestic policies can do to them and would not care about the their nation's foreign policy. According to Edwards, Wattenberg and Lineberry, most of the Americans see that “democracy has little to do with the international relations of the United States. Because domestic issues are closer to their daily lives and easier to understand, Americans are usually more interested in domestic policy than in foreign policy.”

This carries the undertones of isolationism, a foreign policy and an ideal that the United States government and the people employed going back to its foundation by George Washington up to the onset of the First World War which ended when they were forced to join the war when the campaign of the German U-boats threatened their merchant ships and when they learned of the German enticements to Mexico that Texas would be given to them if they were to declare war against the United States.

The idea of isolationism broke out once again after the First World War ended. They reverted back to the ideal of staying out of the affairs of the rest of the world especially with European wars as they feared that it would only cause them more pain and suffering. But this sentiment did not endure as they soon found themselves entangled once more with the affairs of the world as they joined the Allied powers against Hitler's forces after they were bombed by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

Evidently, after the Second World War, the United States could no longer keep its hands to itself if it wanted to keep the world from going through a Third World War and most of all, from the grips of Communism, an ideology that became prevalent after the world suffered severe poverty after going through two painstaking wars in a span of 31 years.

This was evident in a series of policies such as the Monroe Doctrine and the containment doctrine, which was advocated by Senator George Kennan that called for the United States to isolate the Soviet Union, “contain” its advances , and resist its encroachments by peaceful means if possible, but by force if necessary.

Obviously, the United States was now in the midst of world politics and must remain so if it wanted to remain to be the lone superpower and keep the control of the world's political arena to the itself so as to avert any major conflicts that could propel the world en route to another global war.

An Instrument of Foreign Policy

Because the United States was now stuck with dealing with the rest of the world, it has now been compelled to orchestrate its affairs with hundreds of nations that should yield the best results. Since its opening up its doors to foreign affairs, it has come up with a wide range of instruments that could enforce its foreign policy which was classified by Edwards, Wattenberg and Lineberry into three major groups: military, economic, and diplomatic.

For our purposes, we shall only be taking up diplomacy, which Edwards defines as “the process by which nations carry on relationships with each other”. It is considered to be as the most peaceful and influential of all the instruments as it simply persuades the objects of foreign policy, being a instrument of soft power, rather than force or coerce them to do it, as do the other instruments which can be characterized as hard power.

But for Walter R. Roberts, co-founder of the Public Diplomacy Institute of George Washington University, “diplomacy has changed significantly over the past sixty years. Prior to World War II, diplomacy was essentially a government-to-government relationship. Since the war, it has broadened to include a government-to-foreign people connection” which he now terms as “public diplomacy”

In this online document, Roberts provides a detailed explanation of how the United States government successfully handled their diplomatic duties, outside of the embassies and how this fully evolved in what is now called public diplomacy. According to his article:

This is a preview of the whole essay

After the Second World War, when it became acceptable, in peacetime, for one government to try to influence the people of another country and to do this from an embassy, the nature of diplomacy had fundamentally changed. The programs that were used for this government-to-people relationship were originally called “information and cultural programs.” But within a relatively short time, professionals of the information and cultural activities realized that these programs were an integral part of diplomacy and hence began to call them cultural diplomacy. Soon, however, it became apparent that this was too narrow a term because it di not include international broadcastin and the policy information (press attaché) functions. By the late sixties, the broader term public diplomacy was accepted by more and more professionals.” [italics added]

And probably as a form of public diplomacy itself, the website of United States Information Agency Alumni Association, Public Diplomacy Website, provides comprehensive and extensive information on United States public diplomacy. It gives a substantial list on how public diplomacy can be defined.

It begins by differentiating public diplomacy from public affairs according to the Planning Group for Integration of USIA into the Department of State (20 June 1997):

“Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the United States through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences.”

The Planning Group distinguished Public Affairs from Public Diplomacy as follows:

“Public Affairs if the provision of information to the public, press, and other institutions concerning the goals, policies and activities of the U.S. Government. Public affairs seek to foster understanding of these goals through dialogue with individual citizens and other groups and institutions, and domestic and international media. However, the thrust of public affairs is to inform the domestic audience.”[italics added]

Clearly, as an instrument of foreign policy, public diplomacy should be directed towards foreign entities that has interests or concerns, concerning the decisions, policies, and actions of the United States.

The website further gives definitions of what public diplomacy is, citing various sources using its own agencies and department's definitions. It cites the State Department's own definition of the term: “Public Diplomacy refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publication, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television.” (U.S. Department of State, Dictionary of International Relations Terms, 1987, p. 85).

The former United States Information Agency, which has made public diplomacy its business for more than forty years, defined public diplomacy as follows: “Public diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.”

The website also provides for the differences between traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy. The USIAAA states that: “Public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy in that public diplomacy deals not with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organizations. Furthermore, public diplomacy often present many differing views as represented by private American individuals and organizations in addition to official U.S. Government views.”

It further adds that, “Traditional diplomacy actively engages one government with another government. In traditional diplomacy, U.S. Embassy officials represent the U.S. Government in a host country primarily by maintaining relations and conducting official USG business with the officials of the host government whereas public diplomacy primarily engages many diverse non-government elements of a society.”

This makes sense who would be in a better position to target the civil society but the civil society of the targeting state as well. This is evident in the United States conduct of public diplomacy as we will later on discuss in the use of media as an effective form of public diplomacy.

Function of Public Diplomacy

Image projection. Public diplomacy in the United States has been propped up by the government to project an ideal image of what this nation is. As mentioned earlier, the presence of the United States in every continent, every region and almost every nation, has given it the chance to be seen in all angles, including the not-so-good ones. Especially after the 9/11 incident, wherein Bush's “War on Terror” has forced the United States into a new armed conflict in the Middle East, new anti-American sentiments has resurfaced on all parts of the globe. Instead of being seen as a war on religious fundamentals and extremists, some now see this act of the United States as a crusade for the regionas rich resources of oil and energy.

As such, according to Roberts, one of the most fundamental roles of public diplomacy is to reduce this anti-American sentiment. He claims that the rise of anti-Americanism is the failure of the current government to utilize public diplomacy well.

Aside from projecting this image, the United States would also want to impose this image upon the other states, specifically to be a model that other states should emulate. They would want to export their values and ideals of democracy, freedom, free trade, human rights, values which are only functional if respected and adhered to by other nations of the world as well. For example, the ideal of capitalism and trade liberalization as accepted by the Americans would be useless if the rest of the world would adhere to communism for to whom would the Americans trade freely if their target markets would opt keep their economies to themselves and not reach out to other countries, such as the United States? This goes, too, to the other values that Americans hold dear.

A third function that public diplomacy may serve for the United States government if for it to be a way of saving face in case of any embarassing incidents that may have occurred that could tarnish its image. Examples have been given by Patricia Karl's paper, “Media Diplomacy,” one of which will be discussed later on in this paper.

Forms of Public Diplomacy

As cited in the Department of State's own definition of public diplomacy in its Dictionary of International Relations Terms, public diplomacy may take on various forms: publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television.

Fulbright Scholarships

It is notable that the the only non-mass media consummable form of public diplomacy is cultural exchanges, (which confusingly might still be transmitted through the media, if one so wishes). One of the most prevalent kinds of cultural exchanges are the educational exchanges between the American citizens and citizens of other countries. Probably one of the most popular of these is the Fulbright Scholarship.

The Fulbright Scholarship Program is the flagship educational program sponsored by the United States Government, under the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State, designed to “increase mutual understanding between the people of the United Statesand the people of other countries.” It abides by the goal of its creator former Senator J. William Fulbright, who legislated this program: “to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby to increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.”

This dream of Fulbright must have been in the minds of other citizens during his time for he proposed this legislation in 1945, right after the end of the Second World War, during which up until then, most interactions between international entities were either through wars or partnerships in preparation for a war. Fulbright clearly saw the need to open up venues for international collaboration which is completely in line with the American goal of peace and harmony. This surely qualifies the Fulbright program as a form of exporting American values and ideals which in turn makes the program a form of public diplomacy.

Beverly Lindsay admits that although being awarded a Fulbright scholarship is indeed “laudatory”, you cannot remove the fact it is a propaganda by the government of the United States including other international educational programs and cultural exchanges. In fact to call “public diplomacy” as a “propaganda” is debatable, according to the USIAAA website, claiming that public diplomacy should always only deal with known facts and ideas, unlike propaganda, which propagandists might fabricate stories and events, and propagate dubious facts and ideas that would further their cause, indifferent to the veracity of these items. But Mark Leonard, claims that the term public diplomacy is simply a euphemism for propaganda. The USIAAA admits that this is still an issue of debate and contention.

She mentioned two works in her paper, The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs written by Charles Frankel, and The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad written by Philip Coombs, in which she adjudged that “both works asserted that various sociopolitical dimensions and institutional structures—including educational and cultural affairs—were fundamental and, in some instances, indispensable to American foreign policy.

The Media as an Effective Tool for Public Diplomacy

But probably the most pervasive of all in terms of reach and magnitude in serving the purpose of public diplomacy well is the those done through the media. In the age of globalization and with the emergence of new technologies that makes this world a little smaller day by day, such as the internet, satellite and cable television and radio, American values and ideology is easily transmitted and exported to foreign land. `

The effectiveness of the use of media as a diplomatic tool was evidenced by the use of “live via satellie coverages” in Iran during the take over of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. In the opening statements of Patricia A.Karl, in her paper, “Media Diplomacy”, she claimed that news coverage of the Embassy take-over could be considered as “one of the longest media-orchestrated foreign-policy sagas in network history.”

She mentions that the students that were holding the hostages used the news coverages to pressure the their government, the U.S. Government and the American public--probably to pressure their own government to give in to the demands of the students. It was obvious that they really wanted to their message to be conveyed as they took steps for them to be assured that their sentiments were broadcasted. First, they set-up their three cameras of their own inside the premises of the embassy and their own dish antenna so they could relay signals to the news-broadcasting networks in the United States and then into American homes. They did this so that they could also make sure that their broadcasts were not being censored since their transmissions were “live”. They even came up with the show for the viewers wherein they chanted slogans in English (one in French for one of the Canadian stations) so their American audience would understand them.

Karl states that “If Vietnam was the living room war, Iran was the living-room revolution. Iran established the preeminence of television in instant diplomacy. United States government and public became hostages to this horrible spectacle. What was notable in this particular incident was not how these students tried to talk to the American authorities but bu how the American government responded to them.

Instead of sending official emissaries and high-ranking negotiators, the United States Government replied using the media and employed the services of the newsmen that was contacted by the Iranian students who, by the way, denied contact with the officials of the U.S. Government. Karl reports, “The Administration [Carter's] did not know exactly whom in Iran it was addressing through the media was miffed that the United States media had access to power sources in Iran that was denied to official emissaries.”

This example just shows how the “media are increasingly a part of the process (if not the entire process) in the communications between governments and publics about international politics...Member of the government or of the media have often attempted to manipulate the public's perception of foreign policy issues.”

Probably one of the most effective, and longest running, instruments when it comes to American public diplomacy is the radio program Voice of America. A paper written by William Benton in 1945, describes what was Voice of America and its role during the war years. Voice of America started broacasting over radio systems worldwide during the Second World War. It was intended, according to Benton, to supplement and help clarify the message of America's ten thousand tongues.

It was being broadcasted all over the globe, even to places that Americans may not have even heard of at that time. During the Second World War, it was being broadcasted in over forty languages but was then reduced to eighteen once the war ended. According to Benton, its main purpose was to “give people in foreign lands straight, impartial news from America, news in their own languages, news untainted by special pleading or propaganda.”

But the next sentence would actually raise all the questions that need answering with regard to its impartiality. “The radio Voice of America was developed in war by the Government.”

Hollywood Movies: Transforming International Perception of Americans

But American public diplomacy can also be seen not only in serious and hard-hitting news items broadcasted overseas by Americans. One of their greatest exports especially in the 2nd half of the 20th century was the Hollywood movie.

Early on, these movies projecting images, representations and values that Americans hold dear were shown and exhibited for consumption by foreigners in native land, giving them a picture and a feel of what America is. Some people would have a very vivid imagination of what America looks like, despite not havin been to America their whole lives. This has been the great effect of American movies.

Not only do these movies provide entertainment to the foreign audience, but unwittingly, they may have already become receptacles of American values and ideals. Their consumption of these goods may have somehow affected their cognition of what America is and therefore have become a very important tool for public diplomacy. America can never have too many symphathizers in one nation and in order to gain more, they need to show these people how successful America is and why it is worth emulating.

“Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.”

This passage might seem to have come out a speech of an American president but is actually one of the parting words of Optimus Prime in the 2007 hit movie Transformers. The movie was about the battle of two alien races of robots: one (the Decepticons) trying to eliminate the human race to take over the earth, the other the (the Autobots) trying to prevent the previous race from doing so—somehow being the crusaders for the human race for they believe that “others should not pay for the mess that they have created.” All of this because the Decepticons and the Autobots have destroyed their planet into pieces trying to assume supremacy over the other. With their planet gone, the Decepticons have been on a search as to which planet they should occupy, and unfortunately, they have chosen the planet Earth.

This movie is replete with themes of American ideology and values as seen in the way that the screenplay was written. This movie has screened during which America was on a crusade against terrorism and was currently occupying Iraq, “on a mission to free the the Iraqi people”, with George W. Bush at the helm. We may see that the characters in the movie may be likened unto real life characters or institutions. For example, the Decepticons may be attributed to the persona of Saddam Hussein, trying to take over a group of people for his own personal gain while the poor human race in the movie may be the Iraqi people. Meanwhile, the Autobots may be likened unto the Americans, trying to fight for the humans, fighting for a cause, fighting a war that does not even concern them, out of their nobility and manifest responsibility, being the only race that could match the Decepticons.

Just like Bush's justification in going to war against Saddam Hussein, he claims that only he has the capability to stop Hussein and his plans of using his weapons of mass destruction. And so he, sends in his troops, fighting in the name of freedom and human rights, topple a regime, and “free” the Iraqi people.

The Transformers movie came out at a time when the Bush administration was already being pressured by various lobby groups to pull out from Iraq. It may then be seen as a tool of somehow persuading the world, that America needs to be in Iraq, to ensure the freedom that is due all sentient beings.

Bibliography

Bender, Peter. “The Superpower Squeeze.” Foreign Policy, no. 65 (Winter 1986): 98-114. JSTOR. Database on-line; accessed 24 October 2007.

Benton, William. “The Voice of America Abroa.” Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 4 A Free Press For A Free World (December, 1945): 211-217. JSTOR. Database on-line; accessed 24 October 2007.

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. “Fulbright Program”. Available from http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/. Internet; accessed 24 October 2007.

Edwards, George C. III, Martin Wattenberg & Robert L. Lineberry. Government in America: People,Politics & Policy. United States: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, 2003.

Karl, Patricia A. “Media Diplomacy.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science (1982): 144-159. JSTOR. Database on-line; accessed 24 October 2007.

Leonard, Mark. “Diplomacy By Other Means.” Foreign Policy, No. 132 (Semptember, 2002). JSTOR. Database on-line; accessed 25 October 2007.

Lindsay, Beverly. “Integrating International Education and Public Diplomacy: Creative Partnerships or Ingeneous Propaganda?”. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 33, No. 4. JSTOR. Database on- line; accessed 24 October 2007.

Lowe, Norman. Modern World History 4th Ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Robert, Walter R. “The Evolution of Diplomacy.” Mediterranean Quarterly (Summer, 2006). Accessed from the Public Diplomacy Website, http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/70.htm. Internet; accessed on 24 October 2007.

United States Information Agency Alumni Association. “Public Diplomacy Defined.” Available from Public Diplomacy Website, http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm. Internet; accessed 29 October 2007.

Peter Bender, “The Superpower Squeeze”, Foreign Policy 98, no. 65, (Winter, 1986), in JSTOR (database on-line]; accessed 25 October 2007.

George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg & Robert L. Lineberry, Government in America: People, Politics and Policy (United States: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, 2003), 562.

Ibid., 538.

Norman Lowe, Modern World History 4th Ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, 29.

Ibid., 96.

Edwards, Wattenberg and Lineberry, 539.

Ibid., 530.

Ibid., 531.

Walter R. Roberts, “The Evolution of Diplomacy”, Mediterranean Quarterly, (Summer, 2006), accessed from the Public Diplomacy Website sponsored by the United States Information Agency Alumni Association, http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/70.htm, on 24 October 2005.

Ibid.

United States Information Agency Alumni Association, “Public Diplomacy Defined”, Public Diplomacy Website, accessed on 29 October 2007 from http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm.

Ibid.

Roberts, “The Evolution of Diplomacy.”

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, “Fulbright Program”, accessed from the Department of State Website, http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/ on 29 October 2007.

Beverly Lindsay, “Integrating International Education and Public Diplomacy: Creative Partnerships or Ingeneous Propaganda?”, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, in JSTOR [database on-line]; accessed 25 October 2007.

Mark Leonard, “Diplomacy By Other Means,” Foreign Policy, No. 132 (Semptember, 2002), in JSTOR [database on-line]; accessed 25 October 2007, 49.

Patricia A. Karl, “Media Diplomacy”, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science (1982), in JSTOR [database on-line]; accessed 25 October 2007, 143.

Ibid.

Ibid., 144.

Ibid.

William Benton, “The Voice of America Abroad,” Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 4 A Free Press For A Free World (December, 1945): 211, in JSTOR [database on-line]; accessed 24 October 2007, 210.

Ibid., 210-211.