Richard L. Armitage Fear, Not Hope, Rules U.S. Policy, Says Ex-Deputy Secretary of State by John Shaw Richard L. Armitage, former deputy secretary of state under President Bush, advocates sweeping changes to current U.S. foreign policy, arguing that the country needs to replace his former boss’s almost exclusive focus on fighting terrorism with a broader—and more hopeful—agenda. “We’ve been exporting our fear and anger after 9/11, rather than the more traditional export of hope and optimism and opportunity,” he said in an interview with The Washington Diplomat.“The U.S. has to be involved across the full breadth of our foreign policy tool box and not so heavily weighed toward the military as we are now,” he said. “Since 9/11, we’ve been so focused on the prosecution of the war on terror we’ve forgotten we have so many more tools. Perhaps the most useful is the power of our ideas.” Affable, engaging and blunt, Armitage has held senior positions in the Pentagon and State Department and is considered one of the country’s most experienced and savvy foreign policy practitioners. A trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Armitage recently co-chaired a task force under the auspices of CSIS on U.S. foreign policy. Working with Harvard University political scientist Joseph Nye, their report, “Smart Power,” was released several months ago and has been praised on Capitol Hill and by international affairs experts. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said the report—which advocates a blending of “hard” and “soft” power to create “smart” power—offers an outline for how the United States can develop more effective international policies. Armitage said he hopes the report can help the country move out of its hunkered-down, post-9/11 military mindset and regain confidence, idealism and strength. “As I see it, the U.S. was twice victimized by 9/11—first by the attackers, but then we victimized ourselves by losing our national confidence and optimism and seeing the world only through the lens of terrorism. Fighting terrorism is an important challenge, but it should not be the only part of our foreign policy,” he argued. Armitage and Nye have collaborated on other projects, including a study of U.S.-Japanese relations, and they welcomed the opportunity to organize a bipartisan group of experts to take a fresh look at U.S. foreign policy. “Joe Nye is regarded as Mr. Soft Power and I spent eight years at the Pentagon so maybe I’m a little harder power,” Armitage said. “But we both felt the need for a smarter power—melding soft and hard power for a more effective instrument of foreign policy.” The Smart Power project began in the fall of 2006 and the panel released its report in November of 2007, just as the 2008 presidential campaign was gearing up. The bipartisan commission included 20 national leaders from the government, military, private sector, nongovernmental organizations and academia. Among the panel members were Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The Smart Power panel held three meetings, received detailed briefings from CSIS staff, and organized a listening tour around the United States to assess the mood of the American public regarding international affairs. The listening tour in particular struck Armitage as informative and uplifting. “I have to confess that I was little surprised with what we heard,” he said. “I’ve always felt Americans were, at best, reluctant internationalists, but I think it’s a little better than that. People may have fears about globalization, but they realize we can’t divorce ourselves from the rest of the world. We are no longer hidden by our two great oceans. We found a lot greater understanding of American foreign policy than I expected. People may not be able to point to Darfur on a map, but they know something is going on there and it’s called genocide.” The panel agreed that U.S. foreign policy should move away from the current preoccupation with Iraq and terrorism toward a more positive agenda that builds on U.S. strengths, opportunities and influence in the world. To that end, the panel challenged the Bush administration’s decision to organize U.S. foreign policy around counterterrorism. “I’m not sure I can tell you what the central organizing premise of our foreign policy should be, but I think it’s possible to have the wrong organizing premise,” Armitage said. “If your foreign policy is just organized around the global war on terror, you’re missing the bet. I think a new paradigm will emerge. I don’t know what it will be, but in the interim we need to engage with friends and frankly engage with our enemies. Actually, it might be more important to engage with our enemies,” he added. Next Page