smart power, another, earlier analysis

Had he done so, the author may have restrained himself from an uncritical celebration of the "pervasiveness of American culture" in "our present age" (p 10), without an iota of attention to the downside of this culture, such as its individualistic narcissism, Hollywood's culture of violence and even "clashing civilizations," [2] and limited tolerance of the "ethnic other". 

Similarly, Gramscian analysis of American cultural and political hegemony would provide rich insights on how the American superpower uses its colossal hard/soft power to "manufacture consensus" and to dominate the international organizations. 

 "The claim of the United States to support 'free trade' was hardly to be believed, since the government interfered with trade when this did not serve the 'national interests,' which was a euphemism for corporate interests."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MG09Ak02.html


To be sure, the authors of the "smart power" report are not void of praise for European imperialism, particularly the 19th-century British imperialism that, they claim, contains precious lessons for the "smarter" America of the 21st century. Their point - about "legitimized British power in the eyes of others" - is clearly Eurocentric and blind to the perception of the colonized populations who eventually removed the chains one way or another. But that is a separate story. 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak02.html

Human rights seen as a "tool" of US "Smart Power:" Suzanne Nossel, the current executive director of Amnesty-USA, previously worked at different times as a State Department official for Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton and is personally credited with having coined the term "Smart Power," which Clinton announced as the defining feature of current US foreign policy.  "Smart" indeed—certainly better-sounding—to project a contrast with the formerly unabashed Bush-Cheney reliance on "Hard Power." "Smart power" employs "Soft Power:" diplomatic, economic, and cultural pressures, which can be combined with military force, to "work our will" upon foreign nations, as described by Nossel:

"To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war…"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32295.htm