Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

In his best-selling book Soft Power, my friend and colleague Joseph Nye famously defined "soft power" as a state's ability to attract others to a set of "shared values and the justness and duty of contributing to those values."

Among other things, he saw the American system of higher education as a key source of this sort of attraction. Encouraging tens of thousands of foreign students to attend U.S. universities was an effective way to familiarize them with the core values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and free markets, and Nye argued that future elites educated here would be more inclined to share U.S. policy preferences. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it, "I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here."

I find this argument persuasive. Indeed, I once wrote: "the American university system remains a potent mechanism for socializing foreign elites. Students studying in the United States become familiar with U.S. mores while simultaneously absorbing mainstream U.S. views on politics and economics." (Full disclosure: over forty percent of the students at the Kennedy School of Government are from overseas, and I firmly convinced that helping to educate them is good for the world and good for America, too.)

From a parochial American perspective, however, this aspect of "soft power" has at least one downside. In addition to learning about American values and in most cases acquiring a more accurate and favorable impression of American society, some foreign students who study here also acquire an in-depth knowledge of how the American system of government works. They also learn how to talk to Americans in ways that we will find persuasive. In short, they gain a greater ability to manipulate our political system to their advantage.

For example, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has a law degree from Columbia and also took courses at Georgetown. He has been something of a darling in hardline circles in Washington, and he was savvy enough to hire one of John McCain's foreign policy advisors (Randy Scheunemann) to lobby on Georgia's behalf. According to Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations, these efforts gained Georgia a "broad base of support" in Washington. This is partly a testimony to Saakashvili’s own political skills, but his effectiveness inside-the-Beltway suggests that he learned a lot about what makes America tick while he was a student here.

A second example might be Ahmad Chalabi, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress and one of the key promoters of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Chalabi received a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Chicago and proved to be unusually good at cultivating powerful friends in Washington. Indeed, his ability to sell bogus ideas about Iraq to gullible American neoconservatives suggests that he knew more about American than he did about politics in Iraq.

Then there's former (and possibly future) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who went to high school outside Philadelphia and to college and graduate school at MIT. His fluid command of English and obvious familiarity with the American politics and culture have made him an effective media performer and a popular figure on Capitol Hill, where he testified in 2002 in favor of the invasion of Iraq. And let's not forget Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who received an M.A. in public policy from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and served as Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005.

The United States is more susceptible to this sort of influence than most other countries for three reasons. First, the United States is a global superpower with commitments all over the world, and its leaders don't have time to master all the details of different regional situations. So when a smooth-talking foreign representative with lots of local knowledge shows up and tells us what he or she knows we'd like to hear, we are more inclined to buy it.

Second, foreign countries know that whatever the United States does will have a big impact on them, so they devote a lot of effort to shaping our perceptions in ways that will benefit them. If they are smart, they send their A-Team over here, and people who know how our system works and what buttons to press will be especially valuable. By contrast, we don’t have the time, energy, personnel or incentive to do that for the other 190-plus countries out there. Here it's also worth noting that the number of foreign students studying here significantly exceeds the number of American studying abroad. According to the Institute of International Education, there were over 600,000 foreigners studying here in 2008, compared with about 250,000 Americans studying overseas.

Third, the United States has a uniquely permeable political system. If a foreign diplomat can't persuade the State Department, Treasury, or Defense, there are 435 Congressmen and 100 different Senators for them to go to work on. As Ken Silverstein shows in his fascinating and funny book Turkmeniscam, there are also a host of lobbying and PR firms who are happy to help foreign governments sell their story here too. And someone who has studied here for a few years is bound to know a lot about how to do that more effectively than someone who has never lived here before.

This is not -- repeat not -- an argument for raising the drawbridge and keeping foreign students out. Knowing how our system works doesn’t enable foreign diplomats or government officials to dictate what the U.S. government does, and sometimes an all-out effort to bamboozle us will get nowhere, or even backfire. On balance, therefore, keeping our ivory towers open is almost certainly a net plus for the United States. And there's undoubtedly a positive-sum benefit when students from a variety of cultures come together to wrestle with common problems -- I see this every day in my courses. But let's not be naive: there are certain costs too, unless one wrongly assumes that foreign leaders will never, ever, try to get us to do something that might be in their interest but not in ours. And in those cases, an intimate knowledge of how American politics operates will give some foreign representatives an edge.

International politics is a competitive business, and it’s hardly surprising that other countries use their knowledge of the United States and its political system to try to advance their own interests. Instead of keeping foreign students out, however, perhaps the answer is to get more Americans to study abroad, so that we're as good at manipulating them as they sometimes are at manipulating us.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SNYDERTM

5:24 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Minor Correction

Saakashvili took courses at The George Washington University not Georgetown.

 

STEPHEN M. WALT

5:33 PM ET

January 28, 2009

GW not Gtown

Thanks for the correction. My bad.
 

AARON HUNTER

5:31 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Interesting Article

Say there is a 10 point scale of social, economic, and political mores where 1 is "fully American" and 10 is "fully foreign" (the meaning of "foreign" would depend on where a given student is from).

Without schooling in the US, a foreign leader would score a 9-10, but with U.S. schooling, say the leader's values move a bit, toward 7-8.

Now suppose the US political elite rates a 1-2.

Even if a US educated foreign leader is better able to persuade the US elite of his beliefs, how far would he move that US elite on the scale? To a two? Three? I'd venture not much farther.

But what if that foreign leader was not schooled in the U.S., remained a 9-10, and is unable to persuade anyone within the US. That sounds like a dangerous situation to me.

I agree with your conclusion that more American students going abroad is good - but it is also good for more international students to study in the US.

 

SUHAILI

6:56 AM ET

January 29, 2009

are you a mathematician ?

sorry, math is not relevant in politics. i think you miss the point.

 

...

6:00 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Mikhail Saakashvili

Mikhail Saakashvili was a darling to hard line circles in Washington for the simple reason hard line circles are always trying to create wedges to isolate their feared opponents, with russia being one of the more obvious ones... the reason the usa sticks it's nose in certain parts of the world and not others has much to do with oil and military muscle..

 

GRAND SEN-OR

8:25 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Yet Another threat from other States...to be Balanced

In short, they gain a greater ability to manipulate our political system to their advantage.

Stephen I am disappointed that you haven't pointed out the _real_ threat might be the kolemen/memluk syndrome. Memluks (slaves) from the Client States come to stay in the US getting green-cards or alternatively had been brought by slave traders or headhunters and then take over the Administration - dramattically;->Taraaam! Welcome to the United Memluks of America;->>

That is more _realistic_, isn't it, it happened in the past in Egypt why not here;->Especially beware of the Jews and Turks, not to mention Blacks;->>

"the American university system remains a potent mechanism for socializing foreign elites. Students studying in the United States become familiar with U.S. mores while simultaneously absorbing mainstream U.S. views on politics and economics."

Why did you need to use such a long sentence, you could simply say that:->

"It is completely in accordance with the US Constitution that we should assimilate whoever come accross us - foreign students included. But if we feel that those students may become a (FP) Threat to our National Interests then we didn't do our homework properly, we have to review our education system to make sure the assimilation (devshirme) is effective and in favour of our National Interests. Ref the SATFP."

But I know by now that this is another of your TE;->

Grand Sen~or

note: I know, I know that is the end;->>
bye now!

 

BRETT

9:38 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Good point, Stephen. This

Good point, Stephen. This actually sounds like a recipe for a worldwide poll on attitudes from former foreign US university graduates.

 

KYLE L

11:26 PM ET

January 28, 2009

An interesting thesis, but one screaming for rigorous testing..

A provocative thesis, Dr. Walt. But the (aspiring) social scientist in me wonders how you would test it. Could you find cases where you could plausibly argue that all other factors are equal aside from foreign elites having been educated in the United States? (Perhaps cases of same foreign country, same issue, same US government, DIFFERENT foreign elites...). What kind of evidence would definitively prove that these elites' knowledge of the US political system is really what 'matters' above all in achieving their objectives? And how prevalent are cases that weaken your overall thesis--that having lots of foreigners in US universities somehow weakens US power-- such as situations where familiarity with the US political system discourages foreign elites from trying or wanting to try manipulative policies in the first place?

On a more general note, you seem to have a significant interest in the relative powers/abilities of foreign countries' interests groups within the American political system. Have you ever thought about devising a foreign policy theory/writing a book on this topic more generally? Perhaps the 'Israel Lobby' argument would become more powerful if it was but a single case within a larger theory of foreign lobbying and American foreign policy.

Finally, how the heck do you reconcile your apparent fascination with foreign policy lobbying in the US with your affiliation with IR realism!? Perhaps it is time you return your membership card to K. Waltz...

 

CARRINGTON WARD

12:28 AM ET

January 29, 2009

The strong do what they will

Great points and questions, Kyle L., some comments and speculations (from an observer of realism...)

1) From a 'policy' perspective, the problem is not sheer numbers, but rather a misuse of potential. In short, we don't know how to use soft power -- e.g. the State Department has a significant budget for overseas 'public diplomacy,' yet there's a huge and to-be-influential audience quite close to Foggy Bottom. Of course our use of hard power leaves a bit to be desired as well.

2) I agree that the 'Israel Lobby' argument has been -- ironically -- clouded by its eponymous focus: it has proved very easy for critics to throw up a lot of ad hominem chaff without engaging the arguments directly. That said, a broader focus also loses argumentative force.

3) I am sure Professors Walt and Waltz had long and intense discussions about a professional membership card -- the rest is history. A more interesting question, I think, is the process of Waltz's negotiations with previous carriers of the realist torch -- Morgenthau, Kennan, Niehbur, and Carr come to mind immediately.

One specific point to be made. The determinism of Waltz's Theory clashes with the choices implied by Thucydides. If "the strong do what they will, the weak what they must," then 'the strong' have a lot of room for mistakes.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

3:43 AM ET

January 29, 2009

1) From a 'policy'

1) From a 'policy' perspective, the problem is not sheer numbers, but rather a misuse of potential. In short, we don't know how to use soft power -

Yes, you don't know how to use soft power with suc a constitution based on centralized state and jumble-nation
concepts, meybe you will never know. If you had a different constitution where SPEEs were ruling, rather than the Central Government then you wouldn't have such worries and wouldn't feel _threatened_ by educated people.

Here is a solid example for you:

Suppose your Constitution allowed Jews to rule themselves according to the laws that they make, accept and willingly obey to organize their SPEE. And those Jews have their own universities to educate their members and other Jews around the world. Wouldn't a foreign Jew feel at home in such an environment and later on even he is living far away from America, in Israel, wouldn't he feel integrated with those American Jews and drag other Jews closer to the American Jews? And if a similar Constitution is in effect in Israel and the Jews there also have universities wouldn't they exchange students lovingly and caringly without seeing them as a threat to each other?

Repeat this example to other identifiable SPEEs to get the Grand Picture yourself.

But, no!
You can't change your Constitution!
It was revealed by Jupiter to you, only Jupter changes it!
So, you keep suffering threats which are generated by the figment of your Constitution.
You must allow them to make their laws and implement them to themslves, you know what is good for Jews better than Jews, so they must remain Jews as much as your laws allow them to be and expect that one day they will be completely assimilated and when you educate them in your UNI's they won't be a threat to you anymore.
Dream on Guys, it is American Dream Time!

To understand what I am trying to say here you can think the opposite as well.
Suppose Jews have the exclusive right to make laws and impose them to you and all according to the Mosaic Laws.Remembering their old experiences they allowed you to form Lobbies with one condition that you have to wear a kippe when you get together in the Lobby Lodge to remind you that you're rights are protected by the Jewish Constitution, you can live your now history laws as you like in the confines of your homes, as long as theJewsih laws allow but we don't want to hear about them in public, remember you areno more law maker, Jews are - let's call it Seco-Fasco Lobby and this lobby has close connections with a sort of left over free Seco-fasco State - France where your kind of people still enjoys law making and implements the laws to Jews and all....etc..
How would you like that?
How would you like that Stephen?
Just imagine yourself as such a Lobby member, you can even compose a TE on that from insade of the Lobby to outside;->>

Grand Sen~or

 

FULANA

5:46 AM ET

January 29, 2009

Inquiring minds want to know

Grand Sen-or, what is your diagnosis?

 

GRAND SEN-OR

7:20 AM ET

January 29, 2009

eventually you'll get it Mate;->>

if you live long enough;->>
have you read the SATFP yet;->>

Grand Sen~or

 

SUHAILI

12:59 PM ET

January 29, 2009

brava!

this is a very important observation--only if our ignoble congresswo/men and senators take time to read. take it over to The Hill?

sitting here inside of china, look out/back (to the states), my guess (have a proven record of good guessing) is, at this moment in time, every single politburo/central committee member have a member in the family study abroad, many on state money. Well, not every, but minimum 50%. They are flocking out and coming back to take high positions. These current members themselves are son and grandsons of earlier generations of this most exclusive club.

I’m also thinking over Walt’s ideas on a rising china. The thing I think he needs to bear in mind is that every rising/falling is a singular event.

 

PERCNON

7:14 AM ET

January 29, 2009

Let me just say to begin with

Let me just say to begin with that I havn't the faintest idea what Grand Sen~or is on about. Troll?

This argument is interesting but, I agree with Kyle L, it seems completely at odds with IR Realism insofar as I am familiar with it. It seems to undermine the unitary, rational actor assumption altogether.

Idi Amin found his way in by fighting for the British army, rising to a high enough rank to meet those who can set up a brutal African dictator. Robert Mugabe studied at Oxford University. How much this influenced him or allowed him influence I couldn't say but we can see from these two examples that there is more than one way into the good books of a hegemonic power. A US education is likely to help influence the political process but it is by no means the only way.

 

SUHAILI

1:17 PM ET

January 29, 2009

it's the most annoying part of comment-is-free

for now i treat this place as home. i feel bad not reading anyone, but Sen~or? sigh. it's free. nobody pays, he doesn't pay. haven't read wopo for a while but their treads used to be brim with Sen~ors, so i fled.

but mostly this is high quality. have to keep google to figure out stuff said. so it's beneficial to me. but what i don't get is if Walt is talking sense why bother about what school he confines himself?

 

GRAND SEN-OR

10:42 PM ET

January 29, 2009

but Sen~or? sigh. it is

but Sen~or? sigh.

it is free for you, but not so free for me. Every message I am posting here already cost me hundreds of thousands dollars. Sometime I feel I am spreading pearls in front of...;->>

The good news is ...... forget it! You wouldn't understand;->

Grand Sen~or

Note: Hey Suhaili! you sound like bored with your life, why don't you commit suicide? But before you do that learn Mathematics. Tha's what B.Russell did;->>
Good luck Mate!
Which ever road you choose send us a post-card;->>

 

CARRINGTON WARD

2:07 AM ET

January 30, 2009

Unitary, rational actor

How do you open a can of soup on a desert island?

Economist: "let's assume we have a can-opener."

There is a question whether Realists have the obligation to be realistic.

Waltz's _"Theory"_ has to be viewed in historical context. It was strongest in dealing with the impact of the Cold War, mainly because imminent incineration encouraged American statesmen to behave like the homo rationali (?) that Waltz postulated (at least where it mattered most, e.g. not so much in Southeast Asia, Africa, or Latin America).

This era is the past... and it is instructive to note how many Realists of other, previous eras could be viewed as reversing the argument, with 'unitary, rational actor' as something approaching a normative goal -- Machiavelli's _Prince_ is probably the clearest example.

I would guess that Realism is moving back toward such a 'normative' approach. And at some point, it seems unclear why Waltz should have any particular authority to issue or purge the Realists' party cards...

 

SEAN

9:38 AM ET

January 29, 2009

on the ground

This is a point that I've spoken about a fair amount with Iraqi friends and American friends who've spent time in Iraq. But the advantage of being familiar with American culture extends further than just lobbying in Washington. In Iraq, for example, there are so few Americans who speak Arabic, much less Iraqi Arabic, that those Iraqis who have a decent command of the English language are at a tremendous advantage for shaping events on the ground. This can range from being able to apply for NGO funds to explaining the situation on the ground to their American counterparts.

This can also be seen here in Lebanon. So while I don't know that any of the March 14 coalition has actually studied in the US, they are certainly more comfortable with American style interactions and the rhetoric that that involves than is the opposition. Walid Joumblatt is a case in point. This is someone who used to fight alongside the Palestinians against the Phalangists and Israelis and applauded the explosion of the Challenger because there was an Israeli aboard. But now he's the new darling of the Heritage Foundation and other like minded American groups.

Likewise, the advantage is seen when we look at the success of a Hamas spokesperson versus, say, Mark Regev. Of course, there are certain messages that an American audience is more inclined to listen to, but we shouldn't underestimate the power of culturally sensitive rhetoric.

I think worldly Americans in particular and Westerners in general are inclined to see the third world through an anthropological lens in which messages can be shaped and molded to cultural sensitivities in order to influence events in other countries. They forget, however, that rich countries are just as susceptible to this sort of manipulation, and that if anything, the third world is often at an advantage in that it is exposed to and understands America more than America understands it.

 

CARRINGTON WARD

2:20 AM ET

January 30, 2009

Imbalance of power

Sean's point is right on.

Part of the problem, of course, is the danger of unipolarity -- in general, everyone but the U.S. is trying to figure the U.S. out.

Which, of course, emphasizes one of the strengths of a more traditional American foreign policy as an offshore balancer -- they can only take us for a ride if we're there.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

10:15 AM ET

January 29, 2009

How about

Let me just say to begin with that I havn't the faintest idea what Grand Sen~or is on about. Troll?

Let me see...
how about a thoght experiment (TE) assuming the US have a constitution recognizing not only human rights but SPEE rights as well.

It us something like company rights, you know a company of people come together and write a constitution of their company to organize and maintain its organisation for a business purpose. Here the company is an economic entity.

For the sake of TE, why can't we assume that like companies (economic entities), socio-plotico-economic entities (SPEES) also have the right to make their constitution and laws according to their constitution to implement to their members. For a simple example under above assumption for an SPEE can be a group of Jews who closely identify themselves with the laws that they are willingly accept to organize their lives. Such a group of people apart from their common law also have economic resources, population (members/like share-holders), a certain culture and the potencial to form their own leadership according to their constitution, to declare themselves as a legal entity.

Again for the sake of TE we can assume that the US constitution is completely transparent to such an SPEE environment with minimum possible number of articles to protect the rights of all SPEEs like: no SPEE have the right to impose its laws to other SPEEs etc..apart from such guidelines SPEEs have all the rights to compose their own constitution according to their needs.

This TE is about replacing the existing US Constitution with multiplicity of constitutions of SPEEs. Once the system reaches to its complete functionality the meta constitution of the US could even be made redundent or further developed depending on the needs of SPEEs by the SPEEs. SPEEs also have the right to develop cross SPEE institutions as they require. Again in such cases a meta Constitutions is not necessarily required unless the SPEEs choose so...

This TE also about to modify/replace the existing concepts of STATE and NATION. SPEEs are not assumed to be bound to a space (any Jew can be a member to such a group, in fact if the SPEE laws allow any person can be a member to such a group regardless where they live. That would open a door of integration for those scattered around the world SPEEs). As you expect in such a TE, the FP environment will completely change, different FP theorieswill be needed.

Such a TE would also show us the relations between the FP and the Constitutions of SPEEs.

Roughly that's it. Of course such a TE needs to be developed carefully in detail, I don't have time and resources to do that but when I see some TE examples here I thought this would be quite an interesting one which may lead to important developments of socio-politico-economic structures. I am sure some people will pick this up and develop it.

I've searched the Net for "Troll" because two bloggers suspected that I might be one;->

troll 1291 up, 215 down
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

If you put all my postings together, it wouldn't be fair to identify me as a troll Besides, I really do not have time for that. I am here to share my knowledge with you, I am here to help you. It is true that I am repeating certain grammatical structures here, but so you do. For example I keep on pointing out the importance of constitutions in FP, you guys keep ignoring your Constitution, so on that repetition issue you are not any better than I am;->

I am _not_ a troll!
I have brought up the theory of this Blog as the SATFP amd asked you to correct it if I made a mistake. None did. Did I identify you people based on the SATFP as paranoid schizofrens? No! Because that wouldn't make sense.
It is true that I react to your postings with no restrain because I want to be honest with you. I observe that you are in desperate struggle here, I am too and I am not scared to show how I am struggling here just because you will call me names. Here I am responding to whatever is written and if I don't have enough back-ground about what is written then I refrain to respond, not to make mistakes based on my mis-understanding. And I am doing my best to understand what you post before I respond. The SATFP compilations is a proof for that. I ask heaps of questions here, I will keep on asking more and more questions, I am just warming up;->

I have given you some demo of my style, if you don't like it you have the choice to "report abuse" which may cause my account to be closed. But don't expect my style will change dramatically overnight;->>

I might be making mistakes, but I am completely open to correct my mistakes when I become aware of them and I encourage you to point them out to me, I would be really thankful for that. I am not expecting similar style from you, I am not even expecting you to answer my questions. As I said before my questions by themselves are acts in the language, their being left un-answered don't stop their action in the language. I am not here to test you either, I come accross with some messages, I pick one that I know I can respond _constructively_ and I respond to it. If you are lucky, it might be your message;->>

Thank you for your patience...

Grand Sen~or

 

BRETT

10:32 AM ET

January 29, 2009

Okay, I've got to ask- What

Okay, I've got to ask-

What is "SATFP" an acronym for? It's come up in virtually every one of your posts.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

7:55 PM ET

January 29, 2009

What is SATFP ?

A good question;->

But I have answered this meybe 10 times, so I am not going to repeat it here, till I update its axioms according to the feed-back I get from you Bloggers.
Use the search engine of this Blog at the top right hand side, enter "SATFP" it will bring you 11 references. Good luck!

So,if you are that interested read my previous 10 messages to get a cristil clear idea what it means.

And next time when you don't understand some messages don't jump into conclusions by posing "Troll?", (according to the definition of "Troll" that sort of messages are called "troll") ask questions that will eventually make you understand.

Grand Sen~or

 

BLUE13326

1:40 PM ET

January 29, 2009

A lot of linked issues here

A lot of linked issues here regarding the wisdom of the education of foreigners in US universities. From my own experience, what brought this question home to me was when I attended law school and found there were more students from China than there were African Americans in attendance. This is pretty shameful, but not necessarily an argument for keeping out Chinese students. There are also some nice externalities that flow from this: For example, an alum had been one of the major legal minds who set up the various Chinese stock exchanges, and, in turn, he returned to teach a seminar in Chinese corporate/securities laws, obviously much more valuable than simply learning this from an American looking in on the system from the outside.

On the other hand, as you point out, there are some clear negative consequences, one of the most infamous being Qutb, whose time at school here made him so disgusted with US liberalism that he was inspired to write works that became the groundwork for al-Queda and other Muslim fundamentalist movements, and helped crystallize in their thoughts that we were a paper tiger. Your prescription seems unrealistic, after all, an American using inside knowledge of local politics becomes a Yanqui imperalist. Perhaps a better prescription might be electing smarter representatives or curbing the influence of lobbyists. At this point, since most people are aware that one can best sway US opinion by utilizing a few magic words (i.e., freedom, democracy, human rights), I think we're entering an era where those words are going to lose their ability to so easily sway opinion, especially as Obama seems willing to pursue a more realist foreign policy.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More