A high-level panel of foreign policy and social media experts recently questioned “the U.S. government’s ability to serve as a credible voice against the (ISIS) terrorist group’s propaganda,” a sad commentary on the current state of our government’s ineffectual efforts to counter an ISIS social media recruiting and propaganda campaign.

The key question in assessing Europe’s power resources is whether the EU will retain enough cohesion to speak with a single voice on a wide range of international issues, or remain a limited grouping defined by its members’ different national identities, political cultures and foreign policies. The answer varies by issue. 

The Brazilian foreign policy establishment rightly sees relations with emerging countries, so-called South–South diplomacy, as one of the pillars of Brazil’s global strategy. However, the crisis has reduced the country’s soft power and economic tools to attract these nations.

While China’s foreign policy has traditionally relied on economic leverage and “soft power” diplomacy as its primary means of power projection, Beijing has also been actively exploiting concepts associated with strategic information operations as a means to directly influence the process and outcomes in areas of strategic competition.

All — hawks and doves, left and right — agree that the United States must prioritize diplomatic solutions and public diplomacy and refocus on human rights as a core priority. That means a better, smarter foreign affairs budget, recalling that all of our largest trading partners are former recipients of U.S. aid.