|
Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics | 
| Author: Joseph S. Nye
Publisher: PublicAffairs
Category: Book
Buy New: $15.53
New (3) Used (5) from $14.87
Avg. Customer Rating:  13 reviews
Sales Rank: 384514
Format: Bargain Price
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 191
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.4 x 0.7
Dewey Decimal Number: 351
ASIN: B000WCTNSG
Publication Date: May 10, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently—and often incorrectly—by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies.
Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 8 more reviews...
 An Excellent Introduction June 26, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
As a beginning student of international relations, I found this book to be of great assistance. Professor Nye accurately and honestly critiques the Bush Administration's actions on the world stage and the theories behind them. In a social and political milieu that has been dominated by neoconservatism for much of the past six years, it was refreshing to read a different point of view so ardently put forth. After reading this book, one can clearly see the danger that America faces if we continue down the path of unilateralism and continue to unabashedly embrace the concept of an "American empire." As this book argues with excellent clarity, we must return to the combination of hard and soft power that constructed and cemented the international alliances which defeated communism and prepared much of Eastern Europe for democracy.
 A Real Softie March 21, 2007
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Joseph Nye is a renowned foreign policy expert and former government official, and some of his previous books have been highly erudite and influential. Therefore one has to wonder about the lack of depth or detailed discussion in this particular book, which was either written for the (very) general reader or was tossed off quickly without the proper amount of research effort. Nye's basic premise is strong enough. Soft power is the ability to encourage, rather than force, other political entities to contribute to your best interests, and the best way to succeed in world politics is to smartly mix soft power with hard power - a tactic that has fallen by the wayside in very recent American history. But beyond that serviceable premise, this book is poorly written and lacks a truly authoritative voice.
The concept of soft power is not very wide-ranging, and this subject matter would be presented better in a short but hard-hitting journal article. And while this book only has 147 pages of text, it still feels padded with flimsy examples and repetitive explanations of the basic concept. Nye has a particular problem with formulating believable examples to support his argument. For instance, the fact that AIDS originated in Africa and SARS originated in Asia is used as evidence that America is not dominant in globalization (yes you read that correctly), and pop culture items are supposedly filled with "subliminal" messages about American lifestyles (Nye may have meant "subtle"). Another problem with this book is that quantities of cultural and political accomplishments are often used in arguments about the quality of soft power exercised by America and other nations. And finally, Nye is capable of far more in-depth analysis on current events than the rather shallow punditry that he has written here. [~doomsdayer520~]
 Disappointing May 18, 2006
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
Came to this after reading "Imperial Grunts," a much better book. Soft Power has a valid point -- power isn't all from the end of the gun, but it doesn't help much after you acknowledge that. Perhaps I am too Republican. When I read Nye was AS Defense under Clinton, that seemed to explain a lot.
 Power in Soft Manner April 24, 2006
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
"Soft power" is flying over the sky. This idea is used in lectures, seminars and conferences. You may hear that Japan wants to increase its soft power by promoting sushi and comics. India desires to increase its soft power by boosting Bollywood movies. Indeed, "soft power" is not only an academic term, but also a cool phrase right now.
Nye redefines power in hard and soft power. Military capability and economic strength are hard power; cultural influence and political values are soft power. In Soft Power - The Means to Success in World Politics, Nye outlines the sources, strengths and weaknesses of soft power. In writing his conclusion, Nye believes that the United States has to use power more smartly by exercising both hard and soft power.
Nevertheless, it seems that the European Union and China are using soft power better than the United States in this moment. The European Union shares the same aim with the United States, but using soft power to achieve its goal rather than American's hard power. China is creating its soft power, but this soft power is different form Nye's one.
Nye criticizes that the United States did not use its soft power well in the Gulf War and the war on terrorism. It is absolutely true. But what is the reason behind? Why does the United States (especially under the Bush's administration) ignore the importance of soft power? Indeed, it is very easy to answer this question from the realist or the hawkish perspective. Just because using hard power is the fastest way to achieve national goal. Let's look at Nye's comparison on hard and soft power, "...soft power resources are slower, more diffuse and more cumbersome to wield than hard power resources" (p.100). Indeed, soft power is only the second choice of the superpower, but it is always the first choice of the regional powers such as the European Union and China.
The European Union, without any formidable military force, in order to expand its influence and achieve its goal, the only way is to build up soft power. It is interesting that both the United States and the European Union want to promote the ideas of democracy and human rights around the world. But the United States tends to achieve its goal by hard power such as war and economic sanction, while the European Union insists on using soft power such as cultural exchange and multilateral negotiation (recently the expansion of the European Union is regarded as one of the forms of soft power - transformative power). As Nye admits that the European Union is more attractive than the United States nowadays, and the United States is blamed for its double standards on the issues of human rights (prisoner of war in Iraq) and nuclear proliferation (Bush promised to provide India with nuclear technology although India has not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty yet).
Since the rise of China has become a hot debate, the Chinese leaders acknowledge that building up soft power is the only way to solve the tensions and suspicions between China and its neighboring countries. Thus, China's soft power is not cultural, but it is practical. It is clear that cultural element such as Confucianism, democracy and human rights are not on the Chinese selling list, the selling items are practical in nature such as respecting every nation's sovereignty, denying intervention on other nation's internal policy, and developing economic prosperity among neighboring countries.
In contrast, Chinese soft power is built for strategic necessities (or for regime security) in practical terms, while the soft power of European Union is built for ideology in cultural terms.
Indeed, it is easier for China to promote its soft power than the United States and the European Union. It is because both the United States and the European Union are selling their own values, and these values may not be easily accepted by various countries. Nye quoted the President of Iran in his book, "The new world order and globalization that certain powers are trying to make us accept, in which the culture of the entire world is ignored, looks like a kind of neocolonialism" (p.40). However, China is now selling the common interest among nations, when China addresses that every nation's internal policy should be respected and should not be intervened by foreign powers, this notion really attracts the Arabic countries and the countries in Southeast Asia. When China calls for multilateral cooperation in foreign affairs, this also attracts the potential great powers such as Russia, India and the European Union who are disappointed with the American's unilateralism. More importantly, Nye notices that "To a large extent, international order is a public good - something everyone can consume without diminishing its availability to others. Of course, pure public goods are rare. And sometimes things that look good to Americans may not look good to everyone else, and that is why consultation is important" (p.61).
In sum, hard power politics reflects the will of great power or superpower, but soft power politics reflects the international public good. I guess China's soft power will win over the American and European soft power in the coming decades. It is because there is no "clash of value" in China's soft power, but there are "clashes of values" between "the west and the rest of the world" as what Huntington said.
Soft power is a very fascinating concept, but in terms of stability, peace and the suspicions of "the rest of the world", is it better to have mutual understanding and cultural assimilation rather than "power" in soft manner?
Wisely spoken half truths. September 28, 2005
4 out of 12 found this review helpful
The thesis of this book is that there are many ways to get people to do what you want, and that in world politics, the US has been good at using these various methods until recently with the Bush administration. I am not sure whether this book was written as a sideways attack on the Bush administration, but the points it does bring out are true and worth paying attention to. Specifically, the author states how in the past, the US has used methods such as trade deals, political favors, immigration quotas, economic investments, and other non-violent and non-confrontational techniques to convince other nations to do things the American way. The author then shows how the current Bush administration has strayed away from these methods and chosen to use more direct ones such as trade embargoes, sanctions, ultimatums, and outright military invasions to get things done. The consequences have been disastrous; loss of friends and allies, lack of cooperation from multinational bodies, bad press, and of course, good propaganda for our enemies.
Many of these themes have been written about in editorials throughout the web and printed press since G W Bush came to office, and this book by the dean of one of Harvard's schools just adds weight to the arguments. The problem with this book is the insufficient coverage of all the dirty laundry of previous administrations.
A thorough comparison between Bush's foreign policy, and those of every president since 1900, will show that nearly every president used force to get other countries to cooperate when alternatives were possible. Examples include the various assasinations and coups of foreign leaders orchestrated by the US throughoug the world during the 1900s. These include the leaders of Iran, Chile, Indonesia, and the Congo. Saddam Hussein himself was paid by the CIA to assasinate an Iraqi government official during his younger days. Funny how this was not mentioned. In general, most presidents use a combination of stick and carrot to deal with foreign policy situations. Previous presidents were better than Bush at showing the carrot and hiding the stick.
Overall a good book, but one that tends to overemphasize the failures of the Bush administration, and skims over the failures of previous ones.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
