American foreign policy overview and analysis

American Foreign Policy

Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics -- Joseph S. Nye

What are the strengths of Nye's arguments?

By suggesting that a strategy of "soft power" (using America's substantial strength of influence, international collaborative coalitions, and non-lethal approaches to persuasion) is preferable to storming into a nation such as was the case with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 Nye certainly has attempted to stir up the waters in America's current political scene. This is one clear strong point of his argument: simply the fact that he wrote a book which presents an intelligent, well-thought-out alternative to the Bush Administration's approach to "fighting terrorism." Nye's position is that soft power (" ... getting others to want the outcomes that you want -- co-opts people rather than coerces them" page 5) is more a matter of getting people "to buy into your values" (5) than pushing them, or bullying them into believing what you believe.

Since the Bush approach is basically one of unilateralism (go it alone if we must) and hegemony ("preponderant influence or authority over others" according to Merriam-Webster Online), e.g., putting together a coalition of a handful of allies to invade and occupy Iraq, which is contrary to most American military engagements, an opposing view (Nye's viewpoint) is healthy. And since the Bush invasion of Iraq was based on what the public now knows were questionable claims (that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons development and had already produced weapons of mass destruction) -- without the blessing of the United Nations -- there needs to be a counterpoint to that policy. Why?

The answer lies in the fact that the American political system is based on an honest dialogue between those who are engaged in the machinery of government. This nation is strong because those on both sides of the political discussion are free to criticize and present alternative ideas. And frankly, the Nye approach to resolving the issue of Saddam's threat to the Middle East -- albeit idealistic and perhaps not entirely practical -- looks reasonable now that the war has not gone well, indeed the war has turned into a kind of "Vietnam-like" quagmire, a blood-splattered chaotic series of suicide bombings carried out by fanatical Islamic insurgents vaguely tied to international terrorism. There would seem to be no escape for the United States, nearly 1,500 U.S. troops have been killed, America has lost credibility and prestige around the world and the Bush policy is fast losing ground in the U.S. public opinion polls.

What are the weaknesses of Nye's arguments?

Nye's book reads more like philosophy than prospective policy. At times his narrative sounds more like Plato -- or even "Dr. Phil" -- than the grizzled political veteran he is (Nye was Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration; currently he is Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and has written numerous books on international politics, such as The Paradox of American Power). For example, on page 5, he equates the use of "soft power" on the world's troubled and violent political scene with "a relationship or marriage." Power, he writes, "does not necessarily reside with the larger partner [in a relationship], but in the mysterious chemistry of attraction." We are all "familiar with the power of attraction and seduction," he asserts, adding that "political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction."

Yes, indeed, politicians understand that folksy, family-friendly commercials can they them elected because voters are attracted to "feel-good" images. But politicians in 2005 also understand that American voters in the post-9/11 era want their leaders to take a tough stand against "terrorism" -- wherever, whomsoever, and however the president at that time tells them it is wise to attack. For a politician to vote against money Bush asks for (for "the fight on terrorism") is near political suicide. He or she will be called "unpatriotic" next election period -- and therefore, if Nye's arguments are perceived as weak, then they in a real sense are weak.

Which examples that Nye uses are particularly effective?

Nye invokes the issue of soft power as a morality theme, by using the analogy of a Roman Catholic and why that church member follows the teachings of Catholicism (page 2). "It is possible to get many desired outcomes without having much tangible power over others," Nye writes. "For example, some loyal Catholics may follow the pope's teaching on capital punishment not because of a threat of excommunication but out of respect for his moral authority." Indeed, Nye continues, "radical Muslim fundamentalists" are quite possibly attracted to Osama bin Laden's politics not because they were threatened, or offered a financial reward, but because "they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives."

This analogy also could work for those opposed to abortion, the "pro-life" movement; they come to demonstrate in front of abortion clinics not because they will receive something, or because they are ordered to go; they feel a moral obligation to express their outrage at the killing of a fetus.

Which examples that Nye uses are particularly effective?

On page 5 Nye notes that prior to "the fall of France in 1940," France and England "had more tanks than Germany, but that advantage in military power resources did not accurately predict the outcome of the battle." What Nye is generalizing about here is so completely out of context and lacking in historical reality that his editor should have pulled that analogy out of the book. Nazi Germany had been whipped into a fury of fanatical hatred and passion for power, long before Hitler invaded -- and quickly crushed -- France. So that example is weak. Also, Nye notes that the playground bully "loses his power as soon as the class returns from recess to a strict classroom." That is a false statement: the bully merely is put on hold temporarily, because the minute class lets out for the afternoon, the bully has all his power and uses it to its full capacity on any kid who looks vulnerable.

Is there information missing from Nye's book that would support or contradict his argument?

As well-written and intelligent as Nye's book is, much of his narrative is abstract rather than specific. There are no maps or plans on how to create the diplomacy that Nye projects is necessary. Perhaps this is a better approach for a political writer who, though he is clearly writing about -- and vigorously critiquing -- the current Republican administration, has himself served in a Democrat administration. (Critics of his book could argue that he and the Clinton administration didn't do enough to corral bin Laden.) But meanwhile, a reader wonders precisely how is Nye's policy of "soft power" to be implemented in a world where innocent civilians and "peace-keeping" solders are being ripped apart from the bombs wrapped around the waists of fanatics who are quite willing to sacrifice their lives to kill? That part of the foreign policy discussion is missing.