Rating: 
Summary: Required reading for all interested in IR
Review: "Americans are so powerful because they can 'inspire the dreams and the desires of others, thanks to the mastery of global images through film and television and because, for these same reason, large numbers of students from other countries come to the United States to finish their studies,'" said Hubert Védrine, former French Foreign Minister, as quoted from the book. In the Paradox of American Power, Joseph Nye Jr. argues that the American foreign policy machine should flex America's soft power (described by Mr. Védrine above) muscles and ease off our diplomacy by force - whether economic or military. American soft power is the greatest asset we have. It is one thing to force other nations to do what the US would like them to do, however it is another, causing little resentment, to inspire other nations to do what they would not normally do he argues. Nye charges that the US should lead the international community to design a system founded on our fundamental values that is universally accepted by the world. Our fight against an international community is counterproductive and damages are credibility and our ability to lead. Nye cites anti-colonialism and antislavery movement as international ideals of the past, and notes today's as environmentalism and feminism. The book is a short but eventful read. Nye presents his argument with smooth prose and a measured reasoning. One might not necessarily need this work on his bookshelf at home, but it is required reading for all who have an interest in international relations and all the decision-makers in Foggy Bottom.
Rating:
Summary: An elite liberal looks at the flaws of our foreign policy
Review: . Nye argues that an aggressive unilateral military approach will backfire on U.S. interests in the long-term. If we are genuinely seen as a responsible player in the international arena and not a self-righteous out-of-control bully, then more people will buy more of our products, will seek America's aid, will come to America to study, will support U.S. positions in international affairs, and so on. In other words our soft power will be greatly increased and help the U.S. maintain an edge over its rivals even as those rivals increase their power.. In this country, he notes, the national poverty rate was at 22 percent in 1960, 11 percent in 1973, but up to 15 percent in 1993. In this country in 1995, the richest fifth of the population had 45 percent of the income while the poorest fifth had only 5 percent. In Brazil, cited over the decades as a prime example of third world capitalist success, the richest fifth had 64 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth had 2.5 percent. He quotes from the Economist a statement, which seems to state that the poor in Japan are much better off than than the poor in the U.S. Nye's declaration of the benefits of globalization while pointing out statistics which show increasing inequality and even decreases in rates of growth (such as in labor productivity which dropped from previous decades during the deregulated Reagan years) is rather odd. He seems mostly concerned about the disruptions caused by in the third world and the opposition to corporate globalization as a hindrance to America's soft power He notes that our economy rests precariously on foreign investments in our capital markets, which could be easily withdrawn due to deregulated currency flows. Nye writes that the welfare state is needed but has only been "constrained" not "destroyed" by globalization. Well, I think it safe to say that the welfare reform of 1996 and the recent Medicare bill giving massive subsidies to companies that offer Medicare-type plans are steps along the destruction of our measly welfare state. Nye refers to what he calls the pro-democracy policies of the Reagan-Clinton years. If in the Reagan years, he means supporting death squad militaries to wipe out popular opposition movements to oligarchies in Central America on a bogus Soviet threat and then holding elections when such movements are banned or terrorized into nothingness then I would agree. Really is pro-democracy policies such that as that in not recognizing a free and fair election in Sandanista Nicaragua in 1984 and then continuing to use the contra's to terrorize Nicaraguan civilians to the point where the weak international court of Justice in 1986 would call on the United States to stop supporting the Contras and pay Nicaragua 17 billion in reparations? And to the point where the U.S. would have to veto a resolution at the Security Council calling on all states to observe international law? Are pro-democracy policies threatening the Nicaraguan people with continuing sanctions(made again in the Nicaraguan 2001 election) and contra terror if they didn't vote out the Sandanistas in 1990? And as for the Kosovo humanitarian intervention, Nye is surely aware of the Western documentation claiming that the Kosovo Liberation Army was responsible for most terrorism in Kosovo in the year before Nato started bombing. He surely is aware that the Rambouillet agreement called on Milosevic to accept something he could not: an All-Nato as opposed to a more natural occupation force that would have the right occupy the whole of Yugoslavia. And he has surely read the heroic General Clark's memoirs where it is admitted that when Nato started bombing it dramatically increased the incentive for the Serbs to start cleansing the Albanians of Kosovo. But of course America's hard power "credibility" was greatly increased by destroying a state opposed to America's hegemony. Nye does allow that the ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Albanians under Nato's watch that occurred afterwards was not a good thing. Nye mentions that U.S. economic sanctions failed to dislodge Saddam. Well he should know that the U.S. wanted him to remain in power after the gulf war because it didn't trust the Iraqi rebels and preferred Saddam remain in power for the moment and eventually be overthrown by "iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" that would govern Iraq like Saddam did when he was friends with Rummy Rumsfeld and Bob Dole. It surely did not increase America's soft power when throughout the Clinton years, the U.S. was vetoing at the UN sanctions committee Iraqi requests to repair its civilian infrastructure like its electricity and sanitation facilities which were deliberately bombed by the U.S. during the first Gulf War. Currently it surely doesn't help our soft power when we engage in bombing of fields and whole towns to "pacify" the resistance to our current illegal occupation and shoot dead protestors and arrest and harass people speaking out against the occupation. It surely doesn't help when we handpick their government that will allow us to sell off their resources and use their oil money to partially pay for the reconstruction of damages we are at fault for. Nye did not mention our more subtle interference in the internal affairs of other countries, such as through funding of opposition to mostly leftist governments by the National Endowment for Democracy which has played in a role in the subversion of Chavez by the opposition in Venezuela. And recently NED money poured into Georgia after the now-overthrown tyrant Shevradnadze made a deal with the Russians about an oil pipeline after which the U.S. suddenly expressing abhorrence at his rigging of elections. He mentions U.S. sanctions against Burma but fails to note that these sanctions allowed companies already in the country to continue to do business there and enrich the monstrous SLORC. Dr. Nye was asst secretary of Defense during the Clinton years and is currently head of the JFK school of government at Harvard. He probably had a hand in many of the policies which I excoriate. Nonetheless this is a much more compelling discussion in this book that would would expect from say Henry Kissinger, who has a blurb on the back cover praising this book.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Strategic Insights, Operationally Disappointing
Review:
My highest complement for a book used to be how many pens I broke on it. This book leaps into a new category. I actually had to read it three times, short as it is. It is brilliant, with paragraphs of such substance that multiple readings are needed to "unzip" the implications. This is not an undergraduate text although it could certainly be used as such, to open deep discussions. Among the strategic thoughts that I found most valuable were these: 1) a plenitude of information leads to a poverty of attention; 2) in the absence of time or means to actually review real-world information, politics becomes a contest of competitive credibility (with the Internet changing the rules of the game somewhat); 3) Japan has vital lessons to teach Islamic nations--that one can adapt to the new world while maintaining a unique culture; 4) we are failing to adapt our democratic processes to the challenges of the Earth as well as the opportunities of the Internet. This last merits special attention. I found in this book an intellectual and political argument for restoring democratic meaning to our national policies. From its evaluation of the pernicious effect of special interest groups on foreign policy; to its explanation ("When the majority are indifferent, they leave the battlefields of foreign policy to those with special interests."); to its prescription for healthy policies: a combination of national discussion (not just polling), with a proper respect for the opinions of others (e.g. foreigners), the author clearly sets himself apart from those who would devise national policies in secret meetings with a few preferred pals. Throughout the book, but not given any special chapter as I would have preferred, the author is clearly cognizant of the enormous non-traditional challenges facing the community of nations--not just terrorism and crime, but fundamentals such as water and energy shortages, disease, genocide, proliferation, trade injustices, etcetera. Operationally, the book is slightly disappointing. Despite the fact that the author has served as both the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (and perhaps left the operational bit to his Vice Chairman, Greg Treverton, whose book, "Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information" I recommend be read in conjunction with this one), and as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, I did not see two things in this book that would have bridged the gap from strategic reflection to operational implementation: 1) How must we change the manner in which our nation handles information? What should our national information strategy be, to include not only a vast new program for properly collecting, processing, and understanding foreign language materials that are openly available, for but improving our K-12 and undergraduate education with respect to foreign affairs? 2) How must we change the manner in which our nation authorizes, appropriates, allocates, and obligates the taxpayer budget? While noting that we spend 16 times as much on military hard power as we do on diplomatic soft power, the author left this issue largely on a single page. On the topic of values and accountability the author excelled. Although I would disagree that values by themselves are the foundation of national power ("knowing" the world, in my view, is the other side of the coin of the realm), the author sounds very much like Noam Chomsky with a social make-over--we have to be honest on human rights and other core values, and not act nor permit our corporations to act in ways that are antithetical to our true national commitment to decency and honesty. The section on new forms of accountability and transparency being made possible by changing in information tools and practices are valuable--admitting non-governmental organizations to all bodies; accelerating the release of records into the public domain, and so on. We learn from this book that the author is an avid admirer of The Economist, that he thrives on Op-Ed reading (I have never seen a more comprehensive use of Op-Eds in the notes), and that he is largely accepting of the World Trade Organization and other multi-lateral groups, most of which have not yet accommodated themselves to the new world of citizen-centered policymaking. As good as the notes are, the book would have benefited from a bibliography. The index is acceptable. If we part ways on any one thing, it would be that I am less sanguine about any foreign policy, however much it might use "soft power," being successful if it persists with the notion that we can cajole and seduce the world into wanting what we want. We've done that with Hollywood, and McDonalds, and chlorine-based plastics, and it is not working to our advantage. It may be that America must first recognize its own demons, adjust its global goals accordingly, and interact with the world rather than striving for a grander version of the "Office of Strategic Influence" that recently got laughed into oblivion. We appear to agree that the U.S. Information Agency must be restored as our two-way channel between our people and all others. I would dramatically expand USIA to also provide for a Global Knowledge Foundation and a Digital Marshall Plan on the one hand, and the education of all women on the other (Cf O'Hanlon's "A Half-Penny on the Federal Dollar"). This book opens the great conversation, and in doing so, renders a valuable service. Missing from the public conversation is the Department of State. Both the politically-appointed and the professionally-trained leadership of the diplomatic service appear to have been cowed into silence by a mis-placed coda that confuses abject compliance with loyalty to the larger national interest. If this book can draw State back into the public service, into a public debate on the urgency of protecting and expanding our most important soft power tools, then the author's ultimate impact on the future of American security and prosperity will be inestimable.
Rating: 
Summary: Get Busy With Mutilateralism Or Get Busy With Unilateralism!
Review: A book written by a bright thinker of true talent about America's future. The Dean of the Kennedy School of Government and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration book is interesting fodder for discussion of globalization. What I fear when is the tendencies of talk towards appeasement when action is required. For example, Economists Hayek warned the world about the ultimate failures of Keyesian Planned Economies over free market economies. He correctly predicted, the preservation of freedom and opportunity always provides the best economic environment for all individuals to grow for the benefit all by taking responsibility. Great change happens when great men are moved by honest principle not just diatribe dialogue. Another example is the late great Professor Struass`-Hupe pointing out that taking on evil empires like communism by confrontation is better than appeasement and was proven right in the end. All the talk in the world with liars of evil and the sluggish fearful do nothings seldom change anything until after great suffering has occurred. Additionally, the misinformed media and political pundits of abhorrence often lie about America acting with unilateralist, haughtiness, and narrow-minded policies. Therefore, making honest policies from honest discussions are often impossible with intentional defamation. The author does explain rightly so the dichotomy of American power in today's world. Nye suggests America's military and economic hard power must only be used as a last resort when international discussions fail. At the same time, America's soft power of educational openness, cultural tolerance to new ideas, individual responsible prosperity and protected opportunity can excel global change for the better. In the end, having good neighbors recognizing your soft power traits are better than having the need to have a good gun to tell them you will protect them. Nye argues the exercise of soft more than hard power may be the way to solve global problems like terrorism, economic squalor, and ecological weapons of mass destruction. The writer focuses on these new confrontations and enlightens us why America must use cooperative engagement involving other nations before sole force in order to survive globally. The problem with the French saying "Nothing In The World Can Be Done Without The United States...And...There Is Very Little The United States Can Achieve Alone" is simply wrong. The fact is the world cannot survive without American principles that are protected by American missiles. Consequently, I fear that Professor Nye's approach of trying to work with everyone often make policies that work for no one. And France proves this very point! Worse, such talk as men of evil are planning to use insane tactics of bio-terrorism, dirty nuclear bombs and lethal gas can leave America unilaterally impotent ending the world as we know it. Dean Nye's book makes great sense if the world is full of Democratic Governments like America. But so long as we have Islamic Kingdoms, Autocratic Dictatorships, and Communistic Elite's willing to exploit their own people with misguided lies then often compromise, talks and appeasement are a waste of time. Worse, they can escalate mass weapons of destruction more than eliminate them. The time is here where America might have to act unilaterally to change them before they change America and the globe. I find Nye's view that we should talk first, as common sense to achieve global goals is noble. But when the world is filled with fear of talkers afraid to act, America still must lead often alone. Knowing when to do both is the paradox according Nye. The problem often resides with our own American Leadership flaws that often obstruct what is right. For example, President Clinton was willing to lie and hide things to save his presidency power over American principles. Thus, how can the world trust such evident flawed character at perilously times? Yet, President Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were often vilified when using American power to stop aggression that in the end proved fruitful for the world. Thus, the views, rules of thumbs movingly expressed by of Joe Nye need to be read, debated and adopted only where they can actually work under the right leadership. And can establish a world of cooperative governments that help create middle classes so all can govern with freedom. The American Paradox may stop us from saving a world in peril by talking when we need action. Change governments that promote technological homicide of mass destruction in the name of any religion, ideology, or means to keep power must be confronted with action after conversations prove fruitless.
Rating:
Summary: Sadly Prophetic
Review: America used to be looked up to and admired by billions of people all over the world. This remained true thoughout the post-war period, up until the end of the Gulf War, when America emerged as the only superpower. But things are now beginning to change. Poll after poll conducted by Pew Research in Washington DC show that the goodwill of the world after 911 has been squandered. America is now more unpopular than it has ever been, both in Europe and in Russia, in rich and poor countries, and in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. Even more alarming is the fact that most Americans are unaware of this, believing that America is still loved and admired all over the world. On the contrary, America is disliked and distrusted. No doubt a major cause of this is envy. But this does not explain why America was so popular before, when the rest of the world was even poorer relative to America. And is this merely a hint of things to come? Nye's warning will be remembered as prophetic. No one can accuse this bright fellow of not explaining the dangers of risking unpopularity by going it alone; one day Nye can say: "I told you so." Nye's thesis, shared by such respected Republican Senators as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, is that America cannot solve many problems by itself. For instances, Pakistan's cooperation is crucial to capturing Bin Laden; Russia's cooperation may be necessary over Iran and Syria; China is absolutely vital to ANY solution of the North Korean crisis; Saudi Arabia's attitude is important in the war on terrorists; and Europe's assistance may still be required for the reconstruction of Iraq, the long term costs of which will be astronomical for America to bear alone. Also, America risks making even MORE enemies by persisting in going it alone. Nye's thesis is valid no matter who is president. This is an excellent book (one of several) by an brilliant Harvard scholar who's a liberal. Read it along with books by Henry Kissinger - an ex-Harvard scholar who's a conservative. They have a lot in common in their views - not because of Harvard, but because they happen to be right. (Samuel Huntington, also from Harvard, is an irresponsible fantast and a selective viewer of facts.) Both are brilliant and superb analysts and forecasters, not ivory tower system-builders, but practical, case-by-case, keen observers with a sense of history and the ability to see the forest for the trees (and if need be the leaves too).
Rating:
Summary: Sadly Prophetic (part 2)
Review: America's hard power is not as hard as many people think. Russia retains the ability to destroy America with ballistic missiles, even if this means suicide. China has the world's second largest foreign currency reserves (largest if Hong Kong's own is added). Added to this is China's holdings of $100 billion worth of US treasuries. That's considerable economic leverage on the US economy in the event of a trade war. Arab states have the option to deny oil - even if this means more pain to them than to America. (Without gas can the Humvees, etc. even run?) All these facts should give pause to those who think "soft power" doesn't matter although I agree that soft power really isn't power. (You can call it "respect" instead.) Right-wing fanatics are never going to be persuaded by this book no matter how ingenious the arguments may be. (I also think the three dimensional chessboards are a bit abstract. Really only the first two boards count.) They WILL pay for their stupidity though - along with everybody else.
Rating:
Summary: The man is amazing -- as is the book.
Review: As an undergrad, I took Nye's course "International Conflicts in the Modern World." What he predicted in 1991 has come to pass in 2001 -- the rise of terrorism and the changing multipolar world in which we live, post Cold War. This book is as enlightening as it is digestable. It could be no more timely -- par for the course for Nye.
Rating: 
Summary: 9/11 changed the world, but not harvard
Review: Critique includes Nye's latest in the Economist
The Straw man - "The United States, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone." Nobody says go it alone by preference: we say go it alone if necessary. The actual application of such phrases as 'alone if necessary' distress Nye, apparently
The flight of fancy - "...today the most interesting types of power do not come out of the barrel of a gun." If Nye is talking about the power of an idea whose time has come. Freedom of Religion is it. Trust me - "Soft power is particularly important in dealing with issues arising from the bottom chessboard of transnational relations." Since soft power is both vital, and whatever Nye says it is - because he just invented it - Nye is now the logical evaluator and maker of lists of things and actions that do or don't enhance America's 'Soft power', which we gotta have, buddy. False choice - "The paradox of American power in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age." The choice isn't 'go it alone' or 'clear it w/France'. The Bush vision is that we protect and extend freedom and prosperity as best we can as our founding fathers would have done: alone if necessary. My bet is that we won't be alone, especially if we win, which we are more likely to do if we don't follow Nye's advice.
Rating:
Summary: A book about the defining issue of our time
Review: How should America use its role as the world's only superpower? Nye makes a very compelling case for cooperation. This is a very sensible argument against the kind of go-it-alone arrogance exhibited by the hawks in the Bush administration. Nye also explains how the forces of globalization both help us and hurt us. I would suggest that this is a must-read for anyone who is concerned with the current course of world events.
Rating:
Summary: More Than What You Think
Review: I rated this book at 4 stars because it is a thorough primer; in other words, it is a solid summary of arguments for and against an increased application of soft power. While most contemporary geo-political texts tend to be long on problems and short on solutions, Dean Nye consistently applies his solution throughout the text. Having said that, it seems to me that this book was compiled hastily. Based on extrinsic research, I concur with most of Dean Nye's conclusions. However, his premises are often shallow - or at best, weakly articulated. For example, Dean Nye relies on passing reference to Antonio Gramsci in support of one of the basic premises of soft power - the ability to shape the political preferences of other nations. There is neither a cite to Gramsci's work, nor an explanation of why Gramsci's observations are more relevant than a more contemporary political theorist. Finally, I suspect that reviews which interpret this as a text arguing the merits of "multilateralism v. unilateralism" may have missed the larger picture. Since even a unilateral regime can be a leading "soft power", it seems that the theory implicates more about an American approach to international relationships than it does about American policy, per se. Compare George Mitchell's book, "Making Peace" about the American role in the negotiation of the Belfast Accords and Louise Diamond's primer "Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace" as potential illustrations of the practical application of soft power techniques in international relations.
| 
