Rating: 
Summary: A onedimensional player in a three dimensional game?
Review: I think this book is interesting and important reading material for those who want to understand what is happening nowadays, and why USA "can't go it alone".
Nye says, among other things, that the world is no longer the realm of an unipolar power (USA). According to him, it is necessary to distinguish three dimensions of power.
The first dimension is interstate military issues, and it is dominated by USA. We can say that this dimension of power is unipolar. However, there are other dimensions: the economic one, and the dimension regarding transnational issues.
The economic dimension of power deals with interstate economic issues, and has many important actors (for example the EU, Japan, and other relevant players). Nye highlights the fact that this second dimension is multipolar: USA needs the cooperation of other states, in order to achive its objectives.
Finally, the third dimension takes into account transnational issues such as global warming and and terrorism. In this case the structure of power is disperse, and the number of relevant state and nonstate increases exponentially. Joseph Nye Jr. also says that the importance of the military dimension, that involves hard power, is likely to diminish in the future. On the other hand, he predicts that the relevance of the other two dimensions, more soft power oriented, is going to increase, due to many factors (for example, the information revolution). However, a state has to take into account not only soft power but also hard power in order to achieve success in its policies. He also tries to make the idea of the three dimensions of power more easily understandable by comparing power to a three-dimensional chessboard, where you have to play in the three dimensions if you want to win. The problem, according to him, is that USA is increasingly paying attention only to the military dimension of power, and due to that it is likely to have more than a few problems in the long term. A onedimensional player in a three dimensional game can only lose... On the whole, a very good book that can help you to understand better what is happening today ... Recommended !!!
Rating: 
Summary: Simplistic, unrealistic
Review: I was disappointed to read this book. Nye basically argues that the world has become very complex due to the global information age and that even though the US will remain as the world superpower in the coming decades, it is in its best interest to pursue multilateralism instead of unilateralism (altough he recognizes that "at times we will have to go it alone").
It's really hard to argue with Nye's argument, because on paper it sounds very true. Unfortunately, this book does not address the practical matters of foreign policy in the first decade of the XXI century.
I bought this book expecting to find a practical, matter-of-factly counterpoint to the one spoused by the neoconservatives. I had previously read "Of Paradise and Power" (R.Kagan) and "The Threatening Storm" (K.Pollack). I wanted a counter-argument but I did not find it. I am still looking.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice work
Review: I'd go along with another review that this book seemed to be compiled rather hastily...a lot of generalizations on America, very broad statements on the world's current state, numerous non-specific arguments on the steps America needs to take next. But being general certainly doesn't make it worthless. The text seems like a good introduction to various facets of the world in 2002...but probably not much in the way of originality if you keep up with the news and think for a bit about what you see/read.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally we got some definition
Review: In five short chapters, Nye takes a tour de force in the issues of 'Globalization,' citing such other authors as Kindelberger's "Rich Nation, Poor Nation," Alvin Toeffler, and Peter Drucker. On the fly leaf Henry kissinger is quoted as saying:"'The Paradox of American Power is a timely warning that it is perilous to disregard the deeply held concerns of the rest of the world." And on the cover Madeleine Albright is quoted as saying: "Nye provides an excellent framework for viewing the US's role in the 21st Century - especially after the events of September 11." No doubt in the works before 9-11, this is what we have been waiting for to get us - Major and minor parties alike - all on the same page. There will no doubt NOT be a consensus as to Nye's recommendations, but at least we will finally be all on the same playing field - and the dialogue can begin. Based on his definitions and agenda, that at least will be a start for developing our own national priorties. As former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Nye has the credentials and the background to put the issues of globalization in place and discuss the varied problems of geo-politics and transnationalism with authority and de plumb. An arguement from the viewpoint of 'the establishment,' it will no doubt provide the reference points we all need to get on with solving the problems presented by the new century and 9-11's across the globe.
Rating:
Summary: Salon Society Foreign Policy Vision, such as it is
Review: Ney wants to clear everything Bush does w/France. Clever, huh?
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. Capitalism is it. Taking control - "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, and we are more likely to win if we don't follow Nye's advice.
Rating:
Summary: The Ambiguities and Complexities of American Power
Review: Not since Roman Empire has any nation had so much economic, cultural and military power, yet that power alone will not be sufficient to solve the world's problems. Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, presents a three-pronged strategy for maintaining the United States' standing in the world while reducing its vulnerability in the years to come. He argues this power will last far into the 21st Century, but only if we learn to exercise it wisely. Power in this new century will rest on a mix of what he defines as "hard" and "soft" resources. The greatest mistake we can make as a world power is to allow ourselves to become the victim of one-dimensional analysis, believing that investment in military power alone with ensure our strength. Paying attention to "soft" power, the former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Defense Secretary in the Clinton Administration argues, will co-opt people rather than coerce them. Military and economic power can be used to influence or threaten other people and country's positions once they are taken. Soft power however, rests on the ability to set the political agenda in a way that shapes preferences. It is the ability to entice and attract. It stems, in large part, from our values -- the policies we follow inside our country and the way we handle ourselves abroad. It recognizes that power in the information age is less tangible and coercive. There is also a benefit to not going it alone. While an inequality of power, he says, has often led to peace, because there is no point in declaring war on a more powerful state, it causes some countries to chafe. Effective global governance requires a powerful state to take the lead. By encouraging or nourishing regional pockets of strength and acting with restraint or in combination with others, the impact of American power is softened. Whether other countries unite to balance American power depends as much on how the United States behaves as the power resources of the potential challengers. The key to maintaining American supremacy in the years ahead, Nye argues, will rest in our ability to share power as well as to lead.
Rating:
Summary: not very impressive although I agree
Review: Nye is right that America cannot "go it alone"; however, the depth of content is not as much as I expected as an MA student.
Rating:
Summary: Makes a flawed case for multilateralism. Read why.
Review: Nye makes a case that the U.S. Power is much overstated. He views power among three dimensions. The first dimension is Interstate Military issues. This is the domain where the U.S. dominates. Nye calls it "hard power". The U.S. military budget represents half the entire World. Its military capacity is unparalleled and unmatched. The second dimension is Interstate Economic Issues. This includes international treaties regarding international trade, antitrust and commerce, and financial regulations. Here power is distributed on a multipolar basis. Here, the U.S. can't achieve much in this area without the cooperation of the EU, Japan, and often China, India, and other major players. The third dimension is Transnational Issues. This domain includes international financial stability, drug trafficking, spread of diseases, global warming, other environmental issues, and terrorism. Here power is widely distributed and chaotically organized among state and nonstate actors. As described above, the U.S. supremacy is only applicable to one of three dimensions of the international politic arena. The U.S. has more hard power (military and economic might) than anyone else. But, the two other dimensions address issues that are resolved by soft power. Soft power is the ability to negotiate, resolve issues without conflict, lead consensus, manage issues to your advantage. Nye finds the U.S. soft power is rapidly declining. This is because it has often opted right out of most of World treaties regarding the environment, World criminal courts, or other similar treaties. Meanwhile, he sees Europe has having a far stronger position than the U.S. on the dimensions requiring soft power instead of hard power. The truth of the matter is that when you have the Power you don't want it curtailed by supranational treaties. When you don't have the power (such as the Europeans) you do want supranational treaties curbing the power that dominates you. This is a rule that has remained true throughout history. Also, Nye ignores the tremendous amount of soft power the U.S. has generated through private foundations of billionaires such as Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Soros, and many other Americans who fund a rising percentage of humanitarian projects to improve life in the Third World. This aspect of soft power totally escaped Nye. And, in this arena, the Americans are again dominant. He further characterizes the U.S. huge discrepancy between its mighty hard power and its weakly soft power by focusing on budget expenditures. Military and Defense (hard power agencies) spending represents 16% of the Federal Budget. But, the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (more representative of soft power agencies) account for only 1% of Federal Budget. In other words, the U.S. spends on soft power only 1/16th it spends on its hard power. However, these numbers are not representative. Obviously, the military costs a lot more to fund because of the high cost of stealth bombers, carriers, and other huge weapons. Comparing these two sets of costs as representative of the U.S. investment in hard power vs. soft power is absurd. If we revisit the three-dimensional model. Nye makes a case that power is increasingly shifting away from the hard power military dimension to the other two that are more soft power oriented. In other words, your going to resolve a declining percentage of the World conflicts and issues with GPS guided missiles and more with loose cooperation between governments, and nongovernment entities exchanging information. This power shift within the three dimensions suggests that the U.S. should shift away from a unilateral foreign policy stand, and rejoin the multilateral arena with Europe and others. The U.S. can't expect support of its allies when it needs them, if it chose to ignore them whenever it did not need them. Nye therefore also calls for the U.S. to commit to support the UN, NATO, and other supranational entities, just as Europe does. But, Nye arguments are flawed. He has a biased European view. When observing objectively what has the soft power European way achieved lately vs. the hard power unilateral U.S. approach, you reach very different conclusions. We are undeniably in a Pax Americana era, as the U.S. is the only entity able to maintain order around the Globe. The U.S. is sometimes hated, but always respected. These are the assets and liabilities of being number one. This has been true throughout history. The U.S. is the major force around the World regardless of framework. The U.S. has done a tremendous amount over the past decades in opening World Trade. Its open markets associated with large trade deficits actually supports the entire World trading system. It goes without saying that the U.S. has saved Europe from Nazism, and Communism. Today, the U.S. is a far more dynamic and potent force in resolving all the related Middle Eastern issues than Europe is. Europe is viewed as a passive player because it does not have the military capability to support an effective foreign policy. Additionally, Nye has a cult for the UN. But, this international body has become dysfunctional and is unable to respond to hot situations around the World as they emerge. I agree with Nye that the U.S. should exert its unilateral hard power in a much less arrogant way. A better style may go a long way in sustaining the substance of our foreign policies. But, to state that Europe has actually more overall power than the U.S. because it has supposedly much more soft power than the U.S. on two out of the three power dimensions is nonsense. Soft power backed by hard power (military or economic power) is meaningful. Soft power backed by nothing is not power. For a far better book on the same subject read: "Power and Paradise" by Robert Kagan.
Rating:
Summary: The book that will unite the Davos and anti-Davos crowds
Review: Nye makes a convincing case that the U.S. must be a more responsible actor on the world stage, and that this is so regardless of whether we hope that America will continue to be the world's dominant power or wish for more equality among the world's states. I can really imagine this book being discussed and debated heavily in the year to come.
Rating:
Summary: Concise and accurate analysis of the role of America Today
Review: Nye makes very compelling arguments about the erosion of traditional power contained in the American economy and military, and that in the years to come, a third type of power (soft power: the ability to make others want to do what you want them to do) will become extremely important if America is to hold its current place of power and prestige. And in order to do this, it is necessary to stop acting unilaterally and show the world that we are willing to work cooperatively to address those problems that are occurring on a global scale. I won't go into all of his arguments, but they are all airtight and well documented. The one complaint I have with the book is some of the economic analysis (regression to pre-industrial PCI as an indicator of economic power is flawed and I personally don't agree with the idea that industrializing states are benefitted by open markets) is wrong. Regardless, this is an excellent book that succeeds very well in explaining the situation the United States currently occupies, and what pitfalls to avoid and which policies to adapt in order for America to continue to weild influence on a global scale.
| 
