Rating: 
Summary: Great book but not for everyone
Review: Nye outlines America's current situation in the global arena very well. He writes how America's unprecedented power is a great advantage as well as an unfortunate curse. Although America is the richest nation on earth, and many countries strive to be as successful, many nations see America in a different light. There is a growing global aggression towards the US and its enormous power. September 11 is a clear example of this. Nye explains how Americans must look at the world now and into the future. America might be the most powerful nation on earth but we shouldn't look down at the rest of the world because of it; our power can be destroyed just as quickly as it was acquired. He addresses how the information age and current globalization trends are rapidly changing the world in which we live. Only through cooperation, as opposed to isolation, can America stay on top in the times to come.I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history, especially foreign affairs and US foreign policy. It is best to be read by someone at the college level or above because it can be hard to understand at times.
Rating:
Summary: Great book but not for everyone
Review: Nye outlines America's current situation in the global arena very well. He writes how America's unprecedented power is a great advantage as well as an unfortunate curse. Although America is the richest nation on earth, and many countries strive to be as successful, many nations see America in a different light. There is a growing global aggression towards the US and its enormous power. September 11 is a clear example of this. Nye explains how Americans must look at the world now and into the future. America might be the most powerful nation on earth but we shouldn't look down at the rest of the world because of it; our power can be destroyed just as quickly as it was acquired. He addresses how the information age and current globalization trends are rapidly changing the world in which we live. Only through cooperation, as opposed to isolation, can America stay on top in the times to come. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history, especially foreign affairs and US foreign policy. It is best to be read by someone at the college level or above because it can be hard to understand at times.
Rating: 
Summary: Liberal views on American strategy
Review: Nye provides very good descriptions on current affairs... His main point is that American power rests on three realm - military, economic, and cultural. The "soft-power" that Nye designates American cultural power seem to be bit far-fetched argument. Of course the world is changing but the culture, norms, and institutions developing currently have little policy implications for international affairs. Rather they reflect new forms of cultural & institutional hegemony framed and applied by self-serving realists.
Rating:
Summary: Has the author ever seen Gary Cooper in ¿High Noon?¿
Review: Only recently we learned that Korea suckered the Clinton administration and proceeded to use our financial donations to expand its nuclear armaments program. Joseph Nye was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs during that period. It is not unfair to ask if the author is unwittingly part of problem---and not part of the solution. Nye appears to be among those who innately blame America for the irritation of its fellow members in the United Nations. Has he ever considered the possibility that our country might be mostly blameless? The author fails to address an unavoidable question: are many of our allies too soft to do their duty? Nye prefers to ignore the harsh fact that more than a few of our fair weathered friends have chosen to be wimpy pacifists. Has he already forgotten that the United States saved millions of lives in the Balkans? NATO, without American military might, was found to be an empty shell of an organization. Europeans enjoying their pampered welfare state lifestyles shy away from adequately paying the military costs to defend themselves. Their economies are imploding and unemployment rates continue to rise. Only a handful like the Czech Republic seem to be thriving. America is the only real superpower on this planet essentially by default. The situation may be analogous to a runner who wins the race because nobody else showed up. Why should we grant veto authority to those not willing to shoulder their fair share of the burden? What is to de done if our comrades never wish to get past the discussion stage? Also, who ever said that military power alone was sufficient? Nye appears to be knocking down a straw man. I have never heard any serious thinker make such a claim. The author criticizes our government for opting out of international treaties concerning global warming. Isn't he aware that those sounding the alarm over this debatable issue often rely upon junk science? Should we embrace their fatuous proposals merely to keep everybody happy? Is America arrogant because it refuses to suffer fools gladly? Nye's very premise is severely flawed. He tactically, if not explicitly, believes that dialogue alone will resolve virtually all differences of opinion. Regretfully, this is only true if both sides of the dispute are honest with themselves. It may even cause more harm than good if either party is indulging in self delusion or outright dishonesty. The United States, especially after 9/11, courts disaster if it shies away from unilateral action after prudently concluding that multilateralism is not a viable option. Joseph Nye should view the movie "High Noon" with Gary Cooper who plays the role of the sheriff who ultimately is compelled to unilaterally confront the outlaws because the rest of the town is too cowardly to respond multilaterally. This film will be far more helpful to him than the numerous Liberal dominated conferences he attends.
Rating: 
Summary: No One Likes A Bully
Review: Since the fall of communism, it has been a truism that the US is the world's only superpower. But what exactly does that mean anymore? We have the world's strongest military, but do not (and should not) use it without the backing of the American people and the international community. We have the world's largest and strongest economy, but it is strikingly dependent on the stability of international markets (which in turn are dependent on the stability of local economies around the world). We cannot defend our economic interests (for example, the Middle Eastern oil supplies necessary to our economy) without friendly countries who allow us to base military forces there. Terrorism, drugs, global warming, international financial markets and development issues all present problems to which we cannot dictate solutions. Instead, we must participate in some kind of global cooperative effort that seeks the good of all. At the same time, we cannot allow a single self-interested country to impede actions we view as essential to our security, and the American polity will not tolerate "undue" intrusions on US sovereignty. In this world, how should the US, with all of its military, economic and even (sometimes) moral force, go about securing peace, prosperity and human rights for the greatest number of people? I was hoping that Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, would bring some real insight to these questions about how the US should determine and conduct its foreign policy. Unfortunately, in this short volume he provides mostly platitudes, almost no analysis, and little or nothing in the way of answers. Nye's analysis draws on several "insights." First, no one likes a bully. The US must therefore guard and enhance its "soft power" to set agendas and persuade others. Alas, no advice is offered as to how we do this. Nor does Nye explore in any concrete way how an emphasis on preserving our soft power would affect our policy choices. Second, other nations and groups have soft power too. I'm not sure that Nye actually makes any use of this insight, although one would think that it might play a role in addressing some of the concerns about democratic process in international institutions. Third, there are problems we can't solve ourselves. If we need others to help us with some of our problems, we have to expect that they will want us to help them with some of their problems in return. Nye ends up by giving us a strategy to promote public goods and listing factors that should be considered in deciding whether to undertake a humanitarian intervention or whether to use unilateral or multilateral tactics. These provide useful checklists, but they are not really developed enough to give particularly useful guidance for developing policy. Overall, a disappointment. I am giving it two stars only because I agree with most of what Nye has to say. If you already believe a multilateral approach to a foreign policy focused on public goods is necessary, you will probably find few new insights here. If you think the US can go it alone, I doubt that you will be persuaded otherwise by this book.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of opinion, virtually no proof
Review: The author does an acceptable job of presenting _what_ his opinion is, but a very poor job of explaining _why_ anyone else should share that opinion. The footnotes and references he introduces are only rarely pertinent and never compelling to the sweeping conclusions he draws. For example, as support for his premise that global warming and climate change (a claim which is still heatedly debated among scientists and far from being established as fact) will impact the United States' ability to project power, he invokes a single article in the NYT referencing a white house press release that carbon emissions _may_ be a factor. Wow. Gosh, I'm convinced.
The book is full of such cases where the author cogently and effectively presents an alternative or scenario which _may_ be true, and then blithely moves on sans proof or support of _why_ it is true to spend the next ten pages describing how that unproven premise will impact the United States and its role in the world.
The author may be correct in his suppositions and conclusions. But I found I couldn't focus on his points since he left such glaring holes in the chain of reasoning by which he reaches those conclusions. If you're going to say "If X then Y", you'd better spend some time showing that X is actually the case before you spend pages and pages talking about the impact of Y if you want anyone to care. "If martians prefer bic lighters to zippos, then clearly the democratic party needs to move more toward the political center" is insufficient justification for then spending 15 pages on talking about why the political center is good for democrats.
A minor peeve of mine was that the author seemed to fall in love with his own clever terminology for things. For example, he introduces and then gauzily defines the term "soft power" early in the book, and then never misses a chance to refer to how this or that factor might impact a nation's soft power. To readers who weren't convinced (for the reasons outlined above) in even the _existence_ of soft power, these continuing references are at best annoying and at worst irrelevant.
Rating:
Summary: Good Old Thinking For America's Future
Review: The most useful way to look at Nye's extended essay, The Paradox of American Power, is, in his own terms, as an "editor" or source of information. Unfortunately, that is another way of compensating for, what these days is missing in American debates: sound and open-minded thinking with conviction. But Nye also gives the reader two enduring arguments: the difference between hard and soft power, and the metaphor of the three-dimensional chessboard. The bulk of Nye's essay is composed of responses to arguments previously offered by other commentators. It is easiest to see Nye's essay in the negative by reference to the contemporary arguments he cites. He is not isolationist, multilateralist, nor a unilateralist. Nye also gives his essay historical depth, with references to Roman, Athenian, and British history. The essay is also buttressed with 33 pages of notes and 15 pages of index, covering an impressive list of publications and periodicals. Nye discusses most the topics of the information revolution and globalization, alluding to American military might, but not allowing that to outweigh the first two. To conceptualize the relationship between the three, he uses the metaphor of a three-dimensional chessboard. Because of this metaphor, his essay is the least Americo-centric of any discussion on this subject. Nye most important contribution and single-most identifiable idea is his distinction between hard and soft power. Although American military might is impressive, Nye sees soft power as more lasting and compelling, and the one area, in which American influence is wanting. As recent arguments with Europe over trade and the steel tariffs dispute shows, battles over things other than military are messier than clearing caves in Afghanistan. No doubt partisans will label Nye's essay for domestic political consumption, but Nye has navigated the rough seas of academic writing and modern polemics well. It eschews apocalyptic warnings of future doom, as well as avoiding triumpalism. The essay itself is an example of why Americans still have influence and wisdom in the world to impart. The Paradox of American Power is a light, quick read, but it has relevance, magisterial power, and, even, prophetic force.
Rating:
Summary: The US is at crossroads: Unilateralism vs Multilateralism
Review: The Paradox of American Power is about a crucial question, why the world's only superpower can't go it alone? In his work, Joseph S. Nye makes a well-done analysis of the U.S foreign policy in the age of information revolution and globalization. He has several crucial insights in regard to American foreign policy centering on diverging perspectives of unilateralism and multilateralism. As Nye frequently points out in his study, the uni-multi debate is one of the most crucial issues for the U.S foreign policy now and years to come. Nye basically suggests that the United States should not act unilaterally in world affairs even if it is the world's only superpower. He makes the point that a multilateral pattern of foreign policy will be the best option not only for stability of international system but also for American national interests. The author argues that unilateralism is a danger for the U.S foreign policy since it has a considerable tendency to harm U.S relations with the rest of the world. In this respect, Nye recommends, the United States should follow a multilateral foreign policy, in which it takes place in international institutions and participates in multilateral treaties. Otherwise, Nye says, the United States will face a serious resentment and balancing behavior by the others. In this respect, he draws attention towards the recent U.S unilateralist acts such as dispension with the UN and rejection of several multilateral treaties including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and treaty on establishing International Court of Justice. Joseph S. Nye extensively talks about the reasons why the US can't go it alone. The changing global landscape in the age of information revolution and globalization, Nye says, is the primary reason for why it can't go it alone. A unilateral drive will lead to significant opposition by the rest of the world and it will considerably undermine its "soft power'. Nye gives significant attention towards "soft power" while he also holds military and economic power important. For this reason, he criticizes sovereignists who only consider "hard power" and champion unilateralism as the number one foreign policy pattern for the US. The Paradox of American Power seems to be remaining in the center of many foreign policy debates since it well touches upon a significant issue of U.S foreign policy now and years and even decades to come. The uni-multi debate, which constitutes the core of this book, makes it quite relevant for both students of American foreign policy and scholars of global politics. This elegant book is recommended for the informed public alike.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Indictment of Arrogant Unilateralist Thinking
Review: The paradox of American Power, argues Joseph Nye Jr., is that it is too powerful to be defeated militarily yet not powerful enough to meet all of its global challenges by itself. Nye expands this argument in a series of well-researched essays that are as deeply practical as they are intelligent. Few people are probably as uniquely qualified to examine the nature and problems of American power as he is. Nye is the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and was Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Clinton Administration. This man is no ideologue and he knows what he's talking about. Nye's argument is largely a refutation of the simplemindedness demonstrated by a clique of policy makers whom he refers to as the new unilateralists or hegemonists but who are more popularly known today as neoconservatives. Because these people are infatuated with military aggression, argues Nye, they fail to understand that power is a complex phenomenon best understood in terms of its "hard" and "soft" components. Hard power consists of military and economic leverage while soft power contains less obvious but no less significant components such as cultural appeal, universally respected values, opportunities, and policies that are tied to global interest as much as national gain. Nye correctly argues that the great empires of the past including the United States ruled through a skillful application of both hard and soft power. To jettison our soft power because our leaders are so enamored of hard power, argues Nye, is a colossal blunder. Nye also argues that power is distributed on different levels some of which require cooperation with other nations and some of which don't. He elaborates by describing American power in terms of a three level chessboard. On the top level of the chessboard, which constitutes military power, the United States is preeminent and can act unilaterally. The middle level, which constitutes economic power, however is multi-polar. In this area the United States must act in concert with a select group of other players such as Japan, China, France, Germany, India, and others. The bottom level of the chessboard constitutes trans-national issues that occur with no regard to national boundaries. In these areas, which include international finance and the actions of stateless organizations, including terrorists, the United States can only act in an inclusive global fashion. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine, Nye criticized the Bush Regime for its nearly exclusive focus on the first level of the chessboard and described its policy makers as one-dimensional thinkers in a three dimensional chess game. Nye reinforces his argument by explaining the impact that contextual developments such as the information revolution and globalization have on American power. The information revolution, argues Nye, circumvents borders and challenges state sovereignty and control. America is both a product and a beneficiary of globalization, according to Nye, but must use its soft power to shape the evolution of globalization in a manner that endows it with universal appeal. Failure to do so could have disastrous consequences. In his chapter entitled "The Home Front" Nye begins with the ominous observation that instead of being defeated by the barbarians, Rome rotted from within. "People lost confidence their culture and institutions, elites battled for control, corruption increased, and the economy failed to grow adequately." Terrorists cannot defeat the United States, argues Nye, unless it rots from within. More importantly, Nye points out that disastrous fiscal policies that drive up deficit spending that destroy time honored American social services can dramatically erode American hard and soft power. Deficit spending inevitably generates a recession and a severe recession will likely result in the flight of foreign investment capital thereby weakening America's hard power. But also as deficit spending destroys social services and opportunities, it also chips away at America's global appeal-a blow to our soft power. In his concluding chapter, entitled "Redefining the National Interest" Nye calls upon the United States to pursue multilateral policies that foster badly needed international cooperation. Although Nye acknowledges that the multilateral approach provides America with less freedom to act at will than the unilateral approach, he also points out that it is better suited to dealing with the transnational issues that constitute some of our greatest challenges in the Twenty-first Century. Nye concludes that the United States should develop a combined policy that: (1) protects our traditional vital interests, (2) addresses the global public good, and (3) promotes human rights and democracy abroad. Although this book was published in late 2002, it practically reads like a post mortem of the Bush Regime's disastrous foreign policies with respect to the Middle East, North Korea, Europe, and Iraq, which have arguably reduced both our hard and soft power. My hope is that more people will become familiar with Nye's arguments and will subsequently judge their leaders not by the entertainment value of their speech acts, but by whether or not their policies properly address the national interest.
Rating:
Summary: Where is the beef?
Review: This book should be required reading for all U.S. Senators and State Department officials. Nye has offered us a recommended course to steer the American Ship of State in the comming decades. Reasonable people will agree with his recommendations. However, Nye would have been more credible if he would have devoted a chapter to the difficulty the president and the congress have in confronting the influence of American lobbies. Yes, Virginia, lobbies influence our policies. How can we bring on board the sugar lobby, the tobacco lobby, the Christian Right lobby, the oil lobby, the Israeli lobby, the Florida Cuban lobby, the anti-abortion lobby, etc.?
|
