Soft Power Superpowers

The term "soft power" describes a country's ability to get what it wants by attracting rather than coercing others - by engaging hearts and minds through cultural and political values and foreign policies that other countries see as legitimate and conducive to their own interests.This book analyzes the soft power assets of the United States and Japan, and how they contributed to one of the most successful, if unlikely, bilateral relationships of the twentieth century. Sponsored by the U.S. Social Science Research Council and the Japan Foundation's Center for Global Partnership, the book brings together anthropologists, political scientists, historians, economists, diplomats, and others to explore the multiple axes of soft power that operate in the U.S.-Japanese relationship, and between the United States and Japan and other regions of the world.The contributors move beyond an "either-or" concept of hard versus soft power to a more dynamic interpretation, and demonstrate the important role of non-state actors in wielding soft power. They show how public diplomacy on both sides of the Pacific - bolstered by less formal influences such as popular cultural icons, product brands, martial arts, baseball, and educational exchanges - has led to a vibrant U.S.-Japanese relationship since World War II despite formidable challenges. Emphasizing the essentially interactive nature of persuasion, the book highlights an approach to soft power that has many implications for the world today.

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.

Not since the Roman Empire has any nation had as much economic, cultural, and military power as the United States does today. Yet, as has become all too evident through the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the impending threat of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, that power is not enough to solve global problems--like terrorism, environmental degradation, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--without involving other nations. Here Joseph S. Nye, Jr. focuses on the rise of these and other new challenges and explains clearly why America must adopt a more cooperative engagement with the rest of the world.

The author of Governance in a Globalizing World probes the limits of American power, offering a compelling argument for the world's lone superpower to forge cooperative relationships with nations around the world.

The essays in this volume argue that the Bush Doctrine, as outlined in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, squandered enormous military and economic resources, diminished American power, and undermined America’s moral reputation as a defender of democratic values and human rights. The Bush Doctrine misguidedly assumed that the United States was a superpower, a unique unipolar power that could compel others to accede to its preferences for world order. In reality the United States is a formidable but besieged global power, one of a handful of nations that could influence but certainly not dictate world events. The flawed doctrine has led to failed policies that extend America’s reach beyond its grasp, most painfully evident in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leading scholars and policy analysts from nine countries assess the impact of the Bush Doctrine on world order, explain how the United States reached its current low standing internationally, and propose ways that the country can repair the untold damage wrought by ill-conceived and incompetently executed security and foreign policies. Contributors focus on the principal regions of the world where they have expertise: Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia. The contributors agree that future security and foreign policies must be informed by the limitations of U.S. economic, cultural, and military power to shape world order to reflect American interests and values. American power and influence will increase only when the United States binds itself to moral norms, legal strictures, and political accords in cooperation with other like-minded states and peoples.

This book introduces the editors’ new concept of “Awkward Powers”. By undertaking a critical re-examination of the state of International Relations theorising on the changing nature of the global power hierarchy, it draws attention to a number of countries that fit awkwardly into existing but outdated categories such as “great power” and “middle power”. It argues that conceptual categories pertaining to the apex of the international hierarchy have become increasingly unsatisfactory, and that new approaches focusing on such “Awkward Powers” can both rectify shortcomings on power theorising whilst shining a much-needed theoretical spotlight on significant but understudied states. The book’s contributors examine a broad range of empirical case studies, including both established and rising powers across a global scale to illustrate our conceptual claims. Through such a novel process, we argue that a better appreciation of the de facto international power hierarchy in the 21st century can be achieved.

Is America still Number 1? A leading scholar of international politics and former State Department official takes issue with Paul Kennedy and others and clearly demonstrates that the United States is still the dominant world power, with no challenger in sight. But analogies about decline only divert policy makers from creating effective strategies for the future, says Nye. The nature of power has changed. The real-and unprecedented-challenge is managing the transition to growing global interdependence.