Five questions for Joseph Nye

From Economist: here

For GRE material collection use lol: Here

>WHEN asked to identify the scholars that have most shaped US foreign policy in the last 20 years, international-relations experts in America recently placed Joseph Nye at the top of the list. Best known for developing the theories of "soft power" and "smart power", Mr Nye is also the rare academic with government experience. He served under Jimmy Carter at the State Department and Bill Clinton at the Pentagon. His most recent book is "The Powers to Lead", which applies the concepts of hard, soft and smart power to the skills that inividual leaders need to be effective (in foreign policy or in other endeavours). He is currently teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School on "Power in the 21st Century", which, he tells us, may eventually become his next book. We asked Mr Nye some questions this week on smart power, Iran, nuclear weapons and academia.

DIA: In late 2007 you wrote that America needs to rediscover how to be a "smart power". Is the Obama administration bringing the right balance of "soft" and "hard" power back to American foreign policy?

Mr Nye: Soft power is the ability to affect others to get what one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment. Smart power is the combination of hard and soft power into effective strategies. Mr Obama seems to have a good intuitive grasp of smart power. As he said in his inaugural address, "our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." From his early interview with Al Arabiya to his Cairo speech this month, he has demonstrated a capacity to communicate this new tone. Of course, tone is not enough. Resources also count. In 2007, Bob Gates spoke of the need to strengthen our capacities for soft power and better integrate them with hard power, and earlier this year Hillary Clinton said that smart power meant using all the tools available. That approach is showing up in the Administration's budgets and plans. In addition, as Richard Armitage and I argued in the 2007 CSIS bipartisan report on smart power, provision of global public goods such as development, public health, and dealing with climate change is an important part of a smart-power strategy, and Mr Obama has picked up these themes. Based on his first five months, I would say he is off to a good start in rediscovering smart power.

DIA: It seems that Barack Obama has been somewhat successful in exporting hope and optimism to Iran. But if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retains power, has Iran's election shown up the limits of soft power?

Mr Nye: Soft power definitely has limits. It depends upon the mind of the recipient as well as the sender. Smart-power strategies generally combine hard and soft in different measure in different contexts. As I describe in my recent book, that is why contextual intelligence is a crucial skill for an effective foreign-policy leader. Mr Obama's new tone has helped to change the climate of opinion somewhat in the Muslim world, including Iran, but for the ruling mullahs, American culture and Mr Obama's words probably produce little attraction. On the other hand, for a younger generation they do. Unfortunately, the ruling mullahs control most of the hard-power resources in the country. Soft power can help to provide an enabling climate, but it is not dispositive. That is the dilemma that Mr Obama faces as an American president dealing with the current context inside Iran. As Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar have argued, Mr Obama needs to encourage change but without a heavy hand that becomes counterproductive.

DIA: Should the election outcome change Barack Obama's policy of engagement with Iran?

Mr Nye: If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it is likely to have a serious destabilising effect on the Middle East. Mr Obama is committed to keeping his eye on that ball. Iran has had nuclear aspirations since the days of the Shah. Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency has recently speculated that Iran's nuclear quest is driven by a desire for prestige and influence in the region. It may be difficult to head this off, but given the consequences, it would be a mistake not to try—no matter what the outcome of the elections and protests in Iran. It is still conceivable that a combination of bigger carrots and sticks (hard powers) can persuade Iran's rulers that they are better off this side of the nuclear threshold than by crossing it.

DIA: When nuclear proliferation is discussed in the press these days, the focus falls on North Korea and Iran. Should this in fact be the focus of our attention? What are America's other policy priorities in the field of nuclear security and how do they rank?

Mr Nye: As I said, Iran demands a high priority. In addition, North Korea has violated its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, defied UN Security Council resolutions, and withdrawn from the six-party talks. Sanctions and containment of North Korea must also be a priority concern. But nuclear security goes beyond these two countries. We are at the point of beginning nuclear-arms reduction talks with Russia; and we still are concerned about the security of fissile materials in Russia and other countries possibly leading to leakage into the hands of terrorists. Instability in Pakistan and/or a serious worsening of the relationship between India and Pakistan will have important implications for nuclear security. And as we approach the 2010 NPT review conference, we should be asking how our actions regarding the test-ban treaty and other measures will affect the future of the non-proliferation regime.

DIA: You've lamented the growing gap between theory and policy, and the lack of real-world relevance of much of today's academic work. Which scholars have managed to remain relevant? Who would you recommend Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton put on their reading list? (And don't be modest.)

Mr Nye: There are many smart and relevant scholars for Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton to read, but having served in government, I know how little time there is to read. On the other hand, some young scholars like Marc Lynch, Dan Drezner and others are now turning to blogs to make their ideas more readily available to busy policymakers. My article about "Scholars on the Sidelines" in the Washington Post (April 13th) pointed out that fewer top academics are being appointed to policy positions than in the past. There is a growing gap between international relations in the academy and in practice, with few people fitting what Richard Neustadt called the "in and out" category. Only three of the 24 top-ranked scholars in the recent TRIP survey of 2700 international-relations scholars have both served in government and returned to make important academic contributions. I argued that the fault is more on the shoulders of the disciplines and the universities than the administration. I wrote the article because I was gratified to be listed as the scholar having had the most influence on American foreign policy, but I was discouraged by how much harder it is for young scholars today to follow the in and out pattern.

Notes:

Joseph Nye
Soft power
Hard power
Smart power
Internationsl relationship as well as how to become an effective leader
Gaps between academic and practice

Soft power: All from wikipedia

Overview

Soft power is the ability to obtain what you want through co-option and attraction rather than the hard power of coercion and payment. It was developed in the context of international relations theory by Harvard University professor Joseph Nye, in a 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.
In international politics, the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority.)
At the individual level, key examples of soft power resources are charisma, communication, persuasion, symbolic action, and exemplary behavior.

Definition

"The basic concept of power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes you want. There are three major ways to do that: one is to threaten coercion (sticks); the second is to pay (carrots); the third is to attract them or co-opt them, so that they want what you want. If you can get others to be attracted to want what you want, (to help set their preferences),it costs you much less in carrots and sticks."

In China

ON 17 February 2009 Dune Lawrence of the Bloomberg News reported that President Hu Jintao has been using China's new found economic, political and cultural power to build its image as a responsible world leader. China’s Communist government is about to launch a reported US$6.6 billion program to expand the reach and impact of its state-run media, namely CCTV and Xinhuanet, amid a BBC World Service survey of public opinion in 21 countries released Feb. 6, when China's positive rating fell to 39 percent, while its negative rating rose seven points to 40 percent.

Li Changchun, (李長春), one of China's top leader, the politburo standing committee member in charge of ideology, said in his 2008 December speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of CCTV: "Enhancing our communication capacity domestically and internationally is of direct consequence to our nation's international influence and international position."

Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, is doubting that the China's multi-billion-dollars investment might not work towards the desire of its investor: “If you want to promote something, you have to make sure the thing you’re promoting is acceptable to other countries....Soft power means other parties accept your values.”

Gong Wenxiang, journalism professor at Peking University, said to reporter:“China’s image is very important, but the first question is the image of the medium itself....If the medium lacks credibility, it is unthinkable that it will improve the country’s image.”

On January 29, 2009 Nicholas Bequelin of Wall Street Journal Asia compared China's CCTV with Voice of America or Germany's Deutsche Welle, and pointed out the difference between them, "The difference lies in the strong control the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party exert over news and information....the fundamental premise that all information on state-run channels must reflect the government's views."

Hard Power: All from wikipedia

Hard power is a term describing power obtained from the use of military and/or economic coercion to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. As the name would suggest, this form of political power is often aggressive, and is most effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power.
Hard power is often threatening.

Smart Power: All from wikipedia

Smart power is a term in international relations defined by Joseph Nye as "the ability to combine hard and soft power into a winning strategy." According to Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela R. Aall, smart power "involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy" – essentially the engagement of both military force and all forms of diplomacy.
We must use what has been called smart power – the full range of tools at our disposal - diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural - picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy. —Hillary Clinton