SOFT POWER AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ARE INCREASINGLY KEY

SOFT POWER AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ARE INCREASINGLY KEY

1. SOFT POWER IS MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002.
Power in the global information age is becoming less coercive among advanced countries. But most of the world does not consist of post-industrial societies, and that limits the transformation of power. Much of Africa and the Middle East remains locked in pre-industrial agricultural societies with weak institutions and authoritarian rulers. Other countries, such as China, India, and Brazil, are industrial economies analogous to parts of the West in the mid-twentieth century. In such a variegated world, all three sources of power - military, economic, and soft - remain relevant. However, if current economic and social trends continue, leadership in the information revolution and soft power will become more important in the mix.
2. LIBERALISM, PLURALISM AND AUTONOMY INCREASE SOFT POWER
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002.

The countries that are likely to gain soft power are those closest to global norms of liberalism, pluralism, and autonomy; those with the most access to multiple channels of communication; and those whose credibility is enhanced by their domestic and international performance. These dimensions of power give a strong advantage to the United States and Europe.

Soft power is not simply the reflection of hard power. The Vatican did not lose its soft power when it lost the Papal States in Italy in the nineteenth century. Conversely, the Soviet Union lost much of its soft power after it invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, even though its economic and military resources continued to grow. Imperious policies that utilised Soviet hard power actually undercut its soft power. And countries like the Canada, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian states have political clout that is greater than their military and economic weight because of their support for international aid and peace-keeping.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, July/August 2001, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/Nye0701.html, accessed May 2, 2002.

Seattle; Washington, D.C.; Prague; Quebec City. It is becoming difficult for international economic organizations to meet without attracting crowds of protesters decrying globalization. These protesters are a diverse lot, coming mainly from rich countries, and their coalition has not always been internally consistent. They have included trade unionists worried about losing jobs and students who want to help the underdeveloped world gain them, environmentalists concerned about ecological degradation and anarchists who object to all forms of international regulation. Some protesters claim to represent poor countries but simultaneously defend agricultural protectionism in wealthy countries. Some reject corporate capitalism, whereas others accept the benefits of international markets but worry that globalization is destroying democracy. Of all their complaints, this last concern is key. Protest organizers such as Lori Wallach attributed half the success of the Seattle coalition to "the notion that the democracy deficit in the global economy is neither necessary nor acceptable." For globalization's supporters, accordingly, finding some way to address its perceived democratic deficit should become a high priority.

ISOLATION AND CONTAINMENT DON’T WORK IN POLICY-MAKING

1. ISOLATING OTHER COUNTRIES IS BAD POLICY

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “The Case Against Containment: Treat China Like an Enemy and That's What It Will Be,” June 22, 1998, p. np, http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/china/06221998nye.html, accessed May 3, 2002.

 Isolating other countries is bad policy.  Washington's current hysteria about China is largely driven by domestic politics. Three times in two weeks, the House of Representatives rebuked the president over China. In an election year, Republicans seize on allegations of campaign finance scandals, and illegal technology transfers to build campaign issues. Democrats looking forward to the year 2000, split over how to handle human rights during Clinton's trip. It would be a pity if domestic politics caused Americans to lose sight of our long-term strategic interest in East Asia. Clinton defended his trip in a recent speech. Disagreeing with those who want to isolate China, he argued that such a course would make the world more dangerous. I agree.

Ever since Thucydides and the ancient Greeks, historians have known that great wars are often caused by the rise of new powers and the fears such change creates in established powers. But it is not true in every case. New powers can be accommodated if they can be persuaded to define their interests in responsible ways. That is the overarching question the United States faces in its relations with China.

3. A POLICY OF CONTAINMENT SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK

Pessimists about China's future and about America's continuing strength argue for a policy of containment analogous to our response to the Soviet Union after World War II. But the current debate between containment and engagement is too simple. For one thing, a crude policy of containment would not work.

4. CONTAINMENT HAS THREE FATAL FLAWS