Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Decline of America's Soft Power

The Decline of America's Soft Power



|Views: 702|Likes:
Published by atambaev
An article written by Joseph Nye about America's soft power
An article written by Joseph Nye about America's soft power

More info:

Published by: atambaev on Aug 12, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 june 2oo4
Volume 83 • Number 3
 The contents of 
Foreign Affairs
are copyrighted.
2004 Council on Foreign Relations,Inc.All rights reserved.
 The Decline of  America’s Soft Power
 Why Washington Should Worry 
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Anti-Americanism has increased inrecent years, and the United States’ softpower—its ability to attract others by thelegitimacy of U.S. policies and the valuesthat underlie them—is in decline as aresult. According to Gallup Internationalpolls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington’s policies have had a negativeeªect on their view of the United States.A Eurobarometer poll found that amajority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered eªorts to fightglobal poverty, protect the environment,and maintain peace. Such attitudesundercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes noteven to understand the term) claim thatpopularity is ephemeral and should notguide foreign policy. The United States,they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world’s approvaland should simply accept that others willenvy and resent it. The worlds only super-power does not need permanent allies;the issues should determine the coalitions,not vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld.But the recent decline in U.S. attractive-ness should not be so lightly dismissed. Itis true that the United States has recoveredfrom unpopular policies in the past (suchas those regarding the Vietnam War), butthat was often during the Cold War, whenother countries still feared the Soviet Unionas the greater evil. It is also true that theUnited States’ sheer size and association with disruptive modernity make some re-sentment unavoidable today. But wise poli-cies can reduce the antagonisms that theserealities engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II:it used soft-power resources to draw othersinto a system of alliances and institutionsthat has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment thatused soft power along with hard power.
 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.,
is former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard Universitys John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is author of 
Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics
 The Decline of  America’s Soft Power
 Why Washington Should Worry 
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
 The United States cannot confrontthe new threat of terrorism without thecooperation of other countries. Of course,other governments will often cooperateout of self-interest. But the extent of theircooperation often depends on the attrac-tiveness of the United States.Soft power, therefore, is not just a mat-ter of ephemeral popularity; it is a meansof obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts theimportance of its attractiveness abroad,it pays a steep price. When the UnitedStates becomes so unpopular that beingpro-American is a kiss of death in othercountries’ domestic politics, foreign polit-ical leaders are unlikely to make helpfulconcessions (witness the defiance of Chile,Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy inthe eyes of others, distrust grows, reduc-ing U.S. leverage in international aªairs.Some hard-line skeptics might counterthat, whatever its merits, soft power haslittle importance in the current waragainst terrorism; after all, Osama binLaden and his followers are repelled, notattracted, by American culture and val-ues. But this claim ignores the real metricof success in the current war, articulatedin Rumsfeld’s now-famous memo that was leaked in February 2003: “Are wecapturing, killing or deterring and dis-suading more terrorists every day thanthe madrassas and the radical clerics arerecruiting, training and deployingagainst us?” The current struggle against Islamistterrorism is not a clash of civilizations; itis a contest closely tied to the civil warraging within Islamic civilization betweenmoderates and extremists. The UnitedStates and its allies will win only if they adopt policies that appeal to those mod-erates and use public diplomacy eªectively to communicate that appeal. Yet the world’s only superpower, and the leaderin the information revolution, spends aslittle on public diplomacy as does Franceor the United Kingdom—and is all toooften outgunned in the propaganda warby fundamentalists hiding in caves.
 With the end of the Cold War, soft powerseemed expendable, and Americansbecame more interested in saving money than in investing in soft power. Between1989 and 1999, the budget of the UnitedStates Information Agency (
) de-creased ten percent; resources for itsmission in Indonesia, the world’s largestMuslim nation, were cut in half. By thetime it was taken over by the State De-partment at the end of the decade,
had only 6,715 employees (compared to12,000 at its peak in the mid-1960s).During the Cold War, radio broadcastsfunded by Washington reached half theSoviet population and 70 to 80 percentof the population in Eastern Europeevery week; on the eve of the September11 attacks, a mere two percent of Arabslistened to the Voice of America (
). The annual number of academic andcultural exchanges, meanwhile, droppedfrom 45,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 2001.Soft power had become so identified withfighting the Cold War that few Americansnoticed that, with the advent of the in-formation revolution, soft power wasbecoming more important, not less.It took the September 11 attacks toremind the United States of this fact.But although Washington has rediscov-ered the need for public diplomacy, it
foreign affairs
 May / June 2004
The Decline of America’s Soft Power 

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
vivey liked this
vivey liked this
Kyla Jenen Giles liked this
buniyani liked this
Morand Fachot liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->