Pax Americana: The Importance of Soft Power Essay

There are two main ways through which a country can lose its ascendancy. First, it can be defeated militarily by a stronger, rising power. Second, it can rot from within, its culture and institutions progressively becoming weaker while its economy stagnates. Joseph Nye Jr. , in his book The Paradox of American Power, argues early on that America is in no immediate danger of â€Å"rotting from within†, as was the case with ancient Rome. Citing statistics to buttress his point, Nye shows that the negative media (both local and international) coverage received by the United States have little factual basis. While the country is not exactly where it wants to be in terms of morality and culture, it is certainly far from being the social Sodom and Gomorrah that it is portrayed to be. While the country lags some countries (notably those in the European Union) in many social metrics, it is nevertheless substantially better-off than the rest of the world in such terms. Neither is the U. S economy undergoing major problems. Despite the many doomsday predictions, the U. S. economy is growing at a respectable rate and continues to maintain the high standard of living that Americans have enjoyed for the past twenty to thirty years. While the trade challenges posed by China and the European Union may prove problematic in the years to come, they are nevertheless still manageable at present. Thus, it appears that that the United States is not going to collapse on itself in the near future. What Might Cannot Accomplish: The Case for Soft Power With regards to military power, no one can argue that the United States is in any danger of losing its hegemonic position. However, Nye posits the argument that the United States must learn not to rely on this aspect of its national power alone. One of his key contentions is that military power is not enough to maintain the ascendancy of the United States in the coming century. Also known as hard power, military power is an important part of the country’s overall strength – but it should not be the only fount of influence from which the country draws. In a rapidly globalizing world, soft power, e. g. , economic and cultural strength, must be seen as being as important as its military capabilities. Power not only consists of brute force, but also of influence and persuasiveness. The author agrees that if the United States is to achieve its foreign policy objectives, then it must learn not only to use its soft power, but to widen its scope in the years to come. Other than terrorism, a number of issues can only be resolved by acknowledging that we live in a deeply interconnected world. Issues such as pollution and global warming, the spread of AIDS, drug trafficking, and human slavery cannot be addressed by any one country in isolation – even if that country is a superpower. Because the relationships between state and non-state actors are increasingly intertwined in a mesh of common interests, then global multilateral cooperation is the only viable alternative that the world – the United States included – can choose. Current events would seem to prove this point. While the United States remains the world’s predominant military power, it is becoming increasingly clear that it cannot achieve its goals through unilateral military action. Indeed, the present war in Iraq is a clear indication of the United States’ limitations, especially when battling non-conventional organizations such as terrorist cells. Military might is an important tool in battling terrorism on a global scale, but the help of other countries – especially when it comes to intelligence gathering – will be increasingly required. In other words, only a multilateral approach will have an appreciable effect on a global hydra such as terrorism. Similarly, only by using such an approach will the U. S. e able to make progress on a variety of global issues. Recognizing the Times: Forming a Sound Foreign Policy Nye believes that American foreign policy is too dependent on its military power, pointing out that the military receives sixteen times the funding that the diplomatic service does. As he points out, the military corps is important – but not sixteen times as important as diplomatic corps. As we enter the new millennium, the latter must gain more importance if the U. S. is to maintain its power. The era during which the U.  S. could promote its national self-interest through military power alone is fast fading, if not already gone. The United States must learn to adapt to a new international political environment, one wherein it must strive to be looked up to as much as feared. Transnational problems cannot be solved in isolation, and America will need friends and allies if it is to make any lasting progress. However, it is also clear that the United States must not simply begin to act multilaterally on a sweeping number of issues. Rationality must be pursued at all times. There are situations in which the privilege to act unilaterally must be exercised by the United States, especially when it comes to issues of national defense and survival. Neither should the U. S. allow itself to be bound to international pacts that will restrict it excessively, or will allow other countries undue leverage over it. The key here is balance: finding the right mix between protecting America’s current national interests, as well as its future credibility and influence with the world community. A corollary to the preceding statement is that the United States must continue to provide global leadership by providing global public goods, such as international order and a free market system. While some may argue that such a policy inevitably spawns free riders, the U. S. must nevertheless push through with ensuring the availability of such public goods, not only because they benefit the country directly, but also because they make America indispensable to the world, in effect legitimizing its power. The author agrees with Nye on such counts. America stands at a crossroads today; the path it chooses to take will determine its future position in the world. If it decides to play the tyrant, it will suffer the usual fate of tyrants. However, if it chooses to adapt itself to the changed international political environment, it will ensure not only its survival but also its eminence. When Theodore Roosevelt said that he would â€Å"speak softly but carry a big stick,† he was formulating sound foreign policy. What American leaders should notice is that he mentioned â€Å"speaking softly† before the â€Å"big stick. †