Joseph Nye om norsk idealpolitikk

Joseph Nye er en av de mest anerkjente forskerne innen feltet internasjonal politikk. Han er kanskje mest kjent for sine studier av myk makt – ”soft power”. Her følger to utdrag av intervjuer hvor Nye uttaler seg om Norge og landets bruk av myk makt i utenrikspolitikken. Les disse utdragene og svar på spørsmålene.

Oppgave

1. Hva er forskjellen på myk makt (soft power) og smart makt (smart power) i følge Joe Nye?

2. Hva er grunnlaget for Norges myke makt? 

3. Er myk makt et effektivt maktmiddel for Norge i følge Nye?

 

Joseph Nye om myk makt.
 
1. Interviewed on June 12, 2008, by Doug Gavel.
 
 
Q: Much of your research over the years has focused on the use of “soft power” on the world stage. More recently you have written on the concept of “smart power.” How do they differ, and how can “smart power” be exercised most effectively in these times?
Nye: Effective strategies in the real world are a mix of hard and soft power, and that combination of hard and soft power in effective ways is what I call “smart power.” Far too often people think that hard power alone is sufficient. Some people equate soft power with winning over the “hearts and minds” of others, but to be effective you need to use a combination of both hard and soft power. Take, for example, terrorism. We could not use soft power effectively to persuade the Taliban government to give up the sites they used for Al Qaeda and we had to use force, hard power, against the Taliban government.
But when it comes to the broader question of winning over the hearts and minds of the main stream Muslims so that the hardliners cannot recruit them, the situation requires soft power. When we used our hard power in Iraq, we essentially made ourselves look like a bully and an occupier which undercut our soft power. So you find a tremendous drop in the attractiveness of the United States around the world, particularly in the Muslim world, and particularly among mainstream Muslims. We need to recover the ability to combine our soft power with our hard power if we’re going to build the capacity to use smart power.
Q: Your ideas are discussed around the globe, tapping into a hope, perhaps, that governments can make smarter choices around the use of power and in that way reduce the suffering that comes from war and conflict. Are there recent examples where soft power really works?
Nye: There are governments that have understood these concepts for some time. Take Norway for example, which has based its foreign policy on being a peacemaker in the Oslo peace process and in efforts to mediate the conflict in Sri Lanka. This makes Norwegians attractive to others. The Canadians have understood the concept of soft power, as well.
Perhaps the most intriguing case in my mind has been the way in which China has begun exercising soft power. The Chinese president told the 17th Party Congress that it was important to increase China’s soft power. If you look at the way China was treating its neighbors in South East Asia and the islands in the South China Sea a decade ago, the Chinese were pretty tough, using primarily hard power. In recent years the Chinese have moved to a more soft power approach, being willing to discuss and mediate over a number of these issues. So I think it’s interesting that China has been making major efforts to not only talk about, but also to back its policies with soft power.
 
2) Diskusjon i forbindelse med utgivelsen av Joseph Nyes bok,  Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics
QUESTION: If America spends too much time and energy on hard power and not enough on soft, then what of other countries in the world—Canada; France; Germany? Is the reverse true?
JOSEPH NYE: My chapter on “The Soft Power of Others” points out that soft power is available to all. Bin Laden has soft power for those who want to follow him or are attracted to him.
Many small countries have been very adept in using soft power. Canada and Norway are good examples. Norway, which doesn’t have the advantage of the English language, is not a member of the European Union, nonetheless, as the British put it, “punches above its weight,” because it has identified itself with the interests of others—peace processes in the Middle East and Sri Lanka; international development assistance. This has given Norway a better image, better access. It doesn’t make Norway a superpower, but it makes it more powerful than it would otherwise be.
The same is true of Canada. The Canadian association in the past with peacekeeping and international development has increased its soft power. I have sometimes argued that Canada should spend a little bit more on hard power. It’s not enough to rely on soft power alone. The ability to combine the two is the best solution.