Soft Power Good



Download 225.73 Kb.
Page1/14
Date30.05.2016
Size225.73 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

MGW 2010 Soft Power Good

Grove/Petit Lab


Soft Power Good





Soft Power Good 1

***Soft power good*** 2

Soft power – multi warrant 3

Soft power solves terrorism 4

Soft power solves democracy 5

Soft Power key to hard power 6

Soft power key to coalitions 7

Soft power key logrolling 8

A2 US decline inevitable 9

A2 counter balancing 10

A2 Alternate causality to soft power 11

A2 Hard power key to soft power 12

A2 Resentment inevitable 13

***Multilateralism Good*** 14

Unilateralism unsustainable 15

Multilateralism solves proliferation 16

Multilateralism  stable transition 17

Multilateralism  stable multipolarity 18

Unilat erodes soft power 19

Unilateralism erodes soft power – legitimacy 20

Unilateralism erodes soft power – respect 21

Unilateralism erodes soft power – security 22

Unilateralism casues conflict 23

Unilateralism casues balancing 24

Unilateralism alienates allies 25

***Soft power key to leadership*** 26

Soft power key to leadership – general 27

Soft power key to leadership – Will Follow 28

Soft power key to leadership – distract resentment 29

Soft power outweighs hard power 30

A2 Hard power key 31

A2 soft power guts hard power 32

***Coalitions/Cooperation*** 33

Soft power key –effective coalitions 34

Unilateralism erodes coalitions 35

Cooperation key – general 36

Cooperation key – US leadership 37

Coalitions key – Power projection 38






***Soft power good***




Soft power – multi warrant



Soft power preserves peace, re-builds failed states, deters rogues, and prevents terrorism

Michael Hirsh, former Foreign Editor of Newsweek, Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2002

There is a middle choice between the squishy globalism that the Bush sovereigntists despise and the take-it-or-leave-it unilateralism they offer up as an alternative. A new international consensus, built on a common vision of the international system, is possible. In today's world, American military and economic dominance is a decisive factor and must be maintained -- as the right believes -- but mainly to be the shadow enforcer of the international system Americans have done so much to create in the last century, in which the left places much of its trust. It is this international system and its economic and political norms that again must do the groundwork of keeping order and peace: deepening the ties that bind nations together; coopting failed states such as Afghanistan, potential rogues, and "strategic competitors"; and isolating, if not destroying, terrorists. As Henry Kissinger wrote, "the dominant trend in American foreign-policy thinking must be to transform power into consensus so that the international order is based on agreement rather than reluctant acquiescence." Or, as Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican increasingly critical of the administration, recently summed it up, "We need friends."


Soft power solves terrorism



Soft power key to stop terrorism.

Joseph S. Nye Jr., Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003.



THE WILLINGNESS of other countries to cooperate in dealing with transnational issues such as terrorism depends in part on their own self-interest, but also on the attractiveness of American positions. Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce. It means that others want what the United States wants, and there is less need to use carrots and sticks. Hard power, the ability to coerce, grows out of a country’s military and economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When U.S. policies appear legitimate in the eyes of others, American soft power is enhanced. Hard power will always remain crucial in a world of nation-states guarding their independence, but soft power will become increasingly important in dealing with the transna­tional issues that require multilateral cooperation for their solution.
Soft power is critical to winning the war on terror.

Tony Judt, Director of the Remarque Institute at New York University, “Its Own Worst Enemy,” The New York Review of Books, August 15, 2002, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15632



If the United States is to win its war on terror, if it is to succeed in its assertion of world leadership, it is going to need the help and understanding of others, particularly in dealing with poor Arab and Muslim states and others resentful at their own backwardness. This is perfectly obvious. International police actions and the regulation and oversight of intercontinental movements of currency, goods, and people require international cooperation. "Failed states," in whose detritus terrorists flourish, need to be rebuilt—the U.S. is culpably uninterested in this task and no longer much good at it, in depressing contrast to its performance after 1945. America does the bombing, but the complicated and dangerous work of reconstruction is left to others. The European Union (including its candidate members) currently contributes ten times more peacekeeping troops worldwide than the U.S., and in Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere the Europeans have taken more military casualties than the U.S.. Fifty-five percent of the world's development aid and two thirds of all grants-in-aid to the poor and vulnerable nations of the globe come from the European Union. As a share of GNP, U.S. foreign aid is barely one third the European average. If you combine European spending on defense, foreign aid, intelligence gathering, and policing—all of them vital to any sustained war against international crime—it easily matches the current American defense budget. Notwithstanding the macho preening that sometimes passes for foreign policy analysis in contemporary Washington, the United States is utterly dependent on friends and allies in order to achieve its goals. If America is to get and keep foreign support, it is going to have to learn to wield what Nye calls "soft power." Grand talk of a new American Empire is illusory, Nye believes: another misleading historical allusion to put with "Vietnam" and "Munich" in the catalog of abused analogies. In Washington today one hears loud boasts of unipolarity and hegemony, but the fact, Nye writes, is that The success of U.S. primacy will depend not just on our military or economic might but also on the soft power of our culture and values and on policies that make others feel they have been consulted and their interests have been taken into account. Talk about empire may dazzle us and mislead us into thinking we can go it alone.[ Soft power, in Nye's usage, sounds a lot like common sense, and would have seemed that way to every post-war American administration from Harry Truman to George Bush Sr. If you want others to want what you want, you need to make them feel included. Soft power is about influence, example, credibility, and reputation. The Soviet Union, in Nye's account, lost it in the course of its invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. America's soft power is enhanced by the openness and energy of its society; it is diminished by needlessly crass behavior, like Bush's blunt assertion that the Kyoto agreement was "dead."





Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2019
send message

    Main page