@newspaperarticle {67666,
	title = {Wielding {\textquoteright}Smart Power{\textquoteright} in World Affairs},
	year = {2011},
	month = {Feb 6, 2011},
	publisher = {The Boston Globe},
	abstract = {In his new book The Future of Power, Joseph
 S. Nye Jr. analyses the changing nature of power in the 21st century as
 upheavals man-made and environmental alter the global terrain and as 
both state and non-state entities jostle for dominance. Nye is a 
proponent of {\textquotedblleft}smart power,{\textquotedblright} a term he coined in 2004 to describe the 
strategic combination of coercion and persuasion.Nye, a former assistant secretary of defense,
 is a professor and former dean of the Harvard Kennedy School of 
Government. His other books include Soft Power: The Means to Success in
 World Politics and The Powers to Lead. He spoke from his home in 
Boston.Q. Has the term {\textquotedblleft}smart power{\textquotedblright} been corrupted over time?A. The
 term has been picked up by the Obama administration and used by Hillary
 Clinton to describe US foreign policy. But it is the older term {\textquotedblleft}soft 
power{\textquotedblright} that is more often corrupted when it{\textquoteright}s mistakenly used to 
describe anything that is not military power. More correctly, it refers 
to the ability to get what you want through attraction and persuasion. 
The Chinese president, for example, declared in 2007 that China needed 
to increase its soft power, and they have invested billions of dollars 
to that end.Q. Are you saying that smart power is soft power backed up by hard power?A. I
 think of smart power as the ability to combine hard and soft power. 
There may be situations in which you don{\textquoteright}t want any hard power, and 
there may be others where soft power is not effective; stopping North 
Korea{\textquoteright}s nuclear weapons program, for example.Q. Does it require an underlying belief in American dominance?A. Soft
 power and smart power are both available to any size country, not just 
the US or China. But the US, when it lives up to its values, probably 
has more soft power than a small country and certainly has more hard 
power. Our leadership resides in our ability to create the right 
combinations in the right circumstances.Q. You use the term {\textquotedblleft}values.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} But don{\textquoteright}t you characterize smart power as morally neutral?A. Well,
 smart power is neutral in the sense that it can be used by bad states 
as well as good states. But it does depend in part on values which are 
more often the sources of soft power. Ironically, Osama bin Laden had 
soft power when he inspired people to fly into the World Trade Center 
and the Pentagon. They did so because they believed in bin Laden{\textquoteright}s 
values. In that sense values matter. They can, however, be used as 
instruments by bad as well as good people.Q. Do you have a moral position that you edited out of this book?A. I try to write as
 an analyst when I argue that there is something to be said for soft 
power as a more ethical means. For example, even if I have bad ends and 
want to steal your money, I can use hard power {\textemdash} shoot you and take your
 money {\textemdash} or soft power {\textemdash} persuade you that I{\textquoteright}m a guru and that you 
should give me your money. In the first case you don{\textquoteright}t have anything to 
say about it, in the second case you do. If one believes in the value of
 individual autonomy and choice, as I do, soft power allows more of that
 individual autonomy even if the overall action is a bad one.Q. Your strategy has been called the friendly face of American imperialism. How do you respond to that?A. That
 criticism is often made by people who don{\textquoteright}t understand the theory. 
Other countries besides the US can use soft power therefore it{\textquoteright}s not an 
apology for the US or an instrument of American imperialism. In this 
book I try to describe the role of military, economic and soft power in 
an information age and to persuade people that we need to think in a 
more sophisticated way about what power means whether it be American, 
Chinese, or otherwise.Q. With all that you{\textquoteright}ve seen, do you find it hard to write a phrase such as {\textquotedblleft}winning hearts and minds{\textquotedblright} without irony?A. There
 is a risk of trivializing ideas. {\textquotedblleft}Winning hearts and minds{\textquotedblright} has been 
around since the Vietnam War. On the other hand, when one tries to 
understand General Petraeus{\textquoteright}s counterinsurgency doctrine (and whether 
he{\textquoteright}ll succeed or not we don{\textquoteright}t know) it is interesting to note that what 
he is trying to do is save civilian lives. The idea is not to kill as 
many people as possible but to win the minds of those who form the sea 
in which the insurgents swim. The insight is an important one and has a 
long standing in history.Q. Do you see the uprising in Tunisia and now in Egypt as a test case of US commitment to smart power?A. Smart
 power in this current case will require US foreign policy to align with
 the aspirations of people seeking democracy while at the same time not 
creating chaos in the region which would undercut our support for Israel
 and our efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Smart power 
would aim to accomplish both a human rights democracy agenda as well as a
 more traditional agenda.Q. Do you see that happening?A. I{\textquoteright}m always hopeful.\&nbsp;},
	url = {http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2011/02/06/wielding_smart_power_in_world_affairs/},
	author = {Nye, Joseph S., Jr.}
}
