U8
The complex nature of power复杂的权力的性质
1.“Until human nature change, power and force will remain at the heart of international relations,” according to a top U.S. official. Not everyone will agree with suvh a gloomy realpolitik assessment, but it underlines the crucial role that power plays in diplomacy. When the goals and interest of states conflict, which side will prevail is often decided by who has the most power.
2.Power is the term we will use here to represent the sum of a country's capabilities. Because power in common usage carries the connotation of “hit-over-the -head” or “make you” capabilities, it is very important to stress that power as used here is more than that. As we will explore in the following pages,power can be based on positive persuasion as well as negative coercion. Indeed, power has many forms. Military muscle, wealth, and some others are fairly obvious and tangible. Othera such as national willpower and diplomatic skills are much less obvious and intangible.
Power as an asset and a goal
3.One source of confusion in discussion about power is that it is both an asset and a goal. Our discussion of power so far has generally treated it as an asset that can be applied to help countries achieve goals. In this sense, power is akin to money as a sort of political currency that can be used to acquire things. Money buys things; power causes things to happen. There are, of course,differences between money and power. One is that political power is less liquid than money; it is harder to convert into things that you want. Another difference is that power,unlike money, has no standard measurement. Therefore it is much harder to be precise about how much power any country has.
scholars4.Power is also a goal because in a world of often-conflicting goals among countries it is only prudent to seek, acquire, or preserve sufficient power to pursue your national goals. Here again ,the analogy between power and money has merit. We all expend money as an asset , yet we also seek to acquire money and to build up a reserve against both anticipated needs and contingencies.
5.The duality of power as an asset and a goal creates a debate over whether more is always better. Some people believe that countries can become fixated on acquiring power, especially military power, beyoud what is prudently needed to meet possible exigencies. This, critics say, is unwise because power is expensive, it creates a temptation to use it, and it spawns insecurity in others. Critics of recent U.S. foreign policy see its massive arms spending and its misadventure in Iraq as a case in point.
6.To such charges, realists warn that not being willing to pay the price today to guard against future and unknown dangers leaves states vulnerable. Realists also dismiss the concern about having too much power and say that the real danger is unwise use of the power you have by wasting it on marginal goals. And realists caution against a country being too reluctant to expend its power to advance its national interests. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for one ,portrays Americans as sometimes too-reluctant warriors and believes that “American leadership [needs] to articulate for their public a concept of the national interest and explain how that interest is served… by the maintenance of the balance of power” througn a forceful U.S. presence on the world stage.
Hard and soft power
7.As noted earlier, the most common image of power involves the ability to make someone else do something or suffer the consequences. Often called hard power,this type of power rests on negative incentives (threats, “sticks”) and on positive incentives (inducements, “carrots” ). There is also soft power, the ability to persuade others to follow your lead by being an attractive example. As one scholar puts it, “A country may obtain the outcome it wants in world politics because other countries-admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness- want to follow it.”
8.The value of these two forms of power is the source of much debate. Hard power is easier to appreciate because it is easier to see that certain coercive measures or positive incentives have been used and to observe the result. Realists also are apt to dismiss the concept of soft power,arguing that countries follow other countries’ lead because they share the same interests, not because of altruistic sentiments such as admiration.
9.Rebutting this, those who belive that soft power can be potent point, as an example, to th
e negative impact they say the Iraq War has had on U.S. soft power by greatly diminishing the U.S. image abroad. Citing poll results showing that favorable opinion about the United States has plummeted almost everywhere in the past several years, one analyst worries that “the United States” soft power- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them- is in decline as a result”. One reason this is a concern, accroding to this view, is because the United States needs the cooperation of other countries to combat terrorism and many other problems, but “When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries’ domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs”. To such commentary, those who are skeptical of the importance of soft power might echo the words of President Bush, who in 2002 professed his “respect [for] the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners”, but who also asserted, “We will be prepared to act apart” if necessary and “will not allow… disagreements [with allies] to abscure our determination to secure… our fundamental interests and values.”

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。