Repères 06/05/08 - La grande peur des Etats-Unis

Le Sénateur Joseph R. Biden Jr vient de rendre publique une étude du Congressional Research Service (CRS) sur les implications, pour les intérêts économiques et sécuritaires des Etats-Unis, de la croissance de l'influence globale de la Chine dans le monde. La question posée révèle l'inquiétude des Etats-Unis face au déclin de sa propre influence.

The question : How much is China really doing in these regions, and
how much do we knowabout its motivations? What do these widespread PRC activities mean for the United States and for U.S. global influence: are the implications necessarily bad and therefore a demonstrable threat to U.S. interests across the board, or might the implications be benign or in some instances even positive for U.S. interests? How has this increasing engagement affected China’s own policies? Finally, what are the economic and political costs and benefits to China of such international engagement, and are they likely to be influences for greater pragmatism and nuance in PRC policies or serve instead to reinforce more hardline and nationalistic sentiments?

 

CRS Study: China's Foreign Policy and "Soft Power" in South America, Asia, and Africa, April 2008 (139 pages, PDF). Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service at the Request of Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden

"...As requested, this study focuses on China’s ‘‘soft power’’ projection in the specified regions. The term ‘‘soft power’’ originally was conceived in 1990 by Harvard Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr.. Nye argued that the United States had reserves of power and influence that were separate from ‘‘hard power,’’ or military force projection. He expanded greatly on this concept in his book, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics—partly, he said, from the frustration of watching ‘‘some policy makers ignore the importance of our soft power and make us all pay the price by unnecessarily squandering it.’’ According to Nye, soft power is crucially important in today’s world politics and is significantly more than just the trappings of American culture:

Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others . . .
[It] is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced. America has long had a great deal of soft power . . . .

More broadly speaking, the components of soft power also are defined as including international trade, overseas investments, development assistance, diplomatic initiatives, cultural influence, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, education, and travel and tourism. Although American soft power remains formidable, by some of these measures it is seen to have declined in the 21 century. In absolute terms, some believe this perceived decline is the result of the United States’ own policies and actions. One former U.S. Government official speculates that although America has massive remaining reserves of soft power, they have become a ‘‘non-renewable resource’’ given current U.S. policies.6 Others point to multiple global survey results on international views of the United States, saying ‘‘the downward trend is unmistakable.’’  As Nye himself puts it:

Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years and the United States’
soft power . . . is in decline as a result . . . . A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals . . . .

Others have attributed the perceived decline in American soft power as relative—largely a comparative decline based on the rise of other powers—in particular the rapid emergence of China as a U.S. ‘‘peer competitor’’ and a growing source of international influence, investment, and political and economic power. China is seen to be trying to project soft power by portraying its own system as an alternative model for economic development, one based on authoritarian governance and elite rule without the restrictions and demands that come with political liberalization.

Furthermore, according to this view, ‘‘soft power’’ is ephemeral; the United States has recovered from loss of prestige and influence before (such as occurred with the Vietnam War), and it will again. China’s apparent soft power gains, then, should not be blown out of proportion..."