The American Century: A Conversation With Joseph Nye

Joseph Nye discusses U.S. primacy on the global stage since World War II, crucial challenges the country has faced, the changing nature of American hard and soft power today, and whether China's rise spells American decline.
The Distinguished Voices Series focuses particular attention on the contributions made by a prominent individual at a critical juncture in the history of the country or the world.
Speaker
Joseph S. Nye Jr.
University Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Former Dean, Harvard Kennedy School; Author, A Life in the American Century; CFR Member
Presider
David M. Rubenstein
Cofounder and Co-Chairman, The Carlyle Group; Chairman, Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations
Subscribe to our channel: goo.gl/WCYsH7
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher.
Visit the CFR website: www.cfr.org
Follow CFR on Twitter: / cfr_org
Follow CFR on Facebook: / councilonforeignrelations

[@erikcolon8691]

This is a fantastic interview. Such a valuable conversation on foreign affairs.

[@Gingerzilla]

David made for a very entertaining conversation tonight. Thank You.

[@drewastolfi6840]

Fun interview

[@cdhit]

It’s a nice title, coz I listened for 11 mins and got no idea what’s being discussed

[@gregrogers3203]

Can always start by searching the persons & places Joseph Nye named to learn more.

[@robertprawendowski2850]

⭐⭐

[@user-yv4gg7jb2f]

This sir is awsome The question about harvard made the conversation flourish. Si less money in politics.

[@SteveXNYC]

CRIMINOLOGY is America in the new century. "CRIME PAYS" get educated.

[@netizencapet]

Anti-imperialism and non-interventionism in military matters is not isolationism. If those he dubbs as so "dangerous" had been in power in 2003, the Iraq war, Afghanistan War, Libyan Invasion, and proxy war in Syria would not have happened. Then, perhaps the US would have credibility when (pretending to) defend Ukraine.

[@gregrogers3203]

Isolationism includes withdrawal from treaties & other international agreements. All countries act on their national interests. Many interests do intersect such as action on climate change as well as mutual defense.

[@netizencapet]

@@gregrogers3203Wrong. Because national leadership - both in republics & autocracies - is more often than not secured & maintained w/ the backing of FACTIONS (& competition of influential individuals within them), each of which vie for their own interests against those of their rivals, the action of the states they lead often CONTRADICTS the predominant, even overwhelming, economic & security interests of those very states. Each of the 4 wars I listed, along with sanctions against Venezuela & Iran, were directly against US interests (despite our growing petrol output - all under highly concentrated private ownership - we are a net importer nation whose interests overwhelmingly lie in lower petrol prices rather than higher ones). The only nation which benefited from each of these 4 wars was Saudi Arabia, whose national interests center around controlling OPEC by blocking output or market access of the other member states - aims that also happen to align w/ US oil exporting & refiner interests, & w/ US arms industry. The heavy links between those 2 lobies, as well as the direct lobby of S. Arabia itself, with the administrations of Bush2, Obama (for first 6 yrs of mandate), & Biden, explain why their FP actions ran contrary to the objective economic & security interests of the USA. Trump used his own media power, individual wealth, & the often free coverage it generated, to gain power, & was able to cash in on prior giveaways to S. Arabia, such that he was less beholden to the kingdom or to the oil or MIC lobbies in his FP than the others. Moreover, Obama's turn away from these' lobbies' influence only in the last 2 years of his 2nd term resulted in the one FP action in favor of US econ & security intersts, the Iran deal, whose negation by Trump was low-hanging fruit that he could offer to placate S. Arabia in exchange for high output levels w/o need of other giveaways. Withdrawal from a disadvantageous treaty by no means constitutes isolationism when other treaties, agreements & engagements might displace them.

[@netizencapet]

@@gregrogers3203 Wrong. Because national leadership - both in republics & autocracies - is more often than not secured & maintained w/ the backing of FACTIONS (& competition of influential individuals within them), each of which vie for their own interests against those of their rivals, the action of the states they lead often CONTRADICTS the predominant, even overwhelming, economic & security interests of those very states. Each of the 4 wars I listed, along with sanctions against Venezuela & Iran, were directly against US interests (despite our growing petrol output - all under highly concentrated private ownership - we are a net importer nation whose interests overwhelmingly lie in lower petrol prices rather than higher ones). The only nation which benefited from each of these 4 wars was Saudi Arabia, whose national interests center around controlling OPEC by blocking output or market access of the other member states - aims that also happen to align w/ US oil exporting & refiner interests, & w/ US arms industry. The heavy links between those 2 lobies, as well as the direct lobby of S. Arabia itself, with the administrations of Bush2, Obama (for first 6 yrs of mandate), & Biden, explain why their FP actions ran contrary to the objective economic & security interests of the USA. Trump used his own media power, individual wealth, & the often free coverage it generated, to gain power, & was able to cash in on prior giveaways to S. Arabia, such that he was less beholden to the kingdom or to the oil or MIC lobbies in his FP than the others. Moreover, Obama's turn away from these' lobbies' influence only in the last 2 years of his 2nd term resulted in the one FP action in favor of US econ & security intersts, the Iran deal, whose negation by Trump was low-hanging fruit that he could offer to placate S. Arabia in exchange for high output levels w/o need of other giveaways. Withdrawal from a disadvantageous treaty by no means constitutes isolationism when other treaties, agreements & engagements might displace them.