Suchergebnisse

The term "soft power," coined by American scholar J.S. Nye, not only became well known in China but also stirred a debate among Chinese experts about how to adapt this notion to the Chinese context. This debate embraces a wide spectrum of issues - from a linguistic problem (how to properly translate the expression "soft power" in order to reflect its intended meaning), to the very definition of the term, to sources, tools, and other aspects of it. Due to the fact that the practice of China's "soft power" has already been painstakingly described and analyzed, this paper focuses on theoretical assumption of Chinese "soft power," seen from the perspective of Chinese scholars. This discourse contributes to the debate about the PRC's foreign policy and international relations theory with Chinese characteristics. (Asien/GIGA)

The 2006 Stocktaking Report of UNESCO on school history in Southeast Europe stresses that "History teaching plays an important role in the development of identity. In Southeast Europe, as elsewhere, history education has commonly been used as a tool for promoting nationalistic ideologies. However, it has also gained recognition as having a key role in the process of reconciliation, democratization and long-term stability" (p. 7). The current paper argues that this statement captures a certain truth about the relationship between history teaching and the making of identity: the shift from 'traditional history' and the making of homo nationalis to 'new history' and the making of homo interculturalis. But it does not capture other important truths about the historical and political embeddedness of this relationship and its shifting contexts. It specifically obscures changes in international relations that made this shift possible, by creating new spaces, technologies and networks of knowledge building. Perhaps more importantly, this statement suppresses contestation and a rivalry in imagining the form of this relationship. That is, as the new globalising imaginary of 'new history' and homo interculturalis interacts and endeavours to recast the entrenched institutions, policies and sites of the globalised imaginary of 'traditional history' and homo nationalis, it is met with opposition, triggering hegemonic struggles often with unpredictable ends.

The Socialist International (SI), the worldwide forum of the socialist, social democratic, and labor parties, actively looked for a solution to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict in the 1980s. At that time, the Israeli Labour Party still was the leading political force in Israel, as it had been historically since the foundation of the country. The Labour Party was also an active member of the SI. The Party's leader, Shimon Peres, was one of its vice-presidents. At the same time, the social democratic parties were the leading political force in Western Europe. Several important European leaders, many of them presidents and prime ministers, were involved in the SI's work. They included personalities such as Willy Brandt of Germany; former president of the SI, Francois Mitterrand of France; James Callaghan of Great Britain; Bruno Kreisky of Austria; Bettini Craxi of Italy; Felipe Gonzalez of Spain; Mario Soares of Portugal; Joop de Uyl of the Netherlands; Olof Palme of Sweden; Kalevi Sorsa of Finland; Anker Jörgensen of Denmark; and Gro Harlem Brudtland of Norway—all of whom are former vice-presidents of the SI. As a result, in the 1980s, the SI in many ways represented Europe in global affairs, despite the existence of the European Community (which did not yet have well-defined common foreign policy objectives).

The paper argues that power analysis is at the crossroads of three different fields which follow a certain autonomous logic. First, there is a field of political theory which is concerned with the nature of the 'polity' in which questions of the organisation of (organised) violence and of the common good, as well as questions of freedom, are paramount. It is where power stands for 'government' or 'governance' and political order, as well as personal 'autonomy'. The logic in the field of explanatory theories is to think power in terms of a theory of action mainly and a theory of domination subsequently. Here, power is searched for the explanation of behaviour and the outcomes of social action. It is here where power is thought in terms of 'agency', 'influence' or prevalence, if not 'cause'. In the praxeological field, politics is the 'art of the possible' in which collective violence is not antithetical but fundamental to politics. Power is furthermore connected to the idea of state sovereignty and the discourse of the reason of state, including an ethics of responsibility. The three fields are exemplified by Weber's analysis of power which came at a time when all three logics had acquired a sufficient independence of each other, and yet still stood relatively connected. ; Power in International Relations