44中英文雙語外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品 文化作為國際關(guān)系中的軟實(shí)力

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：CULTURE AS SOFT POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS</p><p>　　外文作者：Nicolae HANE?, Adriana ANDREI</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處:International Conference Knowledge-based organization,vol21,No.1,2015&l

2、t;/p><p>　　英文2489單詞， 13889字符，中文4178漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　CULTURE AS SOFT POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS</p><p>　　Nicolae HANE

3、?, Adriana ANDREI</p><p><b>　　Abstract:</b></p><p>　　A global approach has almost generalized over the last decades, suggesting that human security and, related to it – society secur

4、ity- are among the most important themes of contemporary international relations.</p><p>　　The management of the Yugoslavian crisis, the terrorist attacks of September the 11th, 2001, as well as the debates

5、 over US and its allies’ military interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq, pointed out, on the one hand, that states are not prepared to deal with the cross-border threats of the 21st century alone, and, on the othe

6、r hand, the fact that military interventions (the “hard” approach to security) do not always represent the optimum solution in managing international security. Howe</p><p>　　In recent studies, the issue of “

7、soft” power and “hard” power has been increasingly discussed. “Soft” power refers to the power derived mainly from cultural and imagological sources, exercising its influence more through persuasion or by attracting the

8、 weak one to a particular model rather than by coercion. ”Hard” power consists especially of military and economic means contributing to enforcing the will of one actor over another actor. These two forms of po

9、wer do not exclude each </p><p>　　Keywords: soft power, hard power, mental power, cultural power, national power</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Some authors seemed entitled to st

10、ate that in the aftermath of the Cold War, a fundamental shift of emphasis occurred in the study of international relations from geopolitics and geostrategy towards geoeconomy [1] or from “hard” power towards “soft” powe

11、r.</p><p>　　The national power of a state comprises both the material power as well as the mental power that the state owns at one time, for its survival and development. Mental power can be named “soft” pow

12、er, and it comprises “soft” elements such as psychology and intelligence. These “soft” elements determine the role of “hard” power in tangible forms.</p><p>　　Culture as soft power</p><p>　　“Sof

13、t” power is a kind of mental power and it is an important component of a state’s national power. All the “soft” elements of mental power are contained in the category of culture. The core of culture are the values. As

14、to the content of culture, broadly speaking, we consider it comprises the materials and spiritual wealth created in the history of human society. In a narrower sense, we believe that culture is social ideology as well

15、as the systems and the institutions related to this, inc</p><p>　　Increased competition regarding current national power involves: economic power, scientific and technological power, defense power as well as

16、 cultural power.</p><p>　　A country’s cultural universality and its capacity to determine norms, rules and regims to govern international behaviour represent the key resources of that country’s power. Josep

17、h Nye appreciates that the intangible power can be estimated based on the cohesion of a country, on its global cultural popularity and on its role within international institutions.</p><p>　　Without a st

18、rong national spirit, a nation cannot cope efficiently with an international crisis. Without cultural assets and without a global influence by resorting to culture, a nation cannot have a voice in international activiti

19、es [3].</p><p>　　Culture, as “soft” power, is an essential part of national power. Many countries have chosen to strenghten international competitiveness and influence through cultural development. Within t

20、he competition for national power, a nation’s “hard” power cannot be improved without the development of “soft” power. However, many people always place more emphasis on rivalry in terms of power, neglecting, at the same

21、 time, the competition of power, viewed as cultural power.</p><p>　　Due to the increased influence of “soft” power in international relations, the world powers emphasize the enhancement of “soft” powers. Eve

22、n since the 1980s, the Japanese former prime minister Nakasone has proposed a strategic plan for “creating a culturally developed country”. The former French president Chirac suggested achieving a cultural Europe and

23、establishing a European cultural community. The Russian president Putin has started implementing the “cultural expansion” strategy since he w</p><p>　　Currently, we consider the following as relevant major i

24、ssues, in terms of “soft” power competition: the relations between human rights and national sovereignty; the control and influence on international institutions; the employment of market economy to impose culture; rival

25、ry in terms of human resourses; the fight for a better position for the media; contradictions and collisions caused by ethnic and religious issues. There is a tendency for competition on national power, focusing on cul

26、tura</p><p>　　In the evolution of international relations, the intangible “soft” power represents an engine that drives the relations between states or unions of states. This “soft” power, of a state, comes

27、 from: ideology, social system, its organizational mechanism, life style, the development model, cultural traditions, national values, ethnic characteristics, religious belives, informational resourses, interdependency,

28、mutual trust, etc. In this respect, the “soft” power can be named cultural power. In th</p><p>　　In our opinion, theimpact of cultural power on international relations is that culture is a knowledge filte

29、r. Culture plays an important role in the decision- making process that involves political leaders, who make decisions in the light of cultural perceptions specific to their own culture. Leaders, states and people are a

30、ffected by cultural differences that reflect their own values, perspectives, interests, customs, and hopes. Failing to appreciate these differences will lead to wrong mis</p><p>　　Culture is a “navigation co

31、mpass” in decision-making. Diferent states have diffferent strategic preferences which have their roots in the early experiences of the state formation and which are influenced up to a point, by the psychological, polit

32、ical, cultural and cognitive characteristics of the state and of its political leaders. Cultural concepts strongly influence the way national leaders regard political issues, and often determine the solutions they choo

33、se to solve the issues, both indi</p><p>　　Culture represents the architect of international social trust. The competitiveness of a nation depends on a unique universal characteristic, and that is social tru

34、st. Some countries have a higher level of social trust, others have a lower level, which will influence the degree of cooperation in international relations. Culture determines the degree of social trust and influences

35、the nature of the cooperation institutions. Culture is a model for structuring the social, economic and military ins</p><p>　　Culture represents an important power for international integration. There is

36、 a strong trend of unification and homogenization in the rise and fall of civilizations. This trend reached the climax in the industralization era. This is the thesis of cultural convergence. A critical aspect in ter

37、ms of the convergence thesis is connected to temporal limitations. Hundreds of different social structures were possible, yet the basic features of all advanced economies are relatively uniform: all</p><p>

38、　　Culture is a gene of conflict in international relations. About two decades ago, Samuel Huntington proposed the concept of “clash of civilizations”. He wrote that in the post-Cold War world the dominant source of confl

39、ict will be cultural in nature. Many agree with Huntington on the fact that, cultural differences will lead to conflicts, since the source of the conflict is related to the cultural gene. But the clash of civilizations

40、should not be exaggerated or overstated as an absolute sentenc</p><p>　　We appreciate that a nation is a cultural system, and international relations are interactions between cultural systems. The role of cu

41、lture, as “soft” power in international relations, can be summarized in two aspects: facilitates convergence and causes conflict. Both positive and negative effects of culture in international relations are reflected in

42、the contradictory process of convergence and conflict.</p><p>　　Culture, as “soft” power, is a deep cause of the contemporary international relations model development. The transition in terms of configu

43、ration and adjustment of international relations between the great powers is really an adjustment of interest relations. Sharing interests is closely related to the orientation of values, and the orientation of values r

44、epresents the core of culture. In this respect, the integration of different cultures facilitates interdependency of the great powers,</p><p>　　culture represents akind offormless“soft” power and it mus

45、t play its role in international relations by means of some tangible media such as politics, economy and the military system. The media, economic competition between famous brands as well as psychological battle within t

46、he military system, are all part of the competition between cultural powers. With the globalization of the world economy, national interests increasingly overlap and international interdependence is expanding. In the pr

47、</p><p>　　The increase of common interests will encourage mutual learning and integration between different cultures. Since the degree of integration of different cultures increases proportionally decreases

48、 the intensity of cultural conflicts. It is worth mentioning here that there are cultural differences even between cultures sharing the same cultural tradition. Even within the present European Union, that has made mon

49、etary unification, member countries do not diminish their various cultural characte</p><p>　　EU soft power is less observed, although foreign and international policy analysts appreciate it more and more. An

50、d not only them. Otherwise one cannot understand EU attactiveness, especially to its neighbour countries, apparently stronger than that exercised over the Union’s own citizens. The fundamentals of global power are changi

51、ng more and more, as globalization is becoming increasingly felt. EU global power manifests itself more as global influence, an influence that is growing as the Unio</p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p>

52、;　　We can conclude by stating that “soft” power is an important part of national power. There is still no agreement on its definition. To summarize, “soft” power can also be called mental power. “Soft” power is a conce

53、pt opposed to that of “hard” power, whereas mental power is a concept opposed to that of physical power, and culture opposes to politics, economy and the military system. It is also formless power, derived from factors

54、 such as the spirit (including psychology) and intelligence, bo</p><p>　　“Soft” power that revolves around cultural power plays and will continue to play a major enduring role in the transition of intern

55、ational relations and in the global configuration.</p><p>　　In conclusion , our world is rich and colorful. The diversity of civilizations is the main feature and simultaneously the driving force behind the

56、 progress of human civilization. In the competition for national power, respect should be given to history, culture, social system and to the way each country develops. Diversity of the world is a reality that must be re

57、cognized. Different civilizations and social systems should enjoy long-term coexistence. They should turn to and benefit from each ot</p><p>　　References</p><p>　　Dean A. Minix, Sandra M. Hawley

58、, Global Politics, Wadsworth, Belmont, Albany, Bonn et All, 1998</p><p>　　Joseph S. Nye Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, 1990</p><p>　　Hua Jian et All, The Competition

59、 for Soft Power: Trends of Cultural Competition in the Context of Globalization, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press and China Higher Education Press, 2001, p.5</p><p>　　Collection of Amer

60、ican National Security Strategy Reports, Current Affairs Press, 2001,</p><p>　　p. 276 ?i 279</p><p>　　Joseph S. Nye Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, 1990, p. 196</p&

61、gt;<p>　　文化作為國際關(guān)系中的軟實(shí)力</p><p>　　Nicolae HANE?, Adriana ANDREI</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　在過去的幾十年里，以一種全球性的視角去概括當(dāng)代的國際關(guān)系，那就是我們?nèi)祟惖陌踩_切相關(guān)的是--社會(huì)安全 -- 成為了其中最重要的議題之一。&

62、lt;/p><p>　　一方面，對(duì)南斯拉夫危機(jī)的管理、2001年9月11日發(fā)生的恐怖襲擊以及美國及其盟國在科索沃、阿富汗或伊拉克的軍事干預(yù)的辯論上可以看出各國尚未準(zhǔn)備好以其單一的角色去處理好二十一世紀(jì)的跨國威脅，另一方面，軍事干預(yù)（安全方面的“硬”手段）并不是管理國際安全的最佳解決方案。然而，建立和平而又安全的國際關(guān)系（“軟”手段）通常需要以更謹(jǐn)慎的態(tài)度去處理，在這一方面沒有引起大眾的關(guān)注也沒有引起媒體的興趣。<

63、;/p><p>　　在近期的研究中，國際關(guān)系中的“軟”實(shí)力和“硬”實(shí)力的問題已經(jīng)被越來越多地討論。 “軟” 實(shí)力指的是主要來源于文化和形象學(xué)方面的實(shí)力，它更多的是通過說服或?qū)⑷鮿?shì)的一方引入到一個(gè)特定的框架里而不是通過強(qiáng)制手段來發(fā)揮其影響力。 “硬”實(shí)力具體是指軍事和經(jīng)濟(jì)手段，也就是將行動(dòng)的一方的意愿強(qiáng)加給另一方。這兩種實(shí)力形式并不是互相排斥的關(guān)系，相反，將“軟”與“硬”實(shí)力結(jié)合起來在達(dá)成主要目標(biāo)方面則更有效。<

64、/p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：軟實(shí)力，硬實(shí)力，精神軟實(shí)力，文化影響力，國家實(shí)力</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　在后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代，一些學(xué)者似乎有權(quán)說在國際關(guān)系的研究中，它已經(jīng)發(fā)生了根本性的轉(zhuǎn)變，也就是從地緣政治學(xué)和地緣戰(zhàn)略學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向地緣經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，或者是從“硬”實(shí)力轉(zhuǎn)向了“軟”實(shí)力。</p><p>　　一個(gè)國

65、家的國家實(shí)力既包括物質(zhì)方面的實(shí)力，也包括國家在一定時(shí)期內(nèi)賴以生存和發(fā)展的精神軟實(shí)力。 精神實(shí)力可以被稱為“軟”實(shí)力，它包含心理和智力等方面的“軟性”元素。 這些“軟性”元素決定了國際有形的“硬”實(shí)力。</p><p><b>　　文化作為軟實(shí)力</b></p><p>　　“軟”實(shí)力是一種心理實(shí)力，是國家實(shí)力的重要組成部分。 精神實(shí)力中所有“軟性”因素都包含在文化的范

66、疇之內(nèi)。 文化的核心是價(jià)值觀。 從文化內(nèi)容來說，廣義上講我們認(rèn)為它包含了人類社會(huì)歷史上創(chuàng)造的物質(zhì)和精神財(cái)富。 從狹義上講，我們認(rèn)為文化是社會(huì)意識(shí)形態(tài)以及與此相關(guān)的體系和制度，包括理念、政治思想、立法、道德、藝術(shù)、宗教和科學(xué)。 然而，無論從哪個(gè)角度來看，文化都不是一個(gè)靜態(tài)的實(shí)體，而是一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的過程。 作為“軟”實(shí)力，文化與政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)和軍事有關(guān)。</p><p>　　當(dāng)前國家實(shí)力的競爭包括：經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力、科技實(shí)力、國防實(shí)

67、力和文化實(shí)力。</p><p>　　一個(gè)國家的文化普遍性和它支配國際行為的規(guī)范、規(guī)則和條例的能力代表了該國實(shí)力的關(guān)鍵資源。約瑟夫奈認(rèn)識(shí)到國家中無形的實(shí)力可以根據(jù)一個(gè)國家的凝聚力、全球文化的普及程度以及它在國際機(jī)構(gòu)中扮演的角色來進(jìn)行評(píng)估。</p><p>　　沒有強(qiáng)大的民族精神，國家就無法有效應(yīng)對(duì)國際危機(jī)。沒有文化資產(chǎn)，就沒有文化的全球影響力，國家在國際活動(dòng)中就沒有發(fā)言權(quán)[3]。</p

68、><p>　　文化作為“軟實(shí)力”，是國家實(shí)力的重要組成部分。許多國家選擇通過文化發(fā)展來加強(qiáng)國際競爭力和影響力。在爭奪國家權(quán)力的競爭中，沒有“軟實(shí)力”的發(fā)展，國家的“硬實(shí)力”就無法改進(jìn)。但是，許多人總是比較強(qiáng)調(diào)權(quán)力的競爭，同時(shí)卻忽視國家實(shí)力的競爭，這可以看作是文化實(shí)力。</p><p>　　在國際關(guān)系中，由于“軟”實(shí)力的影響力越來越大，世界各個(gè)強(qiáng)國都強(qiáng)調(diào)要提升“軟”實(shí)力。自1980年代以來，日本

69、前首相中曾根提出了“創(chuàng)建文化上的發(fā)達(dá)國家”的戰(zhàn)略計(jì)劃。前法國總統(tǒng)希拉克建議要實(shí)現(xiàn)"文化歐洲"的愿景并建立歐洲文化社區(qū)。自從俄羅斯總統(tǒng)普京擔(dān)任臨時(shí)總統(tǒng)以來，他就開始實(shí)施“文化擴(kuò)張”戰(zhàn)略。 1992年9月，前美國總統(tǒng)布什強(qiáng)調(diào)了在他題為“美國復(fù)興議程”的工作議程中將美國文化作為一種??新型“軟”文化的重要性。 2000年11月，另一位美國前總統(tǒng)克林頓在白宮舉辦了美國文化和對(duì)外關(guān)系專題研討會(huì)，旨在實(shí)現(xiàn)21世紀(jì)的美國對(duì)外文化戰(zhàn)

70、略。在關(guān)于國家安全戰(zhàn)略的報(bào)告中，克林頓明確表示“鼓勵(lì)發(fā)展外部民主”，并將它作為美國安全戰(zhàn)略和對(duì)外政策的三大支柱之一。該報(bào)告指出，“擴(kuò)大民主社會(huì)的大家庭和擴(kuò)大自由市場的國家都推動(dòng)了美國的國家戰(zhàn)略利益”[4]。</p><p>　　在當(dāng)前情況下，就“軟性”實(shí)力競爭方面，我們認(rèn)為以下是相關(guān)的重大議題：人權(quán)與國家主權(quán)的關(guān)系;對(duì)國際機(jī)構(gòu)的控制和影響;用市場經(jīng)濟(jì)來強(qiáng)加文化;人力資源方面的競爭;為輿論爭取更好的位置;民族和宗教

71、問題造成的矛盾和沖突。國家實(shí)力的競爭傾向于以文化實(shí)力為重點(diǎn)來步入到新世紀(jì)。雖然欠發(fā)達(dá)國家在競爭“軟實(shí)力”方面處于不利地位，但處于弱勢(shì)的國家實(shí)力不容忽視。這是無形力量的另一個(gè)來源。由于弱勢(shì)國家的存在，強(qiáng)國在競爭中可以幸存下來，其組織力和凝聚力更好[5]。因此，文化的優(yōu)勢(shì)和劣勢(shì)是相對(duì)的。在國際現(xiàn)代社會(huì)中，由于利益重疊的加重，多元文化的呈現(xiàn)以及相互的學(xué)習(xí)，但同時(shí)彼此也會(huì)發(fā)生沖突。而另一方面，當(dāng)前的情況是不同文化之間的沖突是有限的、是局部的，這

72、不會(huì)導(dǎo)致大規(guī)模的全球沖突。</p><p>　　在國際關(guān)系的演變中，無形的“軟”實(shí)力代表著推動(dòng)國家或國家聯(lián)盟之間關(guān)系的動(dòng)力。國家的這種“軟”實(shí)力主要來自：意識(shí)形態(tài)、社會(huì)制度、組織機(jī)制、生活方式、發(fā)展模式、文化傳統(tǒng)、民族價(jià)值觀、民族特征、宗教信仰、信息資源、相互依賴性以及互信等，在這方面，“軟”實(shí)力可以被稱為文化實(shí)力。在今天的國際社會(huì)中，以文化實(shí)力為基礎(chǔ)的國家實(shí)力競爭是發(fā)展國際關(guān)系的重要現(xiàn)象。</p>

73、<p>　　在我們看來，文化實(shí)力對(duì)國際關(guān)系的影響是文化是一種知識(shí)性的過濾器。在涉及政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的決策過程中文化起著重要作用，政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人根據(jù)他們自己文化特有的文化觀念作出決策。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者、國家和人民受到反映自身價(jià)值觀、觀念、興趣、習(xí)俗和信仰等文化差異的影響。對(duì)這些差異的不了解會(huì)導(dǎo)致曲解和錯(cuò)誤的判斷。顯然，文化體系與國際關(guān)系密切相關(guān)。</p><p>　　文化是決策中的“導(dǎo)航指南”。不同的國家具有不同的戰(zhàn)略偏好

74、，這些偏好根源于國家形成的早期經(jīng)驗(yàn)，并受到國家及其政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的心理、政治、文化和認(rèn)知特征的影響。文化觀念強(qiáng)烈地影響著國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人對(duì)待政治問題的方式，并且經(jīng)常決定他們對(duì)問題解決方案的選擇，無論是個(gè)體的決策還是集體的決策。因此，文化對(duì)這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在國際關(guān)系中解決這些問題就至關(guān)重要。因此，文化是國際關(guān)系中的“導(dǎo)航指南”。</p><p>　　文化代表著國際社會(huì)信任的構(gòu)建。一個(gè)國家的競爭力取決于一個(gè)獨(dú)特的普遍特征，那就是社會(huì)

75、信任。一些國家的社會(huì)信任水平較高，其他國家的水平較低，這將影響國際關(guān)系的合作程度。文化決定了社會(huì)信任的程度，并影響著合作機(jī)構(gòu)的性質(zhì)。文化是構(gòu)建社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和軍事體系的模型，對(duì)國際社會(huì)的行為和前景產(chǎn)生了強(qiáng)烈的影響。</p><p>　　文化是國際一體化的重要力量。在文明的興衰中，有著強(qiáng)烈的統(tǒng)一化趨勢(shì)。這個(gè)趨勢(shì)在工業(yè)化時(shí)代達(dá)到了高潮。這是文化融合的論點(diǎn)。關(guān)于趨同理論中的一個(gè)重要的一點(diǎn)是它與時(shí)間的局限性有關(guān)。數(shù)百種不同的

76、社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)是可能存在的，但所有發(fā)達(dá)經(jīng)濟(jì)體的基本特征相對(duì)統(tǒng)一：所有發(fā)達(dá)經(jīng)濟(jì)體都有共同的機(jī)構(gòu)，如中央銀行、財(cái)政部、技術(shù)研究中心、各級(jí)學(xué)校、軍事組織系統(tǒng)和數(shù)十種其他并行的結(jié)構(gòu)，世界文化的同質(zhì)性和互補(bǔ)性給國際關(guān)系帶來了不可抗拒的統(tǒng)治力。</p><p>　　文化是國際關(guān)系中的一個(gè)沖突的基因。大約在二十年以前，塞繆爾亨廷頓提出了“文明沖突”的概念。他寫道，在冷戰(zhàn)后的世界中，沖突的主要來源將是文化性質(zhì)的。許多人同意亨廷頓的觀點(diǎn)

77、，也就是文化差異會(huì)導(dǎo)致沖突，因?yàn)闆_突的根源與文化基因有關(guān)。但是文明的沖突不應(yīng)該被絕對(duì)地夸大。</p><p>　　我們認(rèn)識(shí)到一個(gè)國家就是一種文化體系，國際關(guān)系是不同文化體系之間相互作用的結(jié)果。文化在國際關(guān)系中作為“軟”實(shí)力的作用可以歸納為兩個(gè)方面：促進(jìn)融合和導(dǎo)致沖突。文化在國際關(guān)系中的正面和負(fù)面影響都反映在矛盾的融合和沖突發(fā)生的過程中。</p><p>　　文化作為“軟實(shí)力”，是當(dāng)代國際關(guān)

78、系模式發(fā)展的深層原因。大國間國際關(guān)系的配置和調(diào)整，實(shí)際上是在調(diào)整利益關(guān)系。利益的分享與價(jià)值取向密切相關(guān)，價(jià)值取向代表文化核心。在這方面，不同文化的融合促進(jìn)了大國的相互依存，增加了追求共同利益和達(dá)成共識(shí)的可能性。</p><p>　　文化是一種無形的“軟”實(shí)力，它必須通過政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、軍事等有形的媒介在國際關(guān)系中發(fā)揮作用。不同國家之間媒介、經(jīng)濟(jì)競爭以及軍事系統(tǒng)內(nèi)的心理戰(zhàn)，都是文化大國之間競爭的一部分。隨著世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的全

79、球化，國家利益日益重疊，國際相互依存性不斷擴(kuò)大。在全球化進(jìn)程中、互動(dòng)過程中可能發(fā)生的文化沖突肯定會(huì)得到約束并減少。</p><p>　　共同利益的增加將促進(jìn)不同文化之間的相互學(xué)習(xí)和融合。由于不同文化的融合程度成比例地增加，所以文化沖突的強(qiáng)度會(huì)降低。這里值得一提的是，即使在共享相同文化傳統(tǒng)的地區(qū)之間也存在文化差異。即便在現(xiàn)在的歐盟統(tǒng)一了貨幣，這也使得成員國不會(huì)削弱他們各自文化的特征。</p><

80、p>　　盡管國外和國際政策分析人士越來越欣賞歐盟的軟實(shí)力，但卻很少觀察到。而且不僅僅是他們觀察不到。否則人們不會(huì)不了解歐盟的吸引力，尤其是對(duì)鄰國的吸引力，很顯然這比對(duì)歐盟自己的成員國吸引力更強(qiáng)。隨著全球化日益受到重視，全球?qū)嵙Φ母诟淖兊卦絹碓蕉唷W盟全球的實(shí)力更多地表現(xiàn)為全球影響力，隨著聯(lián)盟擴(kuò)大其戰(zhàn)略愿景，影響力正在逐步增加。這種影響力并不一定是指實(shí)際上非常膽怯少有的軍事行動(dòng)，可以是包括從歐洲貨幣（歐元）的影響到人道主義關(guān)懷

81、任務(wù)或給予欠發(fā)達(dá)國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)援助等任何方面。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　我們可以總結(jié)地說“軟”實(shí)力是國家實(shí)力的重要組成部分。它的定義仍然沒有達(dá)成一致?？偠灾?，“軟”實(shí)力也可以被稱為精神性實(shí)力。 “軟”實(shí)力是一種與“硬”實(shí)力相反的概念，而精神性實(shí)力是一種與物質(zhì)性實(shí)力相反的概念，文化與政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)和軍事體系相對(duì)。它也是無形的力量，源自精神

82、（包括心理學(xué)）和智力等因素，都屬于文化范疇。</p><p>　　以文化實(shí)力為中心的“軟”實(shí)力將繼續(xù)在國際關(guān)系轉(zhuǎn)型和全球格局中發(fā)揮重要而又持久的作用。</p><p>　　總而言之，我們的世界是豐富多彩的。 文明的多樣性是人類文明進(jìn)步背后的主要特征，同時(shí)也是推動(dòng)力量。 在爭奪國家權(quán)力的過程中，應(yīng)該尊重歷史、文化、社會(huì)制度和各國發(fā)展的方式。 世界的多樣性是必須要承認(rèn)的現(xiàn)實(shí)。 不同的文明和社會(huì)

83、制度應(yīng)該享有長期的共存。 他們應(yīng)該在整個(gè)競爭互惠互利，并在共同發(fā)展的同時(shí)去發(fā)現(xiàn)共同存在的問題并努力彌補(bǔ)差異。</p><p><b>　　參考文獻(xiàn)</b></p><p>　　[1] 帝安 A. 米尼克斯，桑德拉 M. 霍利，全球政治，沃茲沃思，貝爾蒙特，奧爾巴尼，波恩等人，1998年</p><p>　　[2]約瑟夫 S. 奈Jr.，必然的領(lǐng)

84、導(dǎo)：美國實(shí)力的變化性質(zhì)，1990</p><p>　　[3]華堅(jiān)等人，“軟實(shí)力競爭：全球化背景下的文化競爭趨勢(shì)”，上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院出版社，中國高等教育出版社，2001年，第5頁</p><p>　　[4]“美國國家安全戰(zhàn)略報(bào)告匯編”，時(shí)事新聞，2001年，第1頁。 第276頁至279頁</p><p>　　[5]約瑟夫 S. 奈Jr.，必然的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)：美國實(shí)力的變化性質(zhì)，