An Analysis of Joseph Nye’s Use of “Soft Power” and its Relationship with Morality in International Relations Recently, the United States has lost a great deal of power in the international arena because of its invasion of Iraq and torture of prisoners of war. The United States holds an incredible edge in military capabilities over any other nation and the US benefits from the largest economy in the world. In a world where there is one single superpower, why is that superpower unable to force-feed policy through coercion or payoff? Theoretically, the US ought to be able to rule the world with a double-edged sword of military muscle and economic supremacy. These tangible aspects of power should be all that US needs to be the prevailing global power, yet it obviously lacks some x-factor if its military and economic preponderance has remained and the US has lost power. Traditionally, State power has been viewed without concern for morality. In most accounts, morality did not play a role in power, or reacted counterproductively towards power. The main school of thought in International Relations on the concept of State power, realism, is founded on self-interest and follows the mantra “might makes right.” The Realists believe that a nation should only act in a manner which enhances or advances its own national interest at all costs despite morality and the interests of other nations. A nation cannot successfully navigate the muddy waters of International Relations by waging war and imposing trade sanctions upon all of those who oppose that nation. The second viewpoint on State power is based purely in morality. Idealism requires self sacrifice for the overall good of the global community. Physical power should perform as ... ... middle of paper ... ...attackindex.htm McKillen, Elizabeth. “The Unending Delete Over Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations.” Diplomatic History. Nov. (2003): 711-716. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Bound to Lead. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1990. ---. “The Changing Nature of World Power.” Political Science Quarterly. 105(2) (1990): 177-192. ---. The Paradox of American Power. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. ---. “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age.” Foreign Affairs. Sept.-Oct. (1998): 81-95. ---. “Redefining the National Interest.” Foreign Affairs. July-Aug. (1999): 22-30. ---. Soft Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. ---. “The velvet hegemon: How soft power can help defeat terrorism.” Foreign Policy. May-June (2003): 74-75. Rothgeb, John M. Jr. Defining Power: Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System. New York: St. Martin Press, 1993.
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Origins for the cooperation amongst powers necessary to tackle international disputes can be traced back to the 19th century, however the formation of the League of Nations was eagerly prompted by the First World War. After the horrors in which the world observed, leaders merged together and rejoiced in the potential for a new international system. The League of Nations foremost objective was to secure peace through collective efforts of ‘peace-loving’ powers (Steans, Pettiford, & Diez, 2005, p. 31). President Woodrow Wilson was a lead proponent in the creation of such a body, suggesting it- within his message on the Conditions of Peace- as a means of ‘affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’ (Wilson, 1918). The following year a detailed scheme was presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the league was swiftly established with the addition of a permanent secretariat in Geneva. (Catterall, 1999, p. 50). The League was very much considered the ‘most daring and innovative proposal’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 85)
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.cd http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/276683?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email l & utm _ campaign = new % 20 JPS _ 2008_3_26 Hilde Haaland Kramer, & Steve A Yetiv. (2007). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary'. The UN Security Council's Response to Terrorism: Before and After September 11, 2001. Political Science Quarterly, 122(3), 409-432.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
America has been a world leader, since the beginning of the twentieth century, however, it is questionable, if they will continue to be world leaders. “People around the world believe the ‘global balance of power’ is shifting away from the United States… a majority of people said that China would replace, or already has replaced, the U.S as the leading superpower. This is despite the fact that the U.S has spent well over $15 billion on public diplomacy since 1999” (Cohen, Dale, Smith, 2012). Rising developing countries such as China and Russia, pose a threat to American leadership, in many ways, their power is almost equal to Americas.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
The oxford dictionary has attempted to define power as the “ability to influence people or control the behaviour of people”. Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi...
Modern system of international relations is changing and becoming more and more complex, that is why the power cannot be understood as an indivisible concept. It directly affects foreign policies of the countries and makes them develop new efficient methods and instruments to succeed on the world arena, some of which have not been examined to the full extent yet.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. London.
Powers is very substantial in international relations because this has changed throughout human kind and many great power countries had some time of greatness in history. However, international relations can also define power in many aspects. For example, one way of power in international relations is explained one actor employing influence over another, which this brought so many conflicts in today’s international politics. International relations also can describe this category of power is, hard or soft power. In hard power, there are many ways that can be mentioned. For instance, US has a gigantic hand of military size and technology over the other great powers. In addition to that, the concept of power in international relations is mostly used by realist thinkers whom they believe that, the world is more extreme and feel thereat. They believe countries should be very strong because others might attack anyone at any time. In other words, every nation must have a strong military and economy to defend themselves in times of