The concept of ‘soft power’, the term introduced by Joseph Nye in the late 1980s , can be distinguished as a more peaceful, amiable, and subtle type of power which focuses on attracting and persuading others. It has become a staple of everyday democratic politics as it can prove to be an effective means of public diplomacy, helping countries to achieve their aims in foreign policy without having to resort to any measures of coercion, or in other words, hard power. However, even though the concept of soft power may sound appealing, it should not be forgotten that it is not without its limits. Soft power, of course, presents many benefits when it is applied properly and effectively. To name a few; it can be very far-reaching, costs less than …show more content…
Some have completely rejected it, arguing that it is only hard, military power procures any true effect on the international stage. Historian Niall Ferguson has dismissed soft power as simply "non-traditional forces such as cultural and commercial goods" . Former US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, even went as far as to deny the existence of soft power. Certain neorealist and rationalist authors dismiss soft power as they believe that actors respond only to two types of incentives, that is, economic incentives and force. Other critics believe that soft power often does some good around the edges of a country’s policies; however it would be somewhat naïve to consider it as a genuine instrument of foreign …show more content…
It is clear that Russia’s actions in Crimea strongly demonstrate the sharp limits of soft power, especially one which again shows the use of soft power when it clashes with hard power. Russia’s forceful military intervention into Ukraine was preceded by a tug of war of sorts between Moscow and the West over Ukraine’s integration with two competing soft-power vehicles—the EU and the Moscow-led Eurasian Union. In the end, Crimea was forcibly seized by men with guns, that is, through the use of hard power. Hence, the events in Ukraine have exposed the stark limits of soft power. In such cases, it has become evident overtime that soft power may be less an instrument to wield, and more of a favourable wind on a country’s side. Moreover, the Ukraine crisis has shown that Europe’s self-perception as a growing economic power that does not need hard power is badly flawed. The past months have seen a change in the Euro-Atlantic community’s relations with Russia- the introduction of economic and financial sanctions, visa bans on Russian companies, along with the arms embargo with the country, all show that soft power was not sufficient in dealing with
In a recent White House brief, President Obama called the Russian invasion of Crimea a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. When assessing the Russo-Ukrainian crises in Crimea, the commander of European Command (EUCOM) and the Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces (SACUER) must account for U.S. interests in the region before deciding a proper course of action. This essay aims to assess four of the United States’ national interests through the perspective of EUCOM and SACUER. The first section will outline the role of EUCOM and SACUER in the European region and assess the overall problem of Russia invading Crimea. The second section will outline four of the United States’ national interests at stake: international order, trade and economic prosperity, energy supply, and freedom of the seas. In doing so, this assessment of U.S. interests in Crimea supports the options of non-intervention and a non-provocative stance in order to maintain long-term stability because the Russian invasion has only violated peripheral interests of EUCOM and SACUER.
A middle power is a country that uses its influence on issues which are perceived as “minor” in the scale of international politics – often because the great powers are too busy with other incidents1. influential through soft power and multilateralism. Soft power can be defined as having a culture and policies that appeal to other states2. A middle power is also influential because its policies are credible and it is an independent state3. Essentially what this means is that a middle power takes part in international politics (and in doing so, has an influential role) through international organizations and also through multilateral discussions – often during crises. Canada played the role of middle power exceptionally well in the two decades following World War Two by taking part in international organizations and playing an influential role in multilateral discussions.
The idea of power has changed since then as well, with power relying on many different aspects and not as a mercantilist view of the 16th 17th 18th and 19th century, and therefore could be weighed with different forms of exertion of power such as the modern day economy, or military, or even soft power politics.
The term ‘soft power’ is sometimes described freely. Not all aspects of non hard power are soft power. The two Great Wars during the twentieth century were fought using hard power (utilization of infantry and weaponry, bombing, raids, force, sanctions) as compared to soft power. But there was another war in the latter half of the twentieth century, which was majorly fought using soft power as compared to the utilization of hard power. But the use of soft power did not end there. Till now, America and China use culture and their strong economic status to influence regular people towards them. For example, in American movies, the villains are always either Russians or the Chinese, mafia or otherwise. These movies and other types of media propaganda was sent inside the iron curtain to undermine the communist lifestyle.
In foreign policy, decision making is guided by different a leader that is from presidents, cabinets, parliaments and groups such as communist party of Soviet Union and the standing committee of the communist party of china and Central Intelligence Agency of USA. One cannot run away from the fact that a leader’s personality can affect foreign policy. Maoz and Shayer believe that one cannot underrate or ignore the role of personality in decision making as it plays a huge role. By examining ones foreign policy, we can understand foreign policy better (Jensen, 1982). If a leader is aggressive then there are certain traits he will exhibit such as paranoia, manipulation, thirst for power high intensity of nationalism, (Hermann, 1980). Hitler was one leader who led to world war when he challenged the treaty of Versailles by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. The opposite is true for a mild leader for example George Washington who told Americans to avoid entrapping alliances.
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.
The debate between hard and soft power first emerged when Joseph Nye introduced the concept of soft power through his criticisms on declinist theories. Soft power was initially popularised in the early 1990s, however its roots date back to the 1980s when Nye criticised declinists and their analysis on the downturn of US relative power. (Zahran, Ramos, 2010, p. 13) Soft power in Nye’s beliefs is in opposition to hard power and describes it as: “The ability to make others want what you want.” (Zahran, Ramos, 2010, p. 13) Soft power relies on culture, ideologies, and institutions to attract supporters and power. In contrast, hard power uses a much more aggressive method and engages through incentives or threats that are usually correlated to
McShane and Von Glinow define Power as “the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others” (300). Furthermore, they state that power derives from five main sources and four main contingencies like the following figure illustrates.
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.
Power in politics is a person who has the ability to influence a person in terms of their behaviour; however they possess no right to - unlike authority. There are many ways in which a person can influence another’s behaviour; one such example is through coercion. Coercion refers to the use of violence or threats in order to influence someone. [Jones and Norton, 2011]
Since the earliest recorded history, there has always been one elusive title that a State has strived for, the title of Super Power. Power is one of the fundamental characteristics of the international system and the distribution of power among states. It is obvious that states are unequal in power and this “entails a number of important implications for international politics”. As a result of this lack of power, the ‘weak states’ desires and concerns are often neglected and the ‘strong states’ demands usually shape the international agenda. In the Modern Society, some would argue that we have two great powers in Russia and the United States, but if you measure and compare the two countries, The United States is more powerful. Some of these categories are population in which the U.S has more than double Russ...
The concept of power is central to the study of international politics. International politics has been defined in terms of influencing major nations in the world to advance the purpose of a nation against the opposition of other nations. Thus, it is rather not surprising that power, either by means of influence or control, has been a dominant concept that is intertwined in discussion when it comes to the study of international politics. Before getting into the fundamental nature of power in international relations, it is needed to consider just what power is. Power in the study of international politics can be derived in several ways as a goal of states or individual; as a measure of influence or control over actors, events, outcomes, and international affairs; as reflecting triumph in conflict and obtaining security; as control over capabilities and resources. Power can broadly be considered of as the ability to manipulate others to act according to our benefit, and to avert them from doing the same to us.
The term soft power was coined by Joseph Nye in 1990 and defined it as a country’s capability to influence other countries through diplomacy and dialogue instead of use of brutal force (coercion). He was of the opinion that soft power is cultivated through striking relations with allies, cultural exchanges and economic assistance. The increase in soft power popularity can be attributed to the failure of hard power that entailed the use of military and economic to control the rest of the world. A country is said to be possess more soft power if its institutions, culture and national values rouse high regard and reverence across the world.
Hard power, however, is less useful today as the global system changes in its disfavor. In addition to soft power, smart power strategies play an important role in the contemporary international system. SOFTPOWER . Different writers scholars and philosophers have given different definitions of soft power what i believe soft power is the power to get result of your own preference without using arms built these can be one's trick ideas politics etcAccording to Nye, an organization’s Soft Power is based on three resources: its culture (and how attractive it looks to others), its political values (and whether it lives up to them at home and abroad), its foreign policies (and whether these are seen as legitimate and moral). In describing the effectiveness of Soft Power, Nye argues that "seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive". HARD POWER VS SOFT POWER The idea to distinguish between hard power and soft power was first introduced by Nye* more than two decades ago (1990). In general, he defines power as the “ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants” and command or hard power as coercive 'power wielded through inducements or
given that the contest was invariably over third countries.Where a superpower confronted a weaker adversary, the menu of options available to the former was even larger. Relative strength was in favour of the superpower across the military-diplomatic spectrum. This, of course, did not always result in the successful exercise of coercive diplomacy, especially where motivation levels were skewed in favour of the weaker party. A good example is the U.S. failure to coerce North Vietnam into ceasing support for the Vietcong. But the point being emphasised here is the unequal nature of the contest and the weaker power's lack