Why is so much expected of soft power these days - Essay Example

?Why is So Much Expected of Soft Power these Days? Introduction Power in world politics is about the ability to influence results and quite often this means changing the attitude and behaviour of other states.1 Soft power is defined as the use of persuasion through appeal and attraction rather than through coercive techniques.2 Hard power, which is characterized as coercive in nature, is usually measured by virtue of a state’s military strength.3 Hard power was once the only matrix by which a state’s power was measured. Nowadays, changes particularly with interdependence among the global community, information technologies and the rise of non-state and non-military actors such as corporations and non-governmental organizations have given expression to a more significant source of power: soft power.4 This research study analyzes the rise of soft power today and discusses why so much is expected of soft power these days. This paper is therefore divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper analyzes the theory of soft power and the second part of this paper, analyzes the rise of soft power and identifies why so much is expected of soft power these days. The Theory of Soft Power Joseph Nye, a diplomat and scholar of the 1980s, introduced the theory of soft power.5 Nye (2003) described soft power as: ..the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make other follow your will.6 Soft power is more about using “credible claims” and less about “propaganda”.7 Nye explains how credible claims amount to soft power. It comes from the state’s cultural, political and policies’ appeal. When a state’s policies are viewed as “legitimate” the state’s soft power is exemplified.8 Although the US has used and continues to use the military in its war against terrorism, it has also used and continues to use soft power.9 Soft power in the US counterterrorism strategies include enhanced collection and sharing of intelligence, cooperation with other states and methods for cutting off financing for terrorists activities. The US has also described its war against international terrorism as a war that uses the US’s influence, working together with its allies in an attempt to perpetuate the idea that terrorism is unlawful and is the kind of conduct that no legitimate state would tolerate or aid.10 The US has also pledge to lend assistance and support to “moderate and modern government” particularly in Muslim states as a means of ensuring that “the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation.”11 The US’s counterterrorism strategy also involves reducing or removing the root causes of terrorism by influencing other states to target those areas vulnerable to terrorists’ influences. The US’s specifically states its intention to use soft power in the war against terrorism by stating that it intends to use: Effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindly the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.12 Thus the US counterterrorism policies are not geared toward forcing change and cooperation. The US Counterterrorism policies are aimed at influencing and persuading a change in behaviour and thinking as a means of helping the US achieve its goal of eradicating the threat of terrorism. Aside from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US counterterrorism strategies can be distinguished from hard power as it is not coercive in nature. Hard power would have been demonstrated by the conscious use of economic and military power as a means of influencing the decisions and options of the enemy. Hard power is distinguished from soft power in significant ways. Hard power contemplates coercive techniques that can either be actual or symbolic. Soft power fosters agreement via policies and other forms of conduct that make states more appealing to other states. This is accomplished by “indirect and non-coercive” means.13 Hard power can illicit agreement under duress and thus gives rise to a “conflict of interests” because hard power forces a state to act in ways that it would not.14 Soft power however, persuades and influences states to freely choose to do that which the soft power state wants and thus there is little if any conflict of interests.15 In other words, soft power states seek to influence the political aspirations of other states. The end goal is to have other states identify with the issues and goals of another state and to want to resolve those issues and pursue those goals together with the soft power state. Hard power states use threats and inducements to influence the same outcome that soft power states pursue. Since soft power by definition depends on the soft power state’s legitimacy, the soft power state is expected to exhibit conduct and policies that reflect natural justice, mutual interests and concerns and fairness. Therefore the power related to soft power comes from political institutions and cultural attributes reflected in policies and governance.16 This explains why so much is expected of soft power. Arguably, soft power states who rely on their policies and government constructs to buttress soft power, they expect that this political investment proves its legitimacy to such an extent that it is appealing to other states. With these kinds of expectations, it is only natural to expect that soft power will yield greater positive outcomes than hard power techniques would. Since hard power is by definition coercive in nature, it is expected that any cooperation or consent resulting from hard power will only last as long as the state feels threatened. However with soft power, it is expected that the cooperating state will continue to cooperate since cooperation is obtained without duress. The Rise of Soft Power Nye informs that soft power became entirely important to the US after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on American soil. The US came to the realization that confronted by the modern threat of international terrorism, it was not possible for the US to take unilateral action against this new and dangerous threat. It needed the cooperation of other states. While other states will often cooperate “out of self-interest”, the US realized that it could only obtain cooperation for the most part by maintaining its legitimacy in terms of policies.17 Terrorism is just one of many modern events that has shaped and changed the world political landscape. Gallarotti explains that the modern landscape generally is incompatible with traditional concepts of hard power. Gallarotti argues that: The world stage has become less amenable to Hobbesian bruts, and more amendable to actors that are sensitized to the soft opportunities and constraints imposed by this new global environment.18 The new global environment has witnessed the erosion of national borders in a world that has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. This is why so much is expected of soft power. Soft power is seen as consistent with the realities of the new global environment. National borders are virtually obsolete and it makes perfect sense that the conceptualization of power has changed to reflect this reality. For instance in China, internet users or cyber citizens (citizens of the world) far exceed the members of the Communist Party. To this end, power is now culled from commercial activities, multiculturalism and from “the pull on hearts and minds” and relies entirely on mutual and voluntary agreement.19 Modern reality dictates that global integration and globalization generally, has an impact on the world’s power structure.20 The use of hard power in an integrated world can be counterproductive, as it can incur financial and political consequences to the detriment of state against whom hard power is used, the surrounding countries and the country using hard power. For instance economic sanctions against a trade partner or the trade partner of an ally could lead to the loss of jobs for many causing additional problems of social unrest, economic hardship and a reduction of choices for consumers. The reality is: in such an interpenetrated world, punishing or threatening other nations is tantamount to self-punishment. In such an environment strategies for optimizing national wealth and influence have shifted from force and coercion to cooperation.21 As Nye argues, it is quite often futile to use hard power in an increasingly global political economy. Any state confronted by hard power tactics can simply ignore the threats and/or economic sanctions by turning to another state. The new global political paradigm is one that allocates power to the international community and the various networks that connect the various states within the international community.22 Globalization is thus an important facilitator of soft power.23 Globalization has constructed world that integrates cultures, economies and societies. These integrations are supported by technological advancements that facilitate the rapid and frequent exchanges of information and ideas. Thus information is transmitted from one state to another instantaneously. 24 As Gallaroti explains: These greater links compound the interdependence among networks containing both transnational actors and national governments.25 As states become more connected with the international community, motivations to invest in national political economies likewise increase as a means of strengthening ties to the international political economy.26 Western powers’ efforts to spread democracy also compromise the use of hard power.27 Moreover, economic, political, social and cultural integration have greatly reduced the risk of conflict and tension, making it more important to abandon the use of hard power.28 Soft power between super powers and great powers is even more prevalent and important. This is because of the growing threat of nuclear weapons. Thus security has been shaped by a new concept in which the devastating consequences of a nuclear war have rendered hard power too remote a possibility.29 Thus the threat of the possibilities relative to nuclear power and nuclear arms acts as a deterrent against the use of hard power and encourages instead, the use of soft power. The steady and increasing spread of democracy and democratic institutions worldwide has also contributed to the significance of soft power and with this growth comes an automatic expectation of share ideologies.30 Thus the power among many nations has shifted toward shared interests and shared outcomes. Whenever there is conflict or tensions, the tensions can be resolved by the use of soft power. Even where one state is democratic and the other is not, soft power can be used to persuade the non-democratic state to adopt democracy and to establish democratic institutions. Operation on another level, the influence of democracy spills over to the citizenry who in turn have become more active participants in national and international politics. More often than not, non-governmental organizations scrutinize and participate in national and international politics as well. The fact is: As individuals become politically empowered, they can generate strong impediments to the use of force and coercion…Hence, national leaders are much more constrained to work within softer foreign policy boundaries, boundaries that limit the use of force, threat and bribery. Rather outcomes are engineered through policies more consistent with liberal democratic legitimacy.31 Democracy is therefore aligned with legitimacy which is a prerequisite for the successful use of soft power. With the participation of citizens in the democratic process, there is a general expectation that soft power will inform the foreign policy of the governments elected by the citizens and in return. It therefore follows that not only do citizens expect soft powers to be used, but they expect that soft powers will circumvent the use of hard powers and ultimately avoid war. Another factor contributing to the growth of the use of soft power is the socio-political and economic conditions that have become increasingly integrated. A culture has emerged in which people all over the world are preoccupied with their own economic conditions and economic future. Thus people all over the world are quickly abandoning the “warrior” mentality.32 Therefore with citizens all over the world intently focused on their own economic conditions, there is a strong incentive on governments who are duly elected by these same individuals to forego the use of hard power and to instead engage other states with soft power. 33 As Gallarotti explains, within this new and growing “welfare/economic orientation and the spread of democracy”, governments are typically guided by economic goals and are far less entrenched in the dynamics of “foreign adventurism as a source of political survival”.34 Thus there is an increasing political and economic shift in both national and international politics which engenders democracy. The natural result is a bid for cooperation and coordination between states with a view to improving economic development. Ever since the Second World War, there has been a steady growth of non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations. These developments have helped to solidify a culture of cooperation among states. Soft power is therefore compatible with these developments.35 In the current economic and political climate, a country acting unilaterally and without reference to this political and economic culture can be entirely too costly. The emergence of these organizations has systematically set a standard for or framework by which states behave in international power politics. In doing so, a trend toward soft power is inevitable.36 Gallarotti informs that: Expectations have gravitated more toward the sanctity of such institutions, and hence hard power policies and actions that are inconsistent with these expectations generate greater fallout relative to an environment where no such institutional superstructure existed.37 The US and the European Union in particular have been active in stockpiling and infiltrating soft power. In both instances, there is an amalgamation of economic, cultural and military power which gives both the US and the European Union have the kind of capabilities that can pave the future for the rest of the world.38 There are dangers associated with soft powers with the kind of economic, political and military strengths associated with the US and the European Union. These powers are so dominant that weaker countries may simply feel compelled to cooperate with them against their own wishes. When looked at this way, soft power can be just as coercive as hard powers. Conclusion Soft power has emerged as an important diplomatic tool in foreign policies and thus international relations. Soft power not only dictates how a government deals with its own populations, but with how it deals with other states. Populations and governments are so intricately connected in the global culture today, that soft powers have become the rule rather than the exception. The interconnectedness of the global economic and political infrastructure has made it virtually impossible for a country to pursue its own interests and goals without the cooperation and coordination of other countries. The use of hard powers can alienate a state from the remainder of the global population and the global community. When that happens the alienated nations may be cut off from a valuable source of economic and political source of help. The alienated state it therefore left to achieve its economic and political goals alone. Without cooperation and assistance from other states, the alienated state will likely fail to achieve its own goals. It therefore follows that states that resist using hard powers and turn instead to soft powers, expect to be regarded as legitimate and expect to continue to have or establish economic and political ties with the international community. With soft power associated with the spread of democracy it is also expected that the use of soft power will aid in the development and maintenance of democratic institutions. It is also expected that with the development of democratic institutions, economic growth and development will naturally follow. However, since it is unlikely that less developed countries have the kind of leverage necessary to influence political, social, economic and cultural behaviour and attitudes, soft powers are more prominently used by world powers such as the US and the European Union. These powers have the economic and military power that facilitates soft powers. Given these strengths, developing and less developed countries may have no choice but to cooperate with the US and the European Union and may behave in ways that are calculated to pacify the US and the European Union. Thus the distinction between hard and soft powers may not be significant when they both have the potential to force a state to behave in a way that is consistent with the soft power state. Soft power is only a viable source of foreign diplomacy if it obtains voluntary cooperation from other states. In the absence of voluntary cooperation, soft power is just as coercive as hard power although expectations are high that soft power will aid in economic prosperity and the spread of democracy. Bibliography Textbooks Armistead, Information Operations: Warfare and the Hard Reality of Soft Power. (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc., 2005). Doyle, Michael, W. Ways of War and Peace. (New York, NY: Norton, 1997). Gallarotti, G.M. Cosmopolitan Power in International Relations: A Synthesis of Realism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Kegley Jr., Charles, W. and Raymond, Gregory, A. The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. (Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2007). Krasner, Stephen, D. International Regimes, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983). Lennon, Alexander, T. J. The Battle for Hearts and Minds, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003). Milner, Helen, V. Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988). Nye, Jr., Joseph, S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. (New York, NY: Publics Affairs, 2005). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. The Paradoxes of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002). Osgood, Robert E. and Tucker, Robert W. Force, Order and Justice. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). Reidy, David, A. and Riker, Walter, J. Coercion and the State. (New York, NY: Springer, 2008). Rosecrace, The Rise of the Virtual State: Wealth and Power in the Coming Century, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1999). Treverton, Gregory, F. and ones, Seth, G. Measuring National Power. (Santa Monica, CA: 2005). Articles/Journals Dyke, Mark Avan and Vercic, Dejan. ‘Public Relations, Public Diplomacy, and Strategic Communication: An International Model of Conceptual Convergence.’ 910-928 cited in Krishnamurthy Sriramesh and Dejan Vercic (Eds.). The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009). Gallarotti, G. M. ‘Soft Power: What it is, Why its Important, and the Conditions Under Which it Can be Effectively Used.’ (2011) Division II Faculty Publications, Paper 57, 1-51. Haskel, Barbara, G.‘Access to Society: A Neglected Dimension of Power,’ (Winter 1980) 34 International Organization, 89-120. Jervis, Robert. ‘Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Peace Power.’(March 2002) American Political Science Review, 1-14. Nye Jr., Joseph, S. ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.’ (March 2008) 616(1) The ANALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 94-109. Nye, Joseph.‘Hard and Soft Power in a Global Information Age’. pp, 1-9, Cited in Joseph Nye (Ed.). Re-Ordering the World. (London, UK: Foreign Policy Centre, 2002). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. ‘Soft Power.’ (Autumn 1990) Foreign Policy No. 80, 153-171. Nye, Jr., Joseph S. ‘The Decline of America’s Soft Power: Why Washington Should Worry,’ (May/June 2004) 83(3) Foreign Affairs, 16-20. Keohane, Robert, O. and Nye, Jr., Joseph, S. ‘Power and Interdependence in the Information Age.’ (Sept.-Oct. 1998) 77(5) Foreign Affairs, 81-94. Government Publications The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, 1-35. Read More