Hard Power vs. Soft Power: Finding a Balance

                

Power is defined as the ability to control people or things. International power can be divided into two main categories: hard power and soft power.

These two types of power tend to contrast each other greatly. Whether one type of power is more influential than another type is a topic that has been debated for some time now. Although the ideas of soft power and hard power are fairly new, they show great similarities to the ideas discussed throughout Machiavelli’s, The Prince. In his works, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better to be feared or loved. Essentially, this is hard power versus soft power. Originally, The Prince was written as a guide for domestic relations; however, it shows a great similarity to the types of powers dealing in international relations as well. Historically speaking, it is best to have a balance between hard power and soft power, or in Machiavelli’s case, fear and love.

Hard power is achieved by through a means of force and coercion. Throughout history hard power has been displayed by military threats and evidenced by war as many conflicts were ended by coercion. It is also achieved economically through threats and sanctions.  An example is the current US sanctions on Russia pertaining to the Ukraine situation. This closely relates to the fear aspect in Machiavelli’s debate. Realists tend to think of hard power as the most effective way of persuasion. Hard power has been successful throughout history because of the fear it instills amongst surrounding nations. It is important because it gives a country the ability to back up its demands/requests and allows it to advance and succeed.

Soft power on the other hand is gained on a more social level; it focuses on reputation and intentions. It deals with a nation’s ability to not only persuade and influence, but with a nation’s ability to attract. This is brought about in Machiavelli’s argument in that if a state is able to be loved, then it will be able to maintain healthy relationships and succeed through these relationships. Soft power is of great importance because a country with a great deal of soft power will be able to utilize its relationships to gain support, allowing it to achieve more than it could on its own. An example would be a nation’s ability to influence the UN in humanitarian affairs.

Finding a balance between hard power and soft power will yield the most success. If a nation leans solely toward one type of power, it loses influence. A nation that leans towards having massive amounts of hard power and little amounts of soft power loses influence in that it will unlikely be able to gain support in any endeavors it may wish to pursue. An example would be North Korea. If North Korea wished to seek support for something, many countries would be unwilling to help based off of its lack of soft power. On the contrary, a nation who tends to have more soft power than hard power will be ineffective in any kind of military pursuits. Norway is a country that has a great deal of soft power but has a rather small amount of hard power making it difficult for Norway to control through force.

Just as Machiavelli concluded, it is important for a nation to find the balance between fear and love, or soft power and hard power. The United States is the best example of this balance. They have the world’s most powerful military making it very easy to influence through hard power and at the same time they have a great reputation for wanting to help struggling countries giving them massive amounts of soft power as well.  Currently the US is using both soft and hard power against ISIS as it built a coalition to engage in airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. 

U.S. Powers

The United States is one of the most powerful countries in world. As a superpower, it has acquired the respect of the world. An unchallenged nation for many years, the United States has many powers that keep it an indomitable force. The United States may be too powerful using hard power, as well as soft power where two views of thought see each one as important.

Hard powers of the United States consist of its military and economic powers. American military is by far one of the well equipped and most strategic in the world. With a vast amount of troops available, any threat present can be handled and maintained by the U.S. The U.S. has enough money to support a war for many years; this can be seen from the aftermath of 9/11 when former President Bush sent troops to Iraq. With that, if the United States market crashed this would not only affect the people and nation domestically but also internationally. The U.S. is connected and tied with other nations economically. If anything ever so drastic happened the world economy would severely be affected. The type of power that could affect other nations thousands of miles away is something to consider when weighing the United State’s powers.

Absolute gain, a liberal thought, is used by the United States by determining the consequence of every action they take. A prime example of this can be the United States and Israel’s long-lasting alliance. Each one has partnered for mutual reasons, Israel possible for the U.S. assistance and the U.S. for a country who is not landlocked. It is seen as a more rational choice in international affairs; where as relative gain is more of a “take from those who have”. Relative gain can be seen more as a realist view, as its puts its interest more in the state rather, neglecting cooperation and other nations.

Soft powers of the United States consist of its ability to persuade, attract, and change cultural norms. As a superpower, the United States views on international politics are weighed heavily. If certain policies favor the United States, other nations will most likely have to oblige to these policies through persuasive maneuvers from the U.S. In discussion, we talked about how the U.S. can also set the agenda for international affairs. The United States also has the belief around the whole “American Dream” idea where anyone can be successful. It attracts many foreigners who have high hopes for a prosperous country to bless them with a better life. In addition, the state of American culture affects other nations in social settings. As a whole, the United States has been headed toward more liberal ideologies as they move away from customs. The essence of individuality is being examined more as Feminist movements and Gay movements have started seeing more airtime. Feminist movements have even been seen in the across the world. A few years ago in Libya, we saw Islamic women protesting against the Qaddafi dictatorship (http://www.thenation.com/article/177467/rise-islamic-feminists#). American culture continues to grow as more women take a stand and show their power. This puts more of a strain of governments to maintain leadership by accommodating their people's needs. 

A main concept for why the United States is such a powerful nation can come from legitimacy. Other nations actually respect and fear the United States for what it is able to do. If others see you as a threat that cannot be taken down, than the only result will be to partner and create a strong alliance. This alliance can be related back to the thought of absolute gain, where a state weighs each factor before proceeding with a decision.

The United States truly does have every factor that contributes to power. They use the realist point of view to enforce themselves as a threat, but a more constructivist approach to gain trust with other international states. Both of these tactics in play put the United States in a category of its own. This category manifests as other nations continue to allow the United States to be a dominant force in the world.

Assignment 1

            *NOT MY BELIEFS—JUST WRITING FOR ASSIGNMENT*

The US has a tendency to believe that going into Islamic countries and trying to impose Western beliefs on these individuals who have their mindset on following Shariah Law is a good idea, we have had this mindset for a long time and have not had much success in making this effort a complete success. We send our military to their countries in hopes of achieving change, but we still do not see it. Reporters of CNN have written many articles on the threat of ISIS and I cannot help but agree with the majority of their arguments as for why US intervention to aid Baghdad against ISIS is a horrid idea.  The issue of the security dilemma/ spiral model that was discussed in lecture ties into the threat of ISIS because of the fact that as one state becomes more domestically secure, the relative power of the other state becomes less secure.

            With the US intervening in ISIS this could lead to an increase of risking terrorism from occurring here at home in the USA. Entering Iraq with our military to try to end their civil war is not a wise strategy just because of the fact that physical violence has not done much but increase the amount of innocent lives lost. One of the most problematic issues with the US trying to resolve this conflict is the US is incapable of resolving the Sunni-Shia dissension. ISIS is primarily made up of Sunni-Muslims which is the minority group of Muslims in Iraq. ISIS has a great deal of power and has the ability to unfortunately continue spreading because of the mass amount of Sunni citizens who are willing to support their actions. Studies have shown that Sunni-Muslims do not trust their government and have more faith in ISIS, as a result it will continue to grow. Physical US military  violence is incapable of changing the firm beliefs that these citizens hold. If anything it could increase their mistrust in the government.

            ISIS is a strong jihadist group, if you think back to the US’s failed attempts to get rid of major jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda since 9/11 what will make getting rid of ISIS any easier? If anything it may be a lot harder just because of the fact that though Sunni’s are minority, there are enough of them to be able to successfully immerse into the country making it harder and harder to pinpoint where your target of destruction is for this group.

            In addition to the issue of the religious ideologies that the citizens hold, if you look at the map in article 1 you see that there are members of ISIS located in many cities and towns surrounding Iraq and Syria which makes it extremely difficult to fight ISIS solely based on air power. It is imperative that we have allies in the areas surrounding the areas marked with red dots otherwise we will not be successful.

All in all the risks of fighting ISIS and chances of success are not looking too good, the US’s best bet is to not intervene militarily.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/22/6831757/us-bombing-syria-to-destroy-isis-heres-why-that-wont-work

http://alraiyblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/the-security-dilemma-and-isis/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/meast/iraq-predictions-revisited/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/opinion/cooper-quilliam-west-ignore-iraq-intervention-plea/

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/07/a-return-to-the-fight-in-iraq/us-intervention-will-only-worsen-the-situation

Hard Power vs. Soft Power

Jessica Nott

GVPT200 Blog 1

28 September 2014

            International power can be put into two categories: hard power and soft power. Hard power is tough military power that is easy to see and very coercive. Soft power is very different. Soft power is under the radar and more about attraction and maybe a little bit of persuasion. A lot of countries have a little bit of both kinds of power. The United States, for example, has ample amounts of both powers. We have the strongest, largest and most adapt military as well as great influence over many countries due to our reputation to aid in human rights crises. Our aid goes a long way in gaining the support of the people that live in that area. Other countries do not have as much power, and some have more hard power than soft power like North Korea, and vice versa like Norway. One question, though, is whether or not it is better to have more hard power than soft power or the other way around. Which will take a country further in international affairs?

            Hard power is a powerful tool that a lot of countries do not have. A threatening army is the biggest part of this type of power. Places like the United States and North Korea have a lot of hard power but there is a huge difference between the two. North Korea solely has hard power. Their military, as we believe it to be, is a huge threat to the world. If they threaten an attack on a country, the world is likely to take them seriously, and believe that they might actually go through on this threat. On the other hand, North Korea has absolutely no soft power in the world’s eyes. No one would believe them if they claimed they wanted to send aid to poor places in Africa.

            Soft power is completely different than hard power, and a lot of times it is hard to find a balance between the two. Countries that have more soft power might not have quite as strong of an army. For example a country like Iceland. They might not have a strong army but if they came to an international meeting and offered humanitarian aid to falling countries and governments, other countries would take them seriously. The countries they help might offer them favors in return. Persuasion and reputation are not the only ways countries use soft power. Cultures are spread around the world all the time through foreign exchange programs, studying abroad, and just any type of tourism.

            In my opinion, soft power is far more powerful in the long run. Military power is extremely important for self-defense but soft power is good for long term. Reputation and a helping hand go a long way in long term relationships with other countries. If other countries start to use, for example, our culture and ways of doing things in their every day life than they will be more likely to defend it should a conflict come up. If we help a country in, lets say Africa, to get back up on its feet, they will be more likely to back us up in the future and follow through on favors if we ever need anything. Soft power is a lot more influential in the long run and hard power is very persuasive in the short run. It is good to have both, like the United States does, but soft power could help gain a lot more allies than military and hard power could.

James M. - Blog Post 1

           The crisis that has broken out in the Ukraine between the new Ukrainian government and that of Putin’s regime in Russia has drawn quite a lot of attention in the past months. There has been much unrest among many pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens against the newer Ukrainian administration that has taken the seat of the past Russian-sympathizing one. This conflict has continued to escalate and draw more of the world’s great powers to take action against Russia. As the crisis continues, many different ways of interpreting why Russia decided to take this action against the Ukraine have been offered.  In the realm of international politics especially, it is important to understand why this would take place. In the GVPT 200 course thus far, we have learned that there are three main paradigms when it comes to analyzing international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. When looking at the crisis in the Ukraine, it becomes clear to me that the actions taken by Russia are best explained from the realist’s point of view.

            To a realist, the main concern for all states is power. All states are seeking to gain power, and to be more powerful than the states that surround them. In relation to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia may have seen that, to become more powerful, they would have to acquire the certain holding in the Ukraine. In acquiring these holdings, Russia would gain not only land, but also the potential to build up its military power, which is the main concern when it comes to power for a realist. They would gain pro-Russians as soldiers, raw materials for weapons and trade as well. This trading of raw materials could boost Russia’s economy, which would in turn lead to Russia being able to sustain an even stronger military force. Yet showing off their power is not the only reason Russia may have wanted to take over parts of Ukraine.

            Several other important aspects of realism that are shown through the Ukrainian crisis are the desire to be the hegemon, survival as the main goal of the state, relative gains, and the need to be secure. All of these ideas can be seen in the action taken by Russia. In an effort to become a more powerful actor in the region, Russia saw that they would have to make moves to gain more power. They also may have seen that to become more secure and to survive, they would need more space to use for resources and perhaps a sort of “buffer” zone to protect from the western European powers. Finally, Russia, in an effort to gain more power relative to the other states surrounding it, saw that it must take some sort of aggressive action. After all, Russia could be feeling threatened by the other major power in the area—China.

            The final point that shows how realism explains the Ukrainian crisis is that there has been no way to stop Russia using international groups such as the United Nations. Realism involves the idea that there are states in anarchy where no international policing power can control what a state does. You will never know exactly what a state will do or how it will act. In regards to Russia, they have still pressed on even though multiple sanctions have been levied against them, lending to the fact that the U.N. has no real power.

            While not every action by a country can be explained through realism, it has become fairly obvious that the actions taken by Russia against the Ukraine can most certainly fit into  the category. Realism will continue to be a paradigm that describes international relations as long as states continue to act in anarchy to gain more power.