Soft Power, Hard Power, and Nuclear Power

This essay's first section defines hard and soft power and how they work together to create soft power. Next, various instances of the two principles' application in the formulation of foreign policy are discussed in order to evaluate their efficacy. There are also instances of the application of smart power in this discussion. According to the article, soft power's durability and longevity make it a more effective and efficient notion in modern global politics. Hard power, however, is becoming less valuable as the world order shifts against it. In the modern international system, smart power tactics are just as significant as soft power tactics. Nye proposed the concept of hard power and soft power distinctions almost twenty years ago. He characterizes command or hard power as coercive power used through inducements or threats, and power as the "ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants" in general. Hard power depends on concrete power resources like armed troops or financial resources and is based on economic sanctions , forceful diplomacy, and military action. Hard power examples include the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and the UN economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 after the first Gulf War. Because of all of the above, it is important to analyze the types of power and their effectiveness, what is the impact of soft and hard power in modern international relations, both separately and in tandem.

One of the major reasons behind assassination of General Qasim Soleimani in US attack on Jan 3, 2020, was that he had projected Iranian hard and soft power in different parts of the world particularly in the Middle East. He was recognized as the architect of Iran's influence and presence from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq to Yemen and Bahrain. That is why, the killing of Qassem Soleimani has considered as an enormous setback to the country’s regional ambitions. This study is mainly focusing on utilization of hard and soft power by revolutionary ran as foreign policy tools especially in the Middle East. American war in Iraq (2003) and Hezbollah-Israel war of 2006 have provided Islamic Republic of Iran with an opportunity to expand its power in the Middle East in general and Lebanon in particular; King Abdullah of Jordan predicted that as “Shi’a Crescent” in 2004. Iran’s successful resurgence is widely misperceived as sole reliance on hard power and Shi’a proxies and partners. This study argues that it’s the effective use of “smart power” and complementary synergy between soft and hard power tactics, which has led to consolidation of Iranian influence in the countries like Lebanon. Hezbollah as the tool of Iran’s hard power is being supported by soft power tactics like Education, Media, cultural diplomacy and bonyads (Foundations). The study also argues that Iranian success in Lebanon in terms of hard power greatly lies with its ideological inspiration for Hezbollah both for institution of Vilayat-e-Faqih and Iran’s regional ambitions and being sole supporter for its followers.

<p>Power in international relations can be defined in several different ways. Power can be understood as a goal of states or leaders involving a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues; achieving victory in conflict and the attainment of security; control over resources and capabilities; or status, which some states or actors possess and other do not. Modern discourse in international relations generally speaks in terms of state power, indicating both economic and military power. The capabilities to handle those above functions are different from state to state and can be measured in different ways as well as with respect to different dimensions, among which “hard” and “soft” power can be taken into consideration. In the policy-making process of any states, hard power and soft power strategies are rarely separated but they are, in fact, closely related. The relationship between hard power and soft power has become an increasingly popular topic both inside and outside the USA in considering how to strengthen its status in the world arena, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. American politicians, businessmen and scholars have constantly stressed the need and the opportunities of using soft power instead of hard power to manage the USA’s international relations, especially in this important region. The policy of the U.S. government towards this region is reflected through its strategic rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region, which was announced by the Obama Administration in 2010. Since it came into being, this strategy has been described by several names including “return”, “pivot” or “rebalancing to Asia”. Although the strategy may be referred to by different names, it aims at describing the new prioritization in the foreign and national security policy of the United States. In order to examine the importance of both “hard” and “soft” power in international relations, American soft power and the implementation of its soft power in the “rebalancing” strategy, four research questions come to mind. They are: 1. What are the definitions soft power and hard power in international relations? 2. How does the US make use of both hard and soft power in building its capabilities and position in the region of Asia-Pacific? 3. What are the US’s intentions in its announced shift in focus to the Asia-Pacific region? 4. What are the regional responses to the US’ policy including by Vietnam? 5. What ensures the future success of the rebalance in the region? Due to the US’s growing emphasis on the use of soft power, the research will focus specifically on two questions; what are the soft power strategies of the US in this region; and what are Vietnam’s attitudes towards these strategies. If one can distinguish soft power elements in this policy shift, it is still important to consider the role of hard power elements and what larger regional role the US will play if its policy shift is successful. The focus of the research is on US actions and will exclude the effects of the policy on domestic policies in the Asia-Pacific, with the exception of briefly summarizing the changing stance of regional countries, thereby, showing the effects of American soft power on the region and on the US itself. Before examining the research questions, a theoretical framework will be provided in the first section of this paper discussing the content of hard power and soft power as described by several political analysts and theorists. This aims at giving an idea of the numerous definitions attached to hard and soft power as well as to lay out the analytical tools for the third section in which the “pivot” in the US’s Asia-Pacific policy will be examined. In the next section, regional attitudes towards the US’ “rebalancing” strategy, especially Vietnam’s, will be surveyed. The thesis will conclude with a discussion on whether these strategies are in line with the US’s use of soft power with their policies in other parts of the world and why the use of soft power, which can help to ensure the successes of this policy direction, does not yet seem to have received adequate attention. The significance of the study will be to enhance understanding of the role of hard and soft power in building the US’s status in the world arena, especially in realizing its “return to Asia” strategy. Moreover, this study may interest those whose work is closely related to the US and its policies, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, enabling them to have more understanding, which they can use to initiate appropriate strategies in their work. It is obvious from the broad audiences above that a census is not feasible for this study. Accordingly, the research approach includes informal interviews in which a sample from the target population of interested parties is used for the study. In total, a sample of 20 was selected. First, the target population was divided into political leadership, governmental officials and other relevant peoples in the Asia-Pacific region. Then they were grouped into those who are experienced, non-experienced and little experienced in working with the US. This ensured a fair representation of each group since their understanding and experiences are significantly different. The focus of the study is on personal attitudes and perceptions and the importance of primary data cannot be over-emphasized. Before the collection of actual data, the researcher sent introductory letters from the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organizations to the sampled offices and institutions. The initial visit to the selected offices and institutions was therefore to introduce the researcher, obtain familiarity with those offices and institutions as well as seek their consent for the study. The researcher collected data by administering a questionnaire. The questionnaire used open questions, consisting of five questions seeking to answer research questions related to soft power and the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. The results of the study should provide interested parties with a panorama of the US’s “return to Asia” strategy, its contributions to development in relations between the US and the region’s countries and Vietnam’s responses to it with specific respect to its soft power elements. In particular, the insights yielded by the study into the role of soft power should tell much about the likely success of this policy and its implications for those in the region who interact with the US. Although this research was carefully prepared, it still has some limitations. First, the research was conducted in such a short time that it was not possible for the researcher to read all the materials related to the topic. Therefore, the thesis cannot reflect all aspects of the issue. Second, the population of the sample population was small, only 20. In addition, since the researcher conducted the interviews herself, it is unavoidable that a certain degree of subjectivity can be found in this study.</p>

This chapter explores the conditions for soft power to deliver the desired results and the need to combine soft and hard power in the exercise of smart power. First, it discusses the use of hard power in public governance and administration. Next, it accounts for the emergence of the notion of soft power in International Relations (IR) theory and then proceeds to discuss the changing face of public governance and the growing importance of soft power. Drawing on Foucault’s governmentality theory (Foucault, 1991) and the dual notions of “technologies of agency” and “technologies of performance,” it scrutinizes how public health campaigns mobilize citizens as active and self-responsible agents who are caring for their own health by behaving in accordance with public standards for healthy living. This analysis is followed by a study of crime prevention that illustrates how soft and hard power can be combined in the exercise of smart power. The conclusion reflects on the future research on hard, soft and smart power in the field of public administration and governance.

Soft power traditionally has been seen as manifesting itself largely through culture. In fact, American soft power has, to a large extent, derived from the compelling influence of America's alluring culture. Culture fits the more popular, but limited, vision of soft power. It is soft (does not modify behavior coercively); it is intangible; and it is pervasive and compelling in the world. The power of American culture is more extensive in its manifestations than the soft power analyzed in Chapter 4. These cases chronicled a somewhat more restricted manifestation of soft power in looking at the empowering effects of nations copying the economic policies of other nations. The manifestations of the soft power of culture are broader. They do have elements of emulation, but emulation goes far beyond just copying economic policies. It applies to emulation across issue areas (political, economic, legal, and social) and across actors (within both government and civil society). But the allure of culture and its capacity to enhance national influence are embedded in a much wider appeal than that which is represented by emulation alone. This appeal derives broadly from the endearment a soft power nation can generate, and this endearment manifests itself in pervasive and manifold ways. Also, as seen in the case studies in Chapter 4, the case of the soft empowerment of American culture attests to the workings of a Cosmopolitan process of power. Indeed, the compelling effects of American culture derive to a large extent from America's hard power, principally its economic power. This economic power generates many chariots through which culture itself is disseminated throughout the world. To the extent that these chariots are robust, the allure of American culture becomes that much more compelling. Also consistent with the Cosmopolitan vision of power, the soft power facilitated by the hard power of American primacy serves to enhance American hard power. As with the cases in Chapter 4, a distinct Cosmopolitan cycle of mutual reinforcement appears between hard and soft power in the context of American culture. The allure of American culture has opened up manifold opportunities for the United States to enhance its hard power (economically, militarily, and politically), and this hard power has served to make American culture all the more alluring. The power of American culture today is especially crucial to the influence of the United States, as it has served as an important counterweight to Bush's toxic foreign policy legacy, which has undermined much American soft power in his eight years as president.

Geopolitics of pandemic: soft and hard power as reading keys. - The Covid 19 pandemic is one of the hardest challenge of the last century. With its m edical emergency, Covid 19 has created a lot of changes in the international relationships and in the geopolitical equilibrium. In this paper, we are attempting to show and analyze global governments’ behavior against the pandemic through the use of both h ard and soft power. We’ll see, particularly, Chinese and American government’s use of hard and soft power. Then we’ll examine how European Union deal with this global emergency. Each nation has carried on different diplomatic strategies to face the pandemic and to promote is own international image. Hard and soft power, in this sense, will be useful also to implement the social and economic policies and to make them effective in the post pandemic phase.

Cosmopolitan power represents an attempt to construct a more viable theory of power – especially in a contemporary context – by employing tenets from visions of power across the three main paradigms of international relations: Realism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism. The main principles undergirding Cosmopolitan power carve out an intersecting niche for these tenets. The conventional vision of power that has traditionally dominated the study of international politics, and still reigns today, derives from Realism. This vision embraces the viability of hard power resources as the principal means of acquiring influence in the world system. Yet hard power alone is insufficient to effectively realize this objective, and if employed in excess, it can prove self-defeating and actually weaken a nation (i.e., hard disempowerment). Power-seeking can be made more effective by integrating the use of soft power into national strategies for acquiring influence (i.e., soft empowerment). Soft power demonstrates properties that are consistent with Neoliberal and Constructivist visions of power. The dominant vision of hard power has always reflected suboptimal qualities as a strategy for optimizing the influence of nations, but changes in international politics in the modern world system have rendered it still more deficient relative to strategies that make greater use of soft power. These changes have increased the effectiveness of soft power relative to that of hard power. Strategies that combine the two sources of power hold the potential to achieve results superior to those achieved with strategies that rely excessively on either one alone. These strategies revolve around the three signature processes of Cosmopolitan power, which challenge the dominant vision of power espoused by Realists. These include soft empowerment (the need to raise a nation's influence through the increased use of soft power), hard disempowerment (avoiding the dangers of overreliance on hard power, which carries self-defeating consequences), and the superiority of a prudent combination of hard and soft power over the excessive use of either one (optimal diversification between hard and soft power). Acquiring the best strategies for optimizing influence, even under a Cosmopolitan orientation, will continue to be quite challenging. Finding the right mix of hard and soft power will require leaders to be especially perspicacious in following a number of important decision-making strategies with respect to how national influence is evaluated and monitored.

The balance of power in the world has changed fundamentally in the 21st century; the world is now defined by the strategic competition between the United States and the PRC. The emerging bipolarity has also highlighted the methods and means that both countries use to wield global influence. 1.1 The distinctive path of the United States and China As a traditional hegemon, the United States has followed a variety of hard and soft power mixing strategies; but China, as a rising power, has developed its own unique path which focuses not only on strengthening its military edge, but also on advancing economic and cultural diplomacy. The aim of this paper is to examine and to compare the hard power resources, soft power efforts and nuclear capabilities of both countries to understand their places in the modern international system. The hard power of both these states reflects diametrically different strategic trajectories. The United States has the world's largest most powerful, and most technologically advanced military. The force is deployed to bases around the world and is also involved in some we don't even know about. It continues to top the defence spending charts globally, underscoring its resolve to retain and expand its dominance in conventional as well as the new battle domains, namely that of cyber and space. China’s approach to hard power, on the other hand, is more regionally focused, though it is becoming more assertive, regional only, exerted alongside softer power. The PLA’s modernization, involving both its naval forces and missiles, indicates China’s determination to restructure regional security order, in Indo-Pacific in particular. Despite its much smaller military budget, the strategic focus of China on area denial and anti-access capabilities represents an asymmetric threat to U.S. dominion. No less important is the changing use of soft power in the U.S.-China rivalry. The United States has always had an edge because of its soft power, democratic values and leadership in the global media. Organizations like Hollywood, American universities, international aid organizations, have been vessels for the projection of soft power, setting global norms and winning international audiences. Yet over the last few years, the power of U.S. soft power has been challenged by growing domestic polarization and falling global trust. China, on the other hand, is heavily invested in its soft power toolkit, which promotes projects that range from the Confucius Institutes, to Belt and Road diplomacy, to state-sponsored media, all in the name of projecting a greater and more positive image to the world. Admittedly, Chinese soft power does not have the innate appeal of liberal democratic ideals, but it is a soft power strategically designed to bring economic benefits and cultural interaction, especially in those third world areas.

There are two main diplomatic strategies used by states in International Relations: hard power and soft power. Hard power uses the tools of military force or other coercive strategies to achieve the desired result. Soft power, on the other hand, tries to achieve the desired result with persuasive tactics. In short, hard power uses force, while soft power uses charm and attractiveness or makes the other party do what you want.These days, political scientists and other experts have begun to emphasize the increasing effectiveness of using a combination of hard and soft power, or smart power. In International Relations, US foreign policy is often positioned as an example of hard power, as in some cases it uses military or economic pressure to achieve the desired result. The European Union, on the other hand, tends to implement soft power policies through the creation of European values and European identity in order to attract new members and gain new allies. In addition, the European Union exhibits values such as freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law to the world. These values also help to increase the soft power of the European Union in the world. In this study, soft power policies and soft power activities of European Union countries such as England, France and Germany are examined.

The development of the Internet and E-commerce makes the enterprises' competition beyond the time-space constraints. The rules of traditional market competition also have been changed. Soft power has become as important as hard power in the enterprises' development. A clear exposition of the relationship between soft power and hard power is very important for acquiring sustainable competitive advantage. Enterprises' soft power is made of the intangible assets and resources. Comparing with hard power, soft power originates from the spirit and intellectual property. Because of lacking physical existence, it is difficult to be counted and duplicated. The cultivation of enterprises' soft power is difficult and time spends. Soft power can be achieved only when it is admired and approved by enterprises' stakeholders. In order to get competitive advantage in E-commerce era, enterprises must focus on flexibility, speed, and cooperation with partners. These features originate from enterprises' soft power and hard power, especially depend on soft power. The value of soft power determined by hard power, but soft power also can influence hard power. The accumulation of soft power and hard power promotes the enterprise's development.

This chapter presents evidence that the rise of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) exerting substantial soft power is resulting in two new influ-ences in international relations. It includes stronger multilateral platform for policy debate and action, and establishing opportunities for more informed debate and decision-making processes in the environmental arena, particularly in the area of climate change. Examining The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) climate change program as one example reveals indications that soft power is increasingly a tool used by TNC to influence other actors. Joseph Nye's framework of hard and soft power is helpful in understanding how NGO behavior can be seen as a set of nuanced, coordinated actions that employ elements of soft and hard power. Hugo Grotius outlined the international system as a chaotic shifting series of interrelated power relations between states. Transformed power enables TNC to utilize hard power strategies and tactics to accomplish its mission, albeit in the nominally restricted position of soft power.

: This monograph introduces a method of better capturing the interaction of hard and Hybrid Power. Hybrid power captures the essence of simultaneity as hard and soft power is exerted by a single element to create the desired foreign policy effects. The term hybrid power also eliminates the politically charged and divisive term, smart power. The basis of the research question for this monograph is to analyze the potential for military forces, Mobility Air Forces (MAF) in particular, to contribute to foreign policy in other than hard power methods. This monograph asks: what contribution, if any, does the USAF's Mobility Air Forces have in the execution of smart power in United States foreign policy? The hypothesis of this monograph is that the military, particularly MAF, can contribute both positively and negatively to the hard and soft power elements of foreign policy. This hypothesis also challenges CSIS' categorization of separate but complementary soft and hard power as smart power and asks if there is a better way to approach those activities to further United States policy.

Power in the 21st Century

The article examines the correlation of two concepts: «soft power» and «propaganda» in International Relations. The author argues that within realism these concepts are used synonymously, but within neoliberalism they have fundamental differences. The parameters of comparison of the neoliberal and realistic approaches are given with reference to the concept of soft power. It is noted that, despite the differences between these approaches and between the concepts of hard power and soft power, the opposition of the concepts is not an absolute one. Soft power and hard power, according to J. Nye, can be represented as a continuum. Similarly, propaganda and soft power can also merge into one another. It is shown that, contrary to the widespread notion that the field of application determines the choice between soft and hard power (for example, education, culture are associated with soft power), in fact it does not. The coercive imposition of cultural norms, educational models is a manifestation of hard power. One of the most common tools for implementation of soft power is public diplomacy, which can be carried out through both official channels (public speeches of officials) and informal channels (NGOs, universities, etc.). It is emphasized that non-state actors can be agents of states’ soft power. There are also a number of other features of soft power that must be considered. Among them are such characteristics as specificity of a region and a country; competition in soft power of different countries in the same region; negative consequences of the use of soft power and others.

Since its reunification, Germany has struggled with the dilemma of power. Many of Germany’s European allies feared the possibility of a resurgently powerful German nation that would revert to power politics and endanger the established European order. Such worries were prevalent even among many Germans who, still struggling with their past, weren’t sure that they could trust themselves with the use of power. Yet Germany, just as any other country, had foreign policy objectives and global responsibilities that sometimes required the use of power to achieve. This article examines how Germany responded to this dilemma and how the use of both hard and soft power have evolved in German foreign policy since reunification. It demonstrates that at first Germany relied almost exclusively on the use of soft power. As Germany established trust among its allies, the international community, and its own citizens, it gradually began to increase its use of hard power and to take on greater international responsibilities. Today Germany uses a mixture of soft and hard power – what Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye have dubbed smart power – to meet its foreign policy goals and to fulfill its international responsibilities.