THE EVOLUTION OF SOFT POWER IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES

<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>

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.

The concept of smart power, which Joseph S. Nye defined as a combination of soft and hard power, was embraced by the Obama administration and became an integral part of its foreign policy strategy. With the administration of Donald Trump, we are witnessing a shift away from soft power toward hard power, which indicates a departure from the smart power strategy of his predecessor. This essay raises the issue of the recent decrease of American soft power and concludes that there is a correlation between this decline and the retreat of the U.S. from its global leadership role.

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.

This chapter examines US foreign policy as ‘smart power’, a combnation of hard and soft power, in the twenty-first century. The beginning of the twenty-first century saw George W. Bush place a strong emphasis on hard power, as exemplifed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This was evident after 9/11. While the war in Iraq showcased America’s hard military power that removed a tyrant, it failed to resolve US vulnerability to terrorism; on the contrary, it may have increased it. The chapter first considers the Obama administration’s reference to its foreign policy as ‘smart power’ before discussing Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy, the role of power in a global information age, soft power in US foreign policy, and how public diplomacy has been incorporated into US foreign policy.

The soft power literature has indicated that American soft power use has been declining while Russian and Chinese soft power use has been increasing. Until now, the only way scholars could test such claims was to compare these countries’ soft power rankings. This paper uses a new soft power dataset that can evaluate countries’ soft power use. Using this dataset, this paper tests three hypothesis regarding China’s, Russia’s and the US’ soft power use for the time-period of 1995–2015. The findings indicate that surprisingly the US is still using more soft power than Russia and China. The data analysis also reveals that the US is leading in economic soft power actions over China and in military soft power actions over Russia as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The United States of America is one of the most influential countries in international politics since the end of World War II until today. The reason for this is its clear superiority in using hard power in its foreign policy. American soft power did not play a major role in the policies of hegemony that the Americans followed at the international level for many decades. However, the major changes witnessed in the global arena after the end of the Cold War and the emergence of new major powers on the international scene made the United States reconsider its absolute dependence on its hard power. After the US wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), American decision-makers reached a firm conviction to diversify the sources of their power. This conviction centered on the necessity of combining hard and soft powers into one force, which was called smart power. Through its use of smart power, the United States seeks to continue its leadership of the global system and impose its will on the international arena despite its many competitors.

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.

Soft power is a new concept and new theory; it was created by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. who mentioned in 1990. Now, soft power is popular word, you could heard in programs or read on the magazines. The meaning of soft power has a lot of different constructions. In fact, Soft power is an invisible power of a nation. It can shape other countries' preferences by its culture, ideology, system, political ideas, values, and the legitimacy of government's policies. This report will start from the origin of the concept of American soft power, then to explain the ways that how US implements its soft power. In order to verify whether American soft power is exist or not, in the first paragraph; it defines the meaning of soft power. In the other t paragraphs, it discusses with American soft power of cultural effect, for instance, Hollywoodish movies, American professional sport (NBA and MLB), and American high education system. In conclusion, the report wants to talk about why did Nye create the word? What is his purpose? The concept will affect U.S.A. foreign policy.