An Analysis of Joseph Nye’s Use of “Soft Power” and its Relationship with Morality in International Relations

Nye elaborates the three distinct sources of soft power: culture, political values and foreign policies; and also hypothesizes the limitation of soft power. Moreover, he interprets the altering role of military power and an interaction between hard and soft power. The confronting situation he mentioned that a balance between military and soft power is playing an important role is terrorism reinforced by global information age. Finally, he classifies today’s power in an international information era into three aspects: military power, economic power and soft power; and again he maintains the growing existence of soft power. He presumes that America will be no longer the great nation, and Asia will take place. Also, non-government institutions and groups will possess their own borderless soft power; therefore, political game in near future will depend on multiple routes of communication that define problems and diffused cultures and ideas which relate to global prevailing

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

However, Kagan then argues against using these concepts all the time. He states that “soft power has its limits.” US can be popular and loved and then be hated throughout the world, however US military power dominance is always a constant means to keep international order. People hated the US during the Vietnam era, nut the countries that rely on the US for security will overlook their people’s hatred for the U.S. dominance in favor of keeping the alliance that protects them from threatening neighbors.(2) The international order depends on U.S. military not its popularity, economy, or other means. The ability to use diplomacy to pursue peace is also impeded if there is no commitment to defense spending. Congress’s refusal to commit military power to defense of peace limited President’s Wilson ability to shape peace and put in place the League of Nations. (2) Thus, the concepts of idealism, soft power and international order, cannot be relied on all the time.

While realists, liberals and neo-conservatives disagree about what America should do with its unrivalled power, they share the belief that America’s dominance of the post-Cold War system puts it in a category of its own (Walsh, 2015). Unipolarity captures the character of the international order that has been sustained by the economic and military power of the United States and shaped by its liberal mission to extend the reach of capitalism and democracy. The unipolar configuration of power provides a crucial context within which US foreign policy behavior must be understood. If the primacy of American power and the hierarchical nature of the current international order are undisputed, the characterization of such an order has been the subject of intense debate.

In regards to international relations, power is influence and control one state has over another. Often times, state power is an indication of economic and military strength. According to Joseph Nye, the concept of using economic and military forces to coerce other political bodies is known as hard power. In contrast,

However, both rely on how the U.S. came to be what it is today: power. Thus, power is an American virtue. Although the world is changing, this phenomenon is not new. There will always be a new thriving nation, a devastated one, new technology and science, but what doesn’t change are the lessons learned from our unique history. Power is what has guided the U.S. from its past and into the current world order. These two conflicting ideas also resemble two types of power that can make up a U.S. foreign policy. In a world transformed by globalization and terror organizations, it is important to develop a foreign policy strategy that reflects the context of modern society to protect American

President Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man 's character, give him power” (1). Power can be used to fight for civil liberties, but the abuse of it can lead to holocausts. Throughout history, power has often been put into the wrong hands, which has resulted in genocides, holocausts, and massacres. The responsibility associated with power is unfathomable. The United States of America has fought against power and has successfully maintained it. As the most influential power in the world, the US has to use its authority to maintain peace and spread capitalism.

Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not answering the call for help in Rwanda, allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, giving out loans (with interest) to developing countries, and the creation of the United Nations are all forms of international interference and cooperation amongst states. When looking at these examples and many more, it begs the question, does morality play a role in international affairs of a state? George Kennan, a prominent Skeptic, would argue that in international politics “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.”

Morality is defined as a recognition or belief that explains why some behaviors are bad or good. In simple words, morality refers to values relating to the distinction between wrong and right or good and bad. Few morals are easily accepted and are only questioned by some fringes of society who might disagree with such morals. These individuals on the fringes can be bad or good. The ones who reject socially accepted moral does not necessarily mean that they are good persons. Thus, one can say that each individual has morals that are different from each other (Joseph).

The term ‘soft power’ was first implemented by Joseph S. Nye in 1990. Later he described ‘soft power’ in his book ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’ as ‘the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments’ (Nye, 2004).

Soft power is important in today’s world because it essentially influences beliefs on one's behalf. Convincing people to want what you want, instead of forcing them or coercion them holds a huge advantage. The use of force and intimidation and coercion will ultimately lead to negative power. The use of soft power leads to positive power, where both sides win. Today, the growth of Asia will heavily influence the power of the world, and is shaped by their beliefs. As Dr. Nye states in the video, power today is not just winning wars, its about whose story wins and if China’s power spreads throughout Asia then ultimately power lies with them.

In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into

The interactions between nation states compose the framework of the modern world. The world’s affairs are shaped by the diplomatic engagements of nations with one another, with each country playing on its own interests and concerns on the global stage. While no tangible system of international law rigidly regulates diplomacy, philosophies exist attempting to describe and even predict the interactions between countries. Among these is the notion of “democratic peace,” that which predicts a largely pacifist interaction between states, particularly democracies. Democratic peace plays on an optimistic view of democracies shaping their diplomatic practices with one another in an amicable manner as it provides that democracies inherently respect each other and their corresponding ways, while also listening to their inherent accountability to their people. While ideal, democratic peace fails to describe historical exchanges between democratic states, even in those instances in which tense dealings did not result in warfare. An opposing thought is provided as the reason why such an ideal fails, and it follows that “realist” interactions between nations is based largely on the very survival of the states involved. As such, factors like international prestige, and perceived strength come into play, and given these factors strong link to a demonstration of strength through potential warfare, democratic peace fails to be an accurate representation of present diplomatic practice given

The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community. However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state’s self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32).

There is currently an increasing recognition among the main literatures about the importance of “legitimacy” in understanding the dynamics constitutive of the ongoing transformation of power configuration. Legitimacy is an effective approach to read the non-material dimension of power – such as the practice, representation, and reproduction of power. As Hurd argues, to read international politics without paying attention to the competition over legitimacy would leave one with no way to understand such common acts as saving face, offering justifications, using symbols, and being in a position of authority. Moreover, according to other scholars, as facilitating the justification of influence, legitimacy is an important element of power; it empowers and changes the character of power. For example, with legitimacy, power of pure dominance or primacy becomes accepted as hegemon, such as the US power after the Cold War. And this new character of power further justifies the power configuration of unipolarity, under