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

As the ages carry forward, mankind has always strived towards having the upperhand over the rest. As the years passed, what was strived for had changed, yet the goal of it continued to remain the same; to be the strongest. When once man had sought after larger forces, whether it be in the form of weaponry and numbers, this desire for solely brute force to achieve means has seen a decrease in the modern era. While some nations continue on the path of brute force, also known as hard power, an idea coined by Joseph Nye through the power of soft power. Soft power as defined by Nye in Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power is “getting others to want the outcomes you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them”, or simply being able

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 debate on American power is a complex, yet interesting argument. This essay will discuss and define power through American military and economic aspects. These are key elements that define how much power a nation holds, as military and economic superiority allows a state to intimidate, persuade, and facilitate its own agenda. Both Cox and Williams have argued the debate on US power, and therefore their work features in this essay. I will discuss both articles in depth before coming to the conclusion that American power is in decline, and has been since 1991 at the end of the Cold War.

In "The Paradox of American Power: Why the World 's Only Superpower Can 't Go It Alone," Joseph S. Nye, Jr., dean of Harvard 's Kennedy School of Government, describes the distinction between his self- discovered and established terms “soft” and “hard” power exponentially through a plethora of definitions and occurrences. Soft power represents the actions a nation takes that influences other countries to do as they please without force, “…it co-opts people rather than coerces them.” Instead of remaining consistently focused on how to frighten and threateningly encourage the international military coincidence of following America’s command’s (hard power), there must be an overlapping semi- equivalence of both. This is in order for America to succeed while also avoiding the slow deterioration within the indestructible pessimistic mindset of abrasive foreign policy.

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

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

Ever since its rise to global power in the early 20th century, the United States has been involved in countless foreign affairs. Said involvement has really influenced how the United States should look at foreign affairs today. In essence, being the lone Superpower of the modern world, the United States acts like the World’s Policeman. While on paper, this idea of having a World Policeman may seem like a great idea, since there will always be that one nation standing by with the intent of protecting shared ideals around the globe. However, actually putting this idea into practice says otherwise. Taking a look back at the outcomes of recent military interventions, specifically the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the

Who is Henry Kissinger? Is he as Jussi Hanhamaki terms him “Dr. Kissinger” (the prince of realpolitik who put his remarkable insights to the service of a nation in deep trouble) or “Mr. Henry” (the power-hungry, bureaucratic schemer bent on self-aggrandizement)? This dichotomy is not the only one that exists when discussing Henry Kissinger. Stephen Graubard, Gregory Cleva, Walter Issacson and Jussi Hanhimäki have all written works that view Kissinger differently. Some of the differences are slight and all four sometimes agree but the best interpretation of Kissinger lies in viewing him through a lens of historical context. This view produces the image of Kissinger as realist who ultimately failed to account for the changing forces in

Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. My interpretation of this is the distinction of right and wrong. Everyone has a personal morals, whether it’s through a group, organization, or just the way their parents brought them up. Morals help create an organized society, they are like unwritten laws. There are so many morals out there the government could not make them all laws, so although morals help govern the world they are not actual laws. Without morals the world would be nothing but chaos. Being honest, fair and just, making the world a better place, respecting others, and being open minded are just a few examples.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

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

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).

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).