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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

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.”

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.

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,

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).

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

If we look at our world today and at our world seventy years ago we will observe many changes that world has had. Technological progress, climatic change, increasing process of globalization, view toward politics and international relations. A couple of years ago hard power was dominated in conducting foreign policy and managing international relations. As years go on, old methods of politics are becoming irrelevant, inapplicable and sometimes even dangerous. However, some states, as the USA, still used to think that hard power is quite good mean of conducting politics, while Europe is considered to be the incarnation of soft power.

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