How Can Public Diplomacy Complement “Hard Power” Tactics in International Affairs?

The American policy of Marshall Aid sparked both huge appraisal and significant opposition, and to this day it is debated whether it was purely a policy of self-interest and an imposition of America’s political and economic views on a weak and vulnerable Europe, or alternatively one of the greatest acts of altruism and generosity in modern history. It was enormously successful, ‘It was the most unambiguously and triumphantly successful of all America’s post-war policies’ , and helped to create a foundation on which Europe could become an economic power. While there were benefits to America which may have been interpreted as attempts to increase American power and inflamed opposition to the Marshall Plan, the administering of economic aid

of the US in the early years of the Cold war. The policy was to defeat

First and foremost, a great deal of Europe’s success would not have happened without its initial aid from the United States. After helping destroy so much of the continent, the U.S. pumped billions and billions of dollars back into the European economy through The Marshall Plan. It was named after Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who said “The world of suffering people looks to us for leadership. Their thoughts, however, are not concentrated alone on this problem. They have more immediate and terribly pressing concerns where the mouthful of food will come from, where they will find shelter tonight, and where they will find warmth. Along with the great problem of maintaining the peace we must solve the

The U.S. helped Europe gain economic stability after World War II by paying them over 13 billion dollars. By them doing this, they were helping the two continents recover from the damage that they suffered from the last world war. According to document 3, which states, "...the United States should do whatever it can to help restore normal economic health to the world.", communism is not the standard form of government and should not spread as if it is. The whole idea of the Marshall Plan is trouble because the United States was basically trying to gain control over the European

The Soviet ambassador to the United States was Novikov at the time. Novikov suggested that the United States wanted to form a Western European alliance directly against the Soviet Union. He felt that the Truman Doctrine was the first step towards this goal, but it had been too harsh to attract any European support. Then he said that the Marshall Plan represented a more appealing tactic to involve the Western Europeans in the creation of an anti-Soviet alliance. However apparently the United States was not just pressuring Western Europe, but Eastern Europe as well. This partially, made the Soviet Union very angry. Maybe if the Marshall Plan had been limited to just Western Europe, maybe it would have been less threatening to the Soviet

The success of the Soviet attempt to spread communism and socialism to developing countries would be the direct opposite of the goals of containment, by giving the Soviet Union allies outside of Europe, and a large amount of natural resources to use. Thus, the United States was forced to respond by modifying foreign policy to include financial and economic assistance to developing countries. While the effect of this assistance did not in fact increase the living conditions of the general populace in the majority of these nations, its did, with a few notable exceptions, prevent them from becoming communist or socialist nations.

The "Marshall Plan" created by United States Secretary of State George Marshall and the "Molotov Plan" created by Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov were

“The Marshall Plan offered a positive vision to go along with containment. It aimed to combat the idea, widespread since the Great Depression, that capitalism was in decline and communism the wave of the future. It defined the threat to American

The question of, “Was America’s actions during the Cold War containment or hegemony?” cannot be easily answered with a single source or perspective. While some attempt to justify the United States’ actions during the Cold War as necessary to preserving freedom and the American way of life through the containment of the Soviet threat, there are just as many critics on the other side of the debate that have argued that, America used the Cold War as a veil under which it expanded it’s influence and power throughout the world. My intent is to show how some believe that America’s Cold War policies were completely justified and how others see America’s actions as nothing more than American imperialism.

The United States responded to the “Hawks”, President Harry S. Trueman still wanted and continued to keep communism “bottled up”. In result the Marshall Plan was created (Doc. 2). World War Two had left Europe in pieces, and the United States wanted to gain support from them. The plan was to help Europe rebuild. Between 1948 and 1952, the United States provided more than twelve billion dollars in aid. The United States helped reduce the spread of communism in Western Europe. The Trueman Doctrine basically “bribed” Greece and Turkey to think again about communist expansionism. The United States provided them with four hundred million dollars in military and economic aid. The Berlin Airlift also stopped west Berlin from falling into the Soviets arms. The United States and Britain provided helicopters and planes to drop food, fuel, and other supplies to about two million Berliners everyday. Little children would call these planes “chocolate bombers”.

Initially, American leaders were unsure about how exactly containment would be implemented. Would it be applied everywhere? Would it involve economic aid to help nations reconstruct their economies? Would it involve military confrontation? The answer was to come soon.

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 United States adopted a policy called, containment, according to which the U.S. committed itself to preventing any further expansion of the Soviet powers” (Tradshad, par. 5). This was the cause of thousands of American soldiers deaths because it required the United States military to be sent out all over the world to help other countries keep their own types of governmental systems. Many people also payed the United States to keep communism out of the country so that they could remain under the same powers as before the Cold War had ever began. Even though the fear of communism was taken care of, the feelings toward the Soviet Union remained the same in the thoughts that they were trying to ruin everyone’s lives. Except for the fact that the Cuban Missile Crisis was somewhat compromised when the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles in Cuba, which were pointed at the United States, in return that the U.S. would pledge to never try to spy or invade in or around their countries again. 6 but not

In The Sources of Soviet Conduct, George F. Kennan explained “Containment was the central post-war concept of the United States and its allies in dealing with the Soviet Union”. To contain communism, the United Stated strategy was to have a strong

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