Joseph Nye: The Changing Nature Of Soft Power

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

This paper will examines the Baltic States transitions from Soviet occupation to a more democratic systems and the factors that helped them become successful. Such as, their history, previous independence from soviet, and recognition from major powers.

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,

Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic

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.

On the international level, China had unfortunately found itself relatively isolated. The United States considered the Maoist government a threat to stability in the Far East, and conflicts in aims had marred the country’s relations with the Soviet Union. So, rather than

Throughout the semester Joseph Nye’s signature concepts of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power have been analyzed amongst the backdrop of U.S. foreign relations. ‘Hard power’ is the use of “coercion i.e. military and economic means to influence the behavior of other political bodies” (Hudson). This contrasts to ‘Soft power’ which is the use of “attraction to produce desired foreign policy results [by focusing] on three key resources: culture, political values, and foreign policies” (Hudson). Through the wielding and usage of the tools of ‘soft power’ ideas about U.S. values and culture have been able to attract partners and support to Washington without the use of force and/or threat of further war and atrocity. Due to this fact it appears ‘soft power’ is more integral to influencing foreign relations, especially when considering the effects of actions such as President Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of a Committee on Public Information, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Speech, and President Harry Truman’s support for the Marshall Plan.

When you group social groupings, war and weaponry, and the economy together, there may not be an apparent similarity between the three items, however, it truly is apparent, and that similarity is the aspect of competition for power. Throughout the course of the history of the United States, the want for power has been a continuous competition. this competition has been apparent on both a national and international level over disputes of social labeling and values, a competitive industrial economy, and as well a fight to be on top in the scientific worlds of medicine and military through different examples in our past, present, and near future.

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended

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

Realism assumes that under a balance of power, the overriding aim of all states is to maximize power and become the only hegemony in the system. States only help themselves in the anarchic international system. Therefore, China’s rise is regarded as a disconcerting threat to the U.S.’s primacy of power in the present international stage. The power shift in East Asia is creating security dilemmas; the U.S. thus demands more security to its Asian allies including Philippines, Japan and South Korea. The rapidly-rising Chinese power would inevitably challenge the current international balance of power and appear aggressively in the eyes of weaker power such as the Philippines. Therefore it seeks help to its ally, the U.S., to counterbalance the power of China. China intends to gain more resources and to transform current international order to its favor according to its national interests. The 2010 Chinese White Paper on National Defence states that: “Contradictions continue to surface between developed and developing countries and between traditional

Joseph Nye offers an alternative theory for the construct of State power. He created a system in which State power is broken into two parts; “hard power” and “soft power.” “Hard power” consists of the traditional, tangible aspects of power namely, military and economic power. “Soft power” is the key distinguishing dynamic of Nye’s work from other theories. “Soft power” consists of all other facets of power, such as ideology, foreign policy, culture, stability, prosperity, and membership in international organizations (Bound to Lead 130 and Paradox xi, 8). The modern world is becoming more interconnected and interdependent with one another, hence depending less on “sticks and carrots” and more on “soft power.” The missing link within perceived State power is the role morality plays in actual power. This study will show that “soft power” is implicitly, and at rare times explicitly, founded in moral values.

Russia’s Return as a Superpower. There are concerns that Russia may once again “reassert itself militarily” (Wood 7). After the original fall of communism in 1991, Russia seemed to be on a path to democracy. Currently the notion of a democratic Russia seems to be fading as Russia “has been centralizing more and more power in the Kremlin” (Putin 2). Regional governors, who were once elected by the people, are now being appointed by Moscow.