Soft Power Approach To Public Diplomacy

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

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,

George W Bush’s presidency can be associated with an infamous term that stood out from the State of the Union address, that term being ‘Axis of Evil’. In this context, Bush categorised the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being ‘evil’ states. This neoconservative comment left little doubt as to what Bush’s foreign policy towards these states was going be (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008). This comment would then define George W Bush’s presidency, due to the controversy over this phrase and the results that it would have on US foreign policy as “rarely had such a rhetorical device had such devastating consequences” (Ansari, 2006:186). This paper will argue how the use of the word ‘evil’, and the categorisation of these ‘evil’ countries, had a large impact on US-Iran relations.

During the night of September 11, 2012, a United States State Department Special Mission Compound, also known as the Diplomatic Compound, was attacked by a group of terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. The United States Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, stayed in the Diplomatic Compound, as his home in Benghazi, along with nine other people. State Department computer expert, Sean Smith, and three members of the “17 February militia,” also known as the “17 Feb” and five Diplomatic Security agents accompanied Ambassador Christopher Stevens. About a mile away from the Diplomatic Compound was the Annex. The Annex held six American security soldiers, the soldiers were: Dave Benton, Mark Geist, Kris Paronto, Jack Silva, John Tiegen, and Tyrone Woods. A group of terrorists went up to the front gate of the Diplomatic Compound and knocked it down with a rocket projectile that got shot out of a rocket launcher. The members of the “17 Feb”

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq not only signalled the beginning of the Iraq War, but also demonstrated the power and unchallenged military dominance of the United States. Unlike the first Gulf War, many of the US public, media and officials criticized the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq by questioning the legality and the evidence used to justify the war. These arguments as to whether the Bush Administration was justified in its use of hard power to invade Iraq are diverse and disputed among many historians. The opinions of several historians including Pollack, Mearsheimer and Siilberman, in conjunction with the primary accounts of US president George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein create a conflicting and questionable

As the American Revolution ended, the United States emerged as an independent and fragile nation. It had to co-exist in a world dominated by large and powerful empires.It became the job of the first few presidents to guide the young nation through this difficult time.They are recognized for their foreign and domestic policies that helped this country become a strong nation.Throught their actions,they influenced the future of American policy.The events that strengthened the country the most were the XYZ Affair,The War of 1812,and The Monroe Doctrine.

In the Gulf War in 2003, the US invaded Iraq which was hard power because the US said Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction and would give them to terrorists. After the war they didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and people were angry because they thought the US lied. Instead of liking the government like after WWII, more people joined terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. In the Vietnam War, the US used hard power to help South Vietnam against North Vietnam. News crews showed videos of the US soldiers hurting and killing people who did not seem like enemy soldiers. This made people angry at the government and there was lots of

For this paper, I am going to define strategy using Joint Pub 3.0’s definition: A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multi-national objectives. Using this definition of strategy, I’ll argue that Nightingale makes a valid claim when he states that the US is weak in formulating strategy by highlighting several aspects of strategic development where the US needs improvement. Nonetheless, let the record show that America’s success rate in conflicts in the last century is mixed, laying claim that the US may not be great at strategy development, however, it has done well enough to defeat some pretty ruthless villains ie., Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, and Bin

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,

“Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe” . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas. Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of

Have you ever thought about studying international relations? What is international relations? International relations is an interdisciplinary course which encompasses a lot of subjects such as history, economics, politics and sociology. One may argue that it is an intricate course; however, one has to bear in mind that international relations is a gratifying course which has a lot of benefits for those students who study international relations but in this essay only two major ones will be introduced.

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.

The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power

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

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.