The Pros And Cons Of European Soft Power

Power in politics is a person who has the ability to influence a person in terms of their behaviour; however they possess no right to - unlike authority. There are many ways in which a person can influence another’s behaviour; one such example is through coercion. Coercion refers to the use of violence or threats in order to influence someone. [Jones and Norton, 2011]

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,

Past Setbacks; High politics surpass the economic gains. The thoughts and scarred lifestyle due to cold war with Soviet Union has faded impact on the “new” EU states. Old states fear the aggressive anti-Communist elites as they displayed a vast growth in an incredibly short phase.Though these States tend to be optimistic yet resist dictatorship and there is a fear of being swamped by the powerful West. CEE’s have a cold war vision against the United States while Western Europe has strong

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

The Obama Administration faces many antagonistic states and actors including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria, and ISIS. Nevertheless, Obama makes mistakes similar to the Bush Administration’s by relying on IR theories in isolation rather than conjunction in rhetoric and action. Though Obama delivers rhetorical orations drawing from liberalism, realism, and constructivism, his actions often draw from one-dimensional aspects of realist or liberal thought. In “Obama’s Foreign Policy: ‘Smart Power, Realism, and Cynicism,’” Pierre Guerlain argues while Obama’s foreign policy rhetoric emphasizes hard and soft power (together denoted “smart power” ), his actions on the field are Machiavellian. Guerlain says there are two Obamas in foreign policy: there’s “Obama the Orator,” coinciding his image as “liberal law professor,” then, in stark contrast, “Obama the Decider” who employs realpolitik strategy or soft power on the field, whichever yields the best bang for the buck. Indeed, Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo emphasized “principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” but this rhetoric hardly resonates with his “kill list” in 2012 where he authorized targeted killings or drone strikes. Obama’s rhetorical strategy appears to embrace liberal and constructivist theory on the surface,

To be successful the government should only use hard power when it has to and use more soft power. (Smart power) so that more people will think the US is doing good things. Smart power means only using hard power when you have no other choice. Otherwise you should use soft power. Soft power makes people want to do things that you want them to do. Using soft power they don’t get angry and sometimes they feel good to do what you want. Soft power doesn’t use harsh ways like fighting to make people do things and soft power works by negotiating and convincing people that it’s

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,

Power has been addressed in academic literature in several ways but most commonly describing “power as the ability to control valued resources and administer rewards and

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

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

“Coercive power relies on the fact that people fear you, and reward power is only effective so long as people value the rewards you have to offer. Legitimate power relies on your rank in the company hierarchy, and recent events

Even Nye, who so fervently espouses the use of soft power, admits to it that soft power functions to influence the ‘environment for policy’ and not the policy itself (2004a). To extend soft power beyond the realm of influence is dependent on some form of hard power to lend it credibility (Fan 2007). To exercise soft power, one must first be able have something the other party ones, be it the recipe to economic success or some form of military protection (Cooper 2004). To put it simply, soft power without hard power is ineffectual.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

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.

One of the most remarkable successes of the European Union is ensuring peace and stability is maintained in Europe and other parts of the world. Prior to the formation of the union, European nations experience disharmony related to both World War I and II. The first step towards peace building was the formation of European Coal and Steel Community. Since then, the union has formulated several peace policies with the aim of ensuring peace thrive amongst members and their associates.