Paper 1A: Hard and Soft Power
Source A
From an article by Mark Lagoon from Council of Foreign Relations, The value of
values – soft power under Obama, October 2011
One irony of the Obama presidency is how much it relies on hard power. The president
came into office proposing a dramatic shift from George W. Bush's perceived
unilateralism*, and most of his predecessor's hard-edged counterterrorism tactics and
massive deployments in wars abroad. Yet after three years, Obama has escalated forces
in Afghanistan and embraced the widespread use of unmanned drones to kill terrorists at
the risk of civilian casualties.
What he hasn't accomplished to any great degree is what most observers assumed would
be the hallmark of his approach to foreign affairs—a full assertion of the soft power that
makes hard power more effective. His 2008 campaign centered on a critique of President
Bush's overreliance on hard power. Obama suggested he would rehabilitate the damaged
image of America created by these excesses and show that the United States was not a
cowboy nation. Upon taking office, he made fresh-start statements, such as his June
2009 remarks in Cairo, and embraced political means like dialogue, respectful
multilateralism, and the use of new media, suggesting that he felt the soft power
to change minds, build legitimacy, and advance interests was the key element
missing from the recent US approach to the world—and that he would quickly
remedy that defect. Instead of this Guantánamo Bay Prison is still open, and
Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in a thoroughly unilateral fashion by US
forces.
* Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action
Source B
From The Christian Science Monitor, In Iraq, an assertion of US ‘hard power’, January 2009
South of Baghdad: US Army Staff Sgt. William Lambert shares his rations with an Iraqi boy.
Source C
An article in Forbes Magazine, The Virtues of Hard Power, May 2013
Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq War turned badly in about 2004. In foreign
policy journals and at elite conferences, the talk for years has been about “soft power,” “the
power of persuasion” and the need to revitalize the U.S. State Department as opposed to the
Pentagon: didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t;
except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like
Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.
The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons having
nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and former
government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term “soft power” in
an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking to realize how
relevant hard power remains.
As I write, the two areas of the world that are most important in terms of America’s longterm economic and political interests — Asia and Europe — are undergoing power
shifts. The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation
of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical terms – because
of its ongoing fiscal crisis — is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of
influence to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, both challenges require
robust diplomacy on America’s part, and America certainly does hold an abundance of soft
power in terms of the proliferation of US brands and culture excepted by the global
community. But fundamentally what they really require is a steadfast commitment of
American hard power. And the countries in these two most vital regions are not bashful
about saying so.
Source D
An article in Forbes Magazine by By Jennie S. Bev, The Power of American Soft Power, May
2012
Joseph Nye of Harvard University Kennedy School of Government says “soft power” refers
to the ability to get through attraction rather than coercion or payments. By “to get” it
means to receive favorable treatments based upon attractiveness of a country’s culture,
ideals, and policies. For instance, inspired by TV series about medical doctors, some
children in Taiwan aspire to study medicine at an American university. Infatuated by the
idea of a fair trial, an Indonesian dissident aspires to become a lawyer.
“Soft power” can be hardcore power. And the American brand is still the best out there.
Also, thanks to low US dollar value, a record 62 million foreign tourists visited USA in 2011.
In 2010, some 1.04 million immigrants applied for permanent residency, following 1.13
million in the previous year, which reflects the world’s insatiable faith in the US brand. The
people of the world still believe that the USA is the place to visit, to reside, and to prosper.
US brands, such as automobile giants Buick, GM, and Ford, continue to grow outside of the
USA. US brands continue to influence socio-political-economic wellbeing of people of the
world: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are vital in demonstrations and social unrests. US
brands continue to serve people’s mobility and communication: Apple, Microsoft, CISCO,
Oracle, and Boeing. People of the world are a market of seven billion, and most of them have
occasionally consumed black soda drinks called Coca-Cola and Pepsi. There is just so much
more to be gained from the use of “soft power” than from its old-fashioned brother “hard
power” in today’s world.
The US government has lost its geopolitical epicenter, yet American brands keep the legend
alive. And the shift has occurred from public power to private power, from political power
to economic power, from hard power to soft power, with the end of the Cold War as the
turning point.
Questions
1. Identify three main points from Source A that demonstrate the use of hard power
by the Obama Administration in the USA.
(3 marks)
2. With explicit reference to Source B, explain why a mixture of hard power and soft
power strategies are often used by states.
(4 marks)
3. Contrast the views in Source C and Source D about the legitimate use of hard
power by the USA.
(8 marks)
4. Using the sources and your own knowledge evaluate how states use power in
their relationship with other states.
(10 marks)