The Importance of Hard, Soft, and Smart Power in a Dynamically Changing Global System - Essay Example

Section/# The Importance of Hard, Soft, and Smart Power in a Dynamically Changing Global System Much discussion hasbeen made within the past several decades concerning the rapidly changing and seemingly ever-shifting nature of the global system. Hardly a week goes by without some major systemic flux occurring at a rate of change that merely a few years previously would have seemed frenetic; however, now such occurrences are common place. Although this does not mean to say that the global system is so precarious and uncertain that these changes take place as evidence of weak institutions and frenetic actions of desperate actors, the fact remains that if one compares the rate of global change within the current system to the rate in which global and systemic change occurred several decades past, the two would be hardly recognizable. Such a realization brings one logically to ask the question of whether or not this means that the same mechanisms that political scientists have employed to explain, understand, categorize, and classify such a system are still of use and/or importance within the current time. As a means to understand such a question, this particular analysis will consider the three forms of power that have formed the basis of the political scientists explanation of the global system for many decades now: soft power, hard power, and smart power. As such, the analysis will define, analyze and seek to draw inference as to the ultimate question of how pertinent each of these play in helping to define a world that is so drastically and dynamically different than the world in which these terms and their definitions were forged. The analysis will start with an examination of hard power as the form of power that seeks to careers a given group, nation, system, or entity into acting in a way that they otherwise would not. Joseph Nye describes this “hard power” as “the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will” (Nye 2011, p. 15). In this way, the concept of “hard power” has often been discussed and enumerated upon as the oldest form of power in existence within the current world system. There is no shortage of examples of how such power has worked in the past nor how it continues to work within the current times. One does not need to look hard in order to see the way that hard power is exhibited within the current global system. For instance, when one considers the way in which key nations within the past decade have utilized hard power to influence the way in which other nations behave, it becomes clearly obvious that the utilization of hard power is far from having experienced its epoch at the end of the Cold War as some political scientists had previously stated. Moreover, in the current time, one can quickly see evidence of the way in which hard power is currently in use against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Whereas no stated military action has taken place as yet, the fact remains that economic sanctions and the continual threat of military force acts as a prime exemplification of how hard power still remains a key mechanism by which nations seek to coerce others to their own particular desires or viewpoint on given issues. Such a real world example of the means by which hard power itself is still in very real application helps the reader to understand that the practice of implementing such a form of power has anything but faded from popularity as a means of accomplishing goals within the context of international relations (Zakaria 2008, p. 4). Moreover, although the use of hard power remains practically undiminished within the current system, it is the belief of this author that the diminishing returns that successful application of hard power return have necessarily helped to weaken the appeal that it formerly had as primary tool to accomplish one’s goals. It is the further belief of this author that the diminished appeal that hard power has for those that would seek to use it is concentric upon the fact that the world has globalized so such a high degree that the systemic pressures that successful hard power implementation necessarily bears negatively impacts not only on the target of the hard power but also on the practitioner as well. In effect, hard power is less effective as a painful mechanism to the offender due to the highly integrated and globalised nature of the modern world (Ferguson 2011, p. 83). As such, of all of the types of power that will be defined, this one perhaps has the most negative externalities associated with its implementation as well as the least overall benefit from execution due to the fact that even if the other entity capitulates, their economic situation will necessarily be far worse than when the negotiations began and thereby provide less of a benefit to the coercising power; unless of course the whole intent of the iteration was merely to weaken a competitive power In this way, a type of refractive force allows the practitioner to become aware of the economic and political (and of course military) effects that they are attempting to place upon the nation, group, or entity in question. It should further be noted that although the level of reciprocity that states will become likely to feel with regards to the international economic and globalized system will likely only increase with time and further cohesion of the world economies as a function of globalization, the application of hard power will not become obsolete. This fact alone is born by the fact that human psychology rather than justifiably useful and successful and/or rational models of state to state behavior make up a very large reason for the manner in which such power is engaged with (Coutu 2008, p. 56). As such, the knee jerk reactions of leaders and key figures will mean that regardless of the level to which scholarship and analysis has proven hard power to be less effective than other means of power projection, it will still doubtless be employed to at least the same extent that the world system currently sees. The second of the forms of power which the global system currently sees employed is that of soft power. Soft power has been described by Robert Nye as the means of attracting and co-opting as opposed to coercing compliance. The attraction of such an approach has, like many new ideas within academia, become something of a trend that has expended a great deal of energy and scholarship over the past 20 years. This is not to say that the use and application of soft power is something of little importance; rather, it is merely a rather new understanding and appreciation for the ways in which states, even hegemons, can use alternative means in order to achieve goals in a much more multilateral manner than previous convention or scholarship had dictated. What is most unique concerning soft power is the ability of non-governmental actors to use it as a means to achieve a combined goal. In this way, a type of force multiplier is brought to bear. Furthermore, even if one dismisses the fact that hard power and soft power have fundamentally different levels of accomplishments that they are capable of achieving, the fact remains that hard power can only be practiced and implemented by a very select few within the environment of the nation/state relationship. Conversely, soft power can be brought to bear from a nuanced and multi-leveled approach; acting as a type of full and complete way in which elements within the system of governance, international systems, non-governmental as well as governmental organizations and a litany of others can all work towards the same goal. This type of force multiplier, perhaps more so than the intrinsic nature of hard and soft power is what makes soft power have a noticeably higher level of net change that can be noticed through its application. It should be further noted that the term soft power invariably has a highly positive connotation within the realm of international relations. However, to a certain extent this highly positive connotation is somewhat mis-earned and incorrect. Due to the fact that the conventions and institutions that govern this application of power are only as perfect and impartial as the individuals who are directing them, a noticeable level of bias and self interest is invariably made part of this in just the same way that self interest lies at the heart of any other application of power (Kuchman 2012, p. 16). This in and of itself is not a bad thing; however, it is important for the reader to know and to understand that merely because soft power has a highly positive connotation and is generally spoken about in glowing terms of praise with regards to what it is able to accomplish, the goals themselves are what should ultimately be measured and not the means by which they are accomplished. Similarly, with regards to how well the application of soft power integrates with the dynamically changing nature of the current world system, it is the belief of this author that the answer to this is that it integrates exceedingly well. It is without question that the level to which world integration, globalization, and cooperation that has been experienced within the past few decades has increased. As such, actors are more amenable and even used to the idea of needed to cooperate and negotiate as a means to achieve shared goals in an ever more interrelated and dependent world system. Whereas the previous analysis has noted that hard power itself is still in a high level of use within the system and is likely to remain at least as prominent as it currently is as a function of human psychological responses, it is equally as likely that the nature of the way that the dynamics of world change are taking place that soft power will come to play a more and more prominent role in the way that actors seek to achieve common goals. Finally, the third component of international power that will be discussed and analyzed work is that of smart power. As defined by Robert Nye, smart power is a combination of the aforementioned hard power and soft power. As a means of accomplishing this, theorists state that those states that wish to maximize the level of power that they can project must necessarily seek to utilize smart power as a means to accomplish such a goal. Smart power itself is something that world powers have been using, with or without their knowledge for several hundred years now (Rachman 2010, p. 8). This approach was perhaps best defined before even a term existed for it by Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 when he coined the now famous phrase, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. In this way, although the term itself was not coined by Robert Nye until the early 2000’s in response to then president George W. Bush’s hard-line approach to foreign policy and extensive use of American hard power to accomplish the goals that his presidency sought to capture, it has nevertheless been in very real existence and implementation long before such a time. With regards to this student’s approach to the level to which smart power will have a vital, growing, static, or diminishing role in world politics due to the nature of the current system, it is the belief of the author that just as with soft power, smart power will see itself come to a higher degree of prominence as the true economic and military repercussions of hard power begin to become more and more apparent as a function of an increasingly globalised and interdependent world. If it was necessary to compare and contrast smart and soft power seeking to find one of f the two which bears the highest likelihood of being used the most within the world system in the coming years and currently, it would have to be stated that this would most likely be smart power (Nye 2011, p. 18). As the world must reach a level of higher maturity in order for soft power to be realized as the powerful mechanism that it is, smart power will need to act in the intervening time, allowing world politics introduction to a higher degree of soft power while still retaining the knee jerk reaction that has proven to be so commonplace within international relations; i.e. the use of hard power. Whereas this analysis has thus far discussed the three different forms of power that exist and can be utilized by their appropriate actors within the global system, there is a cause for concern that few authors have breached with regards to international relations and the use of power within it. The primary issue is that most if not all of the forms of power that have been listed are concentric upon dealing with state actors and achieving a level of cooperation or ascension to a given idea or set of ideas (Nye 2009, p. 21). However, the largest drawback to such an approach and definition is the fact that a broader and broader number of issues relating to security matters do not stem from state actors themselves but non-state affiliated actors who make use of weak international law, asymmetric warfare, and other factors in order to transmit their ideas, threaten other actors, and provide a sense of instability and conflict within the system. What remains to be seen, and is somewhat beyond the scope of this analysis, is the level to which these three forms of power can be appropriately leveraged in order to exact concessions and encourage cooperation from such actors. Although the models that have herein been presented have worked and display a level of historical analysis which can be reviewed as a means to determine future likelihood of success, the fact of the matter remains that utilizing such techniques to gain leverage and cooperation from non-state actors is something that such definitions are entirely unprepared for attempting to deal with. Moreover, since the world is now in a post multi-polar state of being, the level to which each actor will be likely to need tools with which to engage non-state actors to achieve the very same results that have herein been denoted will only likely increase with time. Finally, choosing one of these techniques to raise above the other as a means to accomplish the higher degree of results would likely be an exercise in futility. As has been noted, it is most likely that smart power will find its way to see a higher level of use than the other two as it is merely a combination of these and the middle path will find itself more warranted among the hearts and minds of politicians and policy makers than either of the extremes. The manner to which the world continues to grow and express dynamic change however is the prime motivator for the type of power which will be used and a prime motivator for the ways that the individual states within the structure see their role within the structure and seek to maximize their own utility accordingly. References Coutu, D 2008, Smart Power, Harvard Business Review, 86, 11, pp. 55-59, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 January 2013. Nye, Joseph, (2011), The Future of Power, New York: Public Affairs. Nye, Joseph, (2005), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs. Nye Jr., J, & Wang, J 2009, Hard Decisions on Soft Power, Harvard International Review, 31, 2, pp. 18-22, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 January 2013. Rachman, Gideon, (2010), Zero-Sum World: Politics, Power and Prosperity After the Crash, London: Atlantic Books. Ferguson, Niall, (2011), Civilization: The West and the Rest, London: Allen Lane, 2011. Kupchan, Charles, (2012), No Ones World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zakaria, Fareed, (2008), The Post-American World, New York: Norton. Read More