We live in an era of previously unimaginable global interconnectedness, where politics,
economics, technology, and serious threats, such as climate change and environmental degradation, routinely operate and have dramatic impacts across national borders. Globalisation is not an ideology, nor is it an abstract concept, it is a reality. In this world, the price of animosity between states has risen dramatically, meaning that soft power is increasingly an integral part of global geo-political power and influence. Some have gone so far as to claim that current global politics is embroiled in something approaching a clash of civilisations (Huntington, 1993). If true, it could be argued that it is not primarily due to inherent differences or disagreements, but at least in part because of a soft power deficit, and misuse of hard power, by the US hegemon. As Joseph Nye, the preeminent scholar in the field, says, soft power is an important reality. Those self-styled realists who deny the importance of soft power are like people who do not understand the power of seduction (Nye, 2008, p.96). This paper will explore the need for soft power and will argue that, as the need for soft power approaches have risen due to changes in power politics, warfare, international relations, economics, technology, and communication, soft power efforts, particularly from the US, have decreased. The focus will rest mainly on the US, being the sole remaining superpower.
What exactly is soft power? The term is commonly misunderstood to mean simply diplomacy, or friendly relations between states. In reality, diplomacy is not soft power. Diplomacy is a tool, a means of applying power, be it hard or soft. To explain: diplomacy is not inherently soft, or friendly, it is simply a mechanism by which power can be applied, that power can be, and often is, coercive hard power in the form of threats, stated or implied. In international relations, power can be broadly understood as, having the ability to influence the way other states and international actors behave. This can be done through hard power strategies which focus on military intervention, coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions, or through soft power (Wilson, 2008, Nye, 1990). According to Nye, soft power is the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment (Nye, 2008, p.94). A nations soft power depends on resources of culture, values and policies, and whether those resources are attractive. Soft power is about co-opting people, rather than coercing them because, If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want (ibid, p.95). Any nation is more likely to achieve its international objectives if others want to follow it as a result of admiring its values, emulating its example, and/or aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness (ibid, p.94). Should a global political actor be able to attract others towards their way of thinking, then that is evidently preferable to forcing them to change, be it through economic or military might, and whether by threat or actual use. Soft power is a resource which can be mobilised through public diplomacy to attract the publics of other countries, rather than merely their governments (ibid, p.95). Soft power is not a new concept, although the term may have been coined relatively recently. The idea of winning hearts and minds to your cause, to your way of life, is probably almost as old as human civilisation itself. In previous times the concept has often been classified, sometimes incorrectly, under the heading of propaganda but the point at which the concept of propaganda differs from true soft power has become increasingly apparent as global communications and media have grown and evolved. Free and easy access to information has increasingly meant that nations are punished in both international relations and the court of public opinion for not walking the talk. The sometimes fine line between soft power and propaganda shall be further elucidated later in this paper.
The USs Relationship to Soft Power The US has used soft power extremely successfully in the past. To illustrate: the power of Hollywood and American music to sell the American dream to the world has long been understood, and the space race can be viewed as perhaps the biggest, most expensive, and among the most successful soft power endeavours in history. There was a time, from the end of WWII until well after the end of the Cold War, that the US was as (or even more) powerful in soft power as it was in military might. Its culture, politics, freedom and wealth were respected and desired the world over. Even as recently as 2001 it was claimed, perhaps naively, that U.S. culture, low-brow or high, radiates outwards with an intensity last seen in the days of the Roman Empire Americas soft power.. rules over an empire on which the sun never sets (Joffe, 2001, p.43). Now, anti-Americanism is rife, even the norm, from Islamic extremists in the Middle East through to moderate intellectuals in wealthy Western nations and everywhere in between. In a BBC poll, across twenty-five countries in 2007, half of respondents believed the United Sates played a mainly negative role in the world (BBC, 2007). How did US soft power fortunes fall so dramatically? Simply put, the importance of soft power in US foreign policy was underestimated and the emphasis on it almost vanished. Soft power does not build or maintain itself and, as the sole remaining superpower, lacking the enemy of communism, the US was always going to face difficulties in remaining as beloved as it is powerful. The reasons for the decline are numerous and intertwined; historical, ideological, technological, political, and economic. As the Cold War ended there was a Realist and neoconservative push towards a rhetoric and ideology of a unipolar world, of US supremacy and the ability to be both a beacon and a ruler of world affairs. Fukuyama famously claimed that we were seeing the end of history because the American way, capitalist, liberal democracy had won and nothing would ever challenge it again (Fukuyama and Bloom, 1989). This view centered on the idea that the US is strong enough to do what it wants with or without the worlds approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The worlds only superpower does not need permanent allies (Nye Jr, 2004, p.16). The ideological opposition to soft power can perhaps best be summed up by this quote from US statesman John J. McCloy: world opinion? I dont believe in world opinion. The only thing that matters is power (McCloy cited in Haefele, 2001, p.66). Soft power was seen by some as an oxymoron, that power can only be hard. Nye calls this the concrete fallacy that espouses that something is not a power resource unless you can drop it on a city or on your foot (Nye, 2008, p.96). Others felt that soft power, while it had its uses, was only necessary in the context of the Cold War. American decision makers failed to recognise that, because of the information revolution, and other changes, soft power was becoming more rather than less important (Nye Jr, 2004, p.17). In 1990, immediately following the end of the Cold War, Nye wrote his seminal piece Soft Power in which he pointed out that soft power was more important than ever. He presciently foresaw that social, political and technological changes were going to make power relationships more complex and As world politics becomes more complex, the power of all major states to gain their objectives will be diminished (Nye, 1990, p.155). He warned that if the most powerful country fails to lead, the consequences for international stability could be disastrous (ibid, p.153). The US has always tried to balance two conflicting impulses according to Keohane and Nye (1998, p.401). On the one hand, it has aimed for exemplarism, or the desire to stand apart from the world and serve merely as a model of social and political possibility, whilst, simultaneously it has pursued vindicationism, the urge to change the world to make it look and act more like the United States. That there has been a shift to greater vindicationism since the Cold War is almost impossible to deny. According to Bacevich, the US maintains a global military presence, and projects hard power through foreign interventions, using a rhetoric of peace and order to disguise their true motives (Bacevich, 2010, p.14). Running alongside this ideological rhetoric was a structural, economic one. During the Cold War, and since, the US military has become so large and powerful that it has perhaps bred overreliance. If rhetoric suggests that only sticks matter, and you have the largest stick in the playground, why do you need to care about whether you are liked? There has been much written about the US military industrial complex and it is claimed that the US has created a state of permanent war in which military spending has continuously increased, and the military has the power to influence politics and budgetary allocations (Duncan and Coyne, 2013, Bove and Nistic, 2014, Godfrey et al., 2014, BACEVICH and Bacevich, 2009, Bacevich, 2010, Friedman and Preble, 2012). In 2010 the US spent more on its military than at the height of the Cold War, and US private sector military spending has exploded as well (Duncan and Coyne, 2013, p.1). The US has entered into a new equilibrium within a permanent war economy and the very concept of defense has become one of constant preparation for future wars and foreign interventions rather than an exercise in response to one-off threats (ibid, p.3). Studies have repeatedly shown that, since World War II, US politics, including both budgets and policy-making, has been increasingly influenced by the military (BACEVICH and Bacevich, 2009). Simultaneous to the growth in military influence and expenditure, the soft power, public diplomacy budget has dramatically shrunk (Nye Jr, 2004, Blinken, 2003). In 2008 the US accounted for 48% of global military spending (Duncan and Coyne, 2013, Friedman and Preble, 2012). In the same year, Defense and Homeland Security departments made up nearly 49% of civilian employment in the federal government (Duncan and Coyne, 2013, p.11). While US military spending as a share of global expenditure may have decreased since then, 39% in 2012 according to GlobalIssues.org, it still absolutely dwarfs the spending of any other nation (see Fig. 1).
What Duncan and Coyne (2013, p.5), describe is a positive feedback loop wherein perverse incentives create increasingly greater investments in military-related activities at the cost of other spending priorities. Critics use damning language in condemning this distortion of priorities, alleging, for example, that resources have been directed to a bloated, privileged, anticompetitive Fig. 1 (GlobalIssues.org, 2013) procurement complex while Americas capacity to invent, innovate, and enhance productivity along non-military lines has been impaired (Higgs, 1995, p.34). Duncan and Coyne (2013, p.26) argue that peace and prosperity are in peril as a result of prioritising military spending over the wants of the people. As they claim, the permanent war economy is self-extending (ibid, p.26) and has a dramatic distorting effect on both the economy and the politics of the US. Under this distortion, it is to be expected that soft power will be undervalued, and hard power presented as the logical solution to all problems. The military industrial complex and its need to justify its own existence, combined with an ideological derision of soft power, has led the US down a road of overuse, and inappropriate use of hard power, interventionism and arrogance. Is it any surprise that the superpower, who has become unashamedly bullying, is no longer beloved? This vindicationism, this interventionist, bullying overreliance on hard power has been increasingly regarded by the international community as crudely arrogant, a fact that Americans have been slow to recognize. (Keohane and Nye Jr, 1998, p.403)
Why soft power? Why now? As global complexity and interconnectedness has increased, the cost of hard power has grown exponentially (both financially and politically), as its effectiveness has decreased. In a frank reading of international relations it is hard to argue with Nyes claim that, While military force remains the ultimate form of power in a self-help system, the use of force has become more costly for modern great powers than it was in earlier centuries (Nye, 1990, p.157). As the dollar costs of the tools and technologies of war have risen, more and more states have become economically interconnected, through trade and global finance, creating interdependence which further increases the financial costs of war. Simultaneously, democracy has spread, and information has become far more readily available, further increasing the importance of mobilising soft power through public diplomacy. The now famous equation, knowledge is power (scientia potestas est), was coined by Francis Bacon in 1597. Since then it has been rephrased in a wide variety of contexts from Thomas Hobbes to Michael Foucault (Rodrgez Garca, 2001). Its present manifestation is arguably that information is power and, as Nye argues, Information is power, and today a much larger part of the worlds population has access to that power (Nye, 2008, p.99). Under the new conditions of the information age, more than ever, the soft sell may prove more effective than the hard sell (ibid, p.101). The spread of democracy places distinct constraints on the design and conduct of US foreign policy (Wilson, 2008, p.113) because a democratic country cannot politically afford to implement policies friendly to a foreign state if its population does not feel the soft power attraction. Even where democracy may not yet be entrenched, a social awakening has stirred nationalism in otherwise poor or weak states (Nye, 1990, p.162), one has only to look at the Arab Spring to see this. A well educated population, with access to all the information which technological advances in communication have allowed, is far less likely to take for granted that their interests align with the US. Even if the leader of a foreign state is friendly to the US, they will be limited in their ability to enact friendly policy if their population has an unfavourable image of the United States. It should be clear that, as Nye states, In such circumstances, diplomacy aimed at public opinion can become as important to outcomes as the traditional classified diplomatic communications among leaders (Nye, 2008, p.99). The past decade has also seen dramatically shifting power relationships between traditional states. While the US is still undeniably the only military superpower, economic growth and a more engaged global citizenry has led to shifting influence among traditional states, with the rise of India, China, Brazil, and other actors on the world stage (ibid, p.113), including the still growing soft power of international NGOs. Taken together, these developments mean that powerful states, even the sole superpower, are less able to use their traditional power resources to achieve their purposes than in the past (Nye, 1990, p.160). It is also integral to note that many of the issues we face have changed, and are no longer a matter of one state against another. These new, global problems require collective action and international cooperation, something that is next to impossible to achieve through coercion alone (ibid, p.163). As Nye argues, Although force may sometimes play a role, traditional instruments of power are rarely sufficient to deal with the new dilemmas of world politics (ibid, p.164). The American dream, with its concomitant social and political values, is incontrovertibly ideological. It is based on an idea of exceptionalism, an absolute conviction that theirs is the right way to do things. As Lipset put it: Americanism... is an "ism" or ideology in the same way that communism or fascism or liberalism are isms (Lipset, 1997, p.18). As an ideology, an ism, it requires the winning of hearts and minds, something that cant be done with hard power alone. The US led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan war are illuminating examples of hard power being expensive and ineffective, often even counterproductive. Both the financial and political costs of the wars have been astronomical and their success minimal (Belasco, 2009, Stiglitz, 2006, Stiglitz and Bilmes, 2008, Karol and Miguel, 2007, Keegan, 2010). They have even, by many accounts, made the US position in the Middle East dramatically worse than it was. A piece in The New York Times (Mazzetti, 2006) discussed how US spy agencies themselves agree that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown. It has been claimed that the Bush administration misused intelligence, not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made and the intelligence community had in fact anticipated that the war would likely boost political Islam and increase sympathy for terrorist objectives (Pillar, 2006, p.3). Famed public intellectual Noam Chomsky claims that according to Iraqis, there is hope for national reconciliation if the invaders, who are responsible for the internal violence, withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis (2010, p.130).
In Afghanistan the US military may have, at least temporarily, subdued the Taliban but only a tiny fraction of al Qaeda operatives have been captured and the US certainly cant bomb the al Qaeda cells which exist in Hamburg, Kaula Lumpur, or Detroit (Nye Jr, 2003). The war on terror cannot be won if the number of people being recruited and trained by extremist groups is larger than the number who are killed, or deterred from joining the extremist cause (Nye Jr, 2009, p.163).
Joseph Nye explicitly discusses the need for soft power in relation to the war on terror, saying that, The United states will win the war on terrorism only if moderate Muslims win, and the United States ability to attract moderates is critical to victory (Nye Jr, 2003). Only soft power can win this war because the struggle against transnational terrorism is a struggle to win hearts and minds (Nye, 2008, p.94). Yet the US has only a comparatively miniscule budget for public diplomacy, and other soft power initiatives (they are equaled by France and the UK in this spending) and, as a result, is all too often outgunned in the propaganda war by fundamentalists hiding in caves (Nye Jr, 2004, p.17). Those fundamentalists hiding in caves are extremists who are also at war with their own moderate Islamic counterparts and thus the current war on terrorism is not a clash of civilisations but a struggle whose outcome is closely tied to a civil war between moderates and extremists within Islamic civilisation (Nye Jr, 2003). Nye argues that The United States must adopt policies that appeal to moderates and must use public diplomacy more effectively to explain common interests to would-be allies in the Muslim world (ibid.). The key to understanding this idea, of the need to win a civil war between moderates and extremists in Islamic nations, is that Islam is not a monolithic entity and that mainstream Islamist movements are reformist rather than radical in nature (Ayoob, 2005, p. 954). Throughout history, different understandings of Islam have competed for legitimacy and supremacy, including competition between a militarized understanding of the concept of jihad and other non-militant interpretations (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008, p.71). The concept of jihad is probably the most confronting aspect of Islam, but most modern Islamic scholars view the spiritual form of jihad as the 'greater' and physical, militant jihad as 'lesser' (Sadiki, 1995). The political manifestation of Islam is reactionary, its goals are not the destruction of Western civilisation, it doesnt have goals; at its heart is a rejection of foreign interference in Arab/Muslim affairs (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008, p.76). As Ayoob (2005, p.960) insists, Arab anti-American sentiment is not based on opposition to American values of democracy and freedom. It is fundamentally grounded in particular aspects of American foreign policy.
The long, complex, and fraught political history of the Middle East, and Western intervention therein, is certainly outside the purview of this paper but, even a cursory understanding makes it easy to see why The major powers and their policies are perceived by most Muslims as being... deliberately anti-Muslim (Ayoob, 2005, p. 959). Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20 th century, powerful Western states have continually used high-minded rhetoric of democracy, and secularisation, all the while taking part in interventions, often for their own economic benefit, and continuing to financially, militarily and politically prop up friendly dictators. The US has been particularly blatant in its self-interested interventions and this has resulted in growing anti-American sentiment, opening the door to Islamic extremists.
The data on Table 1. shows a summary of knowledge and sentiment within different Middle Eastern nations. If we look at the final two columns, respondents were asked to rank their agreement on a scale of 1-5 and then averages were calculated where 1 equals the highest score and 0 the lowest. We see that the average respondent thought that the 9/11 attacks were more justifiable than unjustifiable and that favourability towards the US was on average negative.
Soft power is not simply about warfare, another telling example of the soft power deficit is in the global issue of climate change. The cooperation needed for the sort of real action required to avoid disaster has thus far failed to materialise. A war on climate change cannot be won by a single country, nor can it be fought by a military, although we likely face a reality in which borders are increasingly militarised to deal with environmental refugees (Sachs, 2007, Lister, 2014, Docherty and Giannini, 2009, Williams, 2008, Biermann and Boas, 2010). Providing leadership on climate change, and offering friendly encouragement (even incentives) both requires soft power, and would build soft power resources. Ironically this is often the case with soft power: its application will often increase the resource, whereas using hard power in its place will decrease the resource. It is not just traditional war and climate change though. The US has an image problem and it is no surprise. Josef Joffe outlines a polemical exaggeration of how the US is viewed internationally in Whos Afraid of Mr. Big (2001). He says that the US is morally, socially, and culturally retrograde: It still has capital punishment, and figures prove that it is enforced in a racist manner. (Gentzkow and Shapiro, 2004, p.120) It is proudly a nation of intolerant, fundamentalist religion. It refuses to be a good global citizen by taking climate change seriously, or ratifying the International Criminal Court, or the land mine ban. It is Dirty Harry and Globocop rolled into one, an irresponsible and arrogant global citizen. It denies its people critical social services like health care. Instead of bettering the lot of the poor and unskilled, it shunts millions of them, mainly dark skinned minorities, off into prison. It not only accepts, but admires gross income inequality, It has let its public school system and public infrastructure decay. It gorges itself on fatty fast food, wallows in tawdry mass entertainment and refuses to fund the arts. It ruthlessly sacrifices the good and high minded in culture in favour of pap and pop. Its great universities (available only to the rich and well connected) conceal vast illiteracy and ignorance. In matters sexual it is both prurient and prudish. It is puritanical and self-indulgent, philistine and elitist, sanctimonious and crassly materialist (Joffe, 2001, p.43-44). Despite this seemingly bleak picture of how American society can be, and sometimes is, perceived, polls show that the Middle East craves the benefits of trade, globalization, and improved communications. US technology is widely admired, and American culture is often more attractive than US policies. Given such widespread (albeit ambivalent), moderate views, there is still a chance of isolating extremists (Nye Jr, 2004, p.18).
How is soft power created and maintained? So far it seems pretty clear that there is a soft power deficit, just when we need it most. Can that be rectified? There are three primary commodities on which a states soft power rests: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others) its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority) (Nye, 2008, p.96) Soft power is produced through these commodities, where the conditions are met, and soft power resources can then be mobilised through public diplomacy to communicate with and attract the publics of other countries (ibid, p.95). The conditions are important to keep foremost in mind because if a countrys culture, values, and policies are not attractive, public diplomacy that broadcasts them cannot produce soft power (ibid, p.95). The US specifically, and the West more generally, needs to focus on soft power and public diplomacy by both running its actions through a litmus test of international opinion, and encouraging more of the right international information flows, particularly to the Middle East. The US hegemon desperately needs to better explain US policies and brand the United States as a democratic nation (Nye Jr, 2004, p.19). More than a decade ago, an advisory group reported to the US government, recommending measures to enhance the image of the US in the Middle East. Among other things it suggested: the appointment of a new White House director of public diplomacy, construction of libraries and information centers, translation of Western books into Arabic, increased scholarships and visiting fellowships, and training more Arabic speakers and public relations specialists (ibid, p.19). Such measures are just those that Nye proposes as part of a long-term strategy for developing a richer, more open civil society in Middle East countries (ibid, p.19). At the same time, no amount of public diplomacy will be effective unless the style and substance of US policies are consistent with the broader democratic message (ibid, p.19). It must be understood that credibility and legitimacy are what soft power is all about! (Nye Jr, 2003). Thanks to the information revolution politics has become a contest of credibility (Nye, 2008, p.100) in which it may not matter so much whose military or economy wins but ultimately.. whose story wins (Arquilla et al., 1999). In 1937, Britains Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that good cultural propaganda cannot remedy the damage done by bad foreign policy (Cited in Wagnleitner, 1994, p.50). This is the complexity of public diplomacy, wherein an increasingly informed and socially aware global population is cynical and, if information is seen as propaganda it can not only be ineffective, but indeed counterproductive as it undermines a countrys reputation for credibility (Nye, 2008, p.100). Public diplomacy is not a euphemism for propaganda because, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words and strategies of public diplomacy cannot work if the information portrayed cuts against the grain of policy (ibid, p.101) One of the most common, accepted, and easy forms of public diplomacy is broadcasting. In the Australian context is claimed that international broadcasting, as an instrument of soft power, is the most efficient and effective way to present Australias culture, ideology and institutions. (Scott, 2010). Scott (2010) passionately defends the role of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) in presenting views that are sometimes critical of government policies, saying that this demonstrates a belief in independent journalism and that Australians do not just preach democratic ideals, but live them. While it can be understandably difficult for a government to support the open presentation of critical viewpoints, it is often the most effective way of establishing credibility (Nye, 2008, p.106). Part of any Western nations soft power appeal is its open, democratic society and polity, and its free press. As Nye says, When government instruments avoid such criticism, they not only diminish their own credibility but also fail to capitalize on an important source of attraction (ibid, p.106). Scott (2010) points to the ABC charter which directs international broadcasts to encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes and argues that by representing the values of the Australian people and the Australian way of life rather than the Governments views the ABC makes the most meaningful contribution to Australias public diplomacy. Broadcasting as public diplomacy is most effective when the audience is confident that it is free of political and commercial interests. The only permissible influences are accuracy, fairness, the free expression of and diversity of views, impartiality (Scott, 2010). If we (the West, led by the US), hope to build the necessary soft power resources we must understand the role of credibility and self-criticism (Nye, 2008, p.108). Despite its benefits, public international broadcasting is rarely prioritised now. Tellingly, during the Cold War years, Washington funded Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts reached 50 percent of the Soviet populace every week and between 70 and 80 percent of the population of Eastern Europe while in the new century, with huge budget cuts, VOA reaches a mere 2 percent of Arabs (Blinken, 2003, p.288). Building and maintaining soft power requires concerted effort and funding, both of which have been lacking. Soft power initiatives are forced to compete with hard power ones and the institutions of hard power are vastly, disproportionately larger, better funded, and more influential than the institutions of soft power, leaving them in a subordinate position, lacking the resources and clout of their hard power counterparts (Wilson, 2008, p.116-117). The military industrial complex leaves little room, politically or financially, for alternatives and the influence that it holds has no counterpart, certainly not among soft power advocates who exist as scattered public intellectuals in various think tanks and universities, or the occasional consulting group (ibid, p.119). Understandably, leaders face intense political pressures to appear hard and strong in public pronouncements (ibid, p.120) but in a globalised world it is not only domestic audiences who are listening, or matter, and it is important to remember that the same words and images that are most successful in communicating to a domestic audience may have negative effects on foreign audiences (Nye, 2008, p.104). While broadcasting has a large role to play in soft power generation, it cannot work alone. If it is seen as illegitimate, as propaganda it can have the opposite effect of diminishing soft power. For this reason telling is far less influential than actions and symbols that show as well as tell (Nye, 2008, p.103). For example, provision of Tsunami relief to Indonesia in 2004 helped to reverse in part the precipitous slide in American standing in Indonesian polls that began after the Iraq war (Nye, 2008, p.103). It may even be possible to generate almost all of ones soft power through actions alone. An example of this is Norway which, despite a small population, non-central location and lack of an international language, transnational culture, or economic clout, has developed a voice and presence out of proportion to its modest size and resources through activities including conflict mediation in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, and Colombia, as well as its large aid budget and its frequent participation in peace keeping missions (ibid, p.104)
Soft power without hard power? Much of the criticism of soft power approaches is based on the idea that there is a misperception that soft power alone can produce effective foreign policy (Nye Jr, 2009, p.160). Of course soft power is not always the solution. Soft power could not have won World War II and, as Nye said the fact that the North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Il likes to watch Hollywood movies is unlikely to affect his countrys nuclear weapons program (2009, p.161). Hard and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes substitute for each other (Nye Jr, 2003) meaning that smart strategies combine the tools of both hard and soft power (ibid, p.160). This is where the concept of smart power comes into play. Smart power is the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actors purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently (Wilson, 2008, p.110). The concept of smart power is important for two reasons: firstly, because neither hard power or soft power alone is sufficient in todays world, and secondly, because the politics of selling soft power approaches to the domestic population of a state can be difficult (ibid). It is argued that increasing soft power resources is a national security imperative and that the national interest is being badly served by an imperfect, dichotomous debate about soft power versus hard power (ibid, p.111). There is widespread belief in America and around the world that recent US security and foreign policy, especially under the Bush administration but also under Obama, has compromised the diplomatic and security interests of the United States, provoked unprecedented resentment around the world and greatly diminished Americas position in the world (ibid, p.111). Wilson makes a great deal of the contrast between the US and China whom he says have deployed power resources strategically to develop and pursue a doctrine of Chinas Peaceful Rise and have shown a sophisticated appreciation for the full range of instruments of national power (ibid, p.111-112). Changing global power patterns caused by the rise of India, China, Brazil, and other actors, combined with the explosion in technology and communications and the spread of both education and democracy has meant that the world has become smarter, and Americas reigning foreign policy elites have not kept up (Wilson, 2008, p.113). In this new world a nation which wishes to retain, or grow its power must have the wisdom to combine the elements of coercive power with the power to persuade and to inspire emulation (Wilson, 2008, p.116).
Conclusion Soft power is an important reality in todays complex, globalised world. More than ever, attracting the increasingly educated, and informed populations of foreign states is integral to achieving international goals, and resolving international issues. The sole remaining superpower and the leader of the West has dramatically failed to grasp this. As Keohane and Nye argue essentially, the United States relies today simply on superior military power to ground its claims to moral excellence. This is, both morally and politically, treacherous ground on which to stand at a time when the world demands American leadership. (Keohane and Nye Jr, 1998, p.402). The shift to increasing soft power, or more accurately a combined smart power strategy is desperately needed if we hope to resolve the global terrorist threat and deal with threats such as climate change. Achieving and sustaining smart power is not just a nice thing to do. It has become an urgent matter of national security, and it needs to be done well and done now (Wilson, 2008, p.120) As Nye says nearly five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli advised princes in Italy that it was more important to be feared than to be loved. In todays world it is best to be both (Nye Jr, 2003). Unless we give the country the institutions, the ideas, and the policies America deserves, then our children and grandchildren will pay the cost of this generations inability to wield power intelligently and strategically in other words, to wield smart power (Wilson, 2008, p.122).
Bibliography
ARQUILLA, J., RONFELDT, D., BARNES-PROBY, D., WILLIAMS, E. & CHRISTIAN, J. 1999. The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward An American Information Strategy, RAND Corporation. AYOOB, M. 2005. The future of political Islam: the importance of external variables. International Affairs, 81, 951-961. BACEVICH, A. J. 2010. Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War, Henry Holt and Company. BACEVICH, A. J. & BACEVICH, A. J. 2009. American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy, Harvard University Press. BAXTER, K. & AKBARZADEH, S. 2008. US foreign policy in the Middle East: the roots of anti- Americanism, Routledge. BBC. 2007. View of US's global role 'worse'. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm [Accessed 07/04/14]. BELASCO, A. 2009. Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, DIANE Publishing. BIERMANN, F. & BOAS, I. 2010. Preparing for a warmer world: Towards a global governance system to protect climate refugees. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 60-88. BLINKEN, A. J. 2003. Winning the War of Ideas. In: LENNON, A. T. & LENNON, A. T. J. (eds.) The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Using Soft Power to Undermine Terrorist Networks. MIT Press. BOVE, V. & NISTIC, R. 2014. Military in politics and budgetary allocations. Journal of Comparative Economics. CHOMSKY, N. 2010. Hopes and Prospects, Penguin Books Limited. DOCHERTY, B. & GIANNINI, T. 2009. Confronting a rising tide: a proposal for a convention on climate change refugees. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 33, 349. DUNCAN, T. K. & COYNE, C. J. 2013. The overlooked costs of the permanent war economy: A market process approach. The Review of Austrian Economics, 26, 413-431. FRIEDMAN, B. H. & PREBLE, C. A. 2012. Budgetary savings from military restraint. FUKUYAMA, F. & BLOOM, A. 1989. The end of history?, National Affairs, Incorporated. GENTZKOW, M. A. & SHAPIRO, J. M. 2004. Media, education and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 117-133. GLOBALISSUES.ORG 2013. Global Distribution of Military Expenditure in 2012. GODFREY, R., BREWIS, J., GRADY, J. & GROCOTT, C. 2014. The private military industry and neoliberal imperialism: Mapping the terrain. Organization, 21, 106-125. HAEFELE, M. 2001. John F. Kennedy, USIA, and world public opinion. Diplomatic History, 25, 63-84. HIGGS, R. 1995. How Military Mobilization Hurts the Economy. In: MCCLOSKEY, D. N. & MCCLOSKEY, D. N. (eds.) Second Thoughts: Myths and Morals of U. S. Economic History. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. HUNTINGTON, S. P. 1993. The clash of civilizations? Foreign affairs, 22-49. JOFFE, J. 2001. Whos Afraid of Mr. Big? The National Interest, 64, 43-52. KAROL, D. & MIGUEL, E. 2007. The electoral cost of war: Iraq casualties and the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Politics, 69, 633-648. KEEGAN, J. 2010. The Iraq War, Random House. KEOHANE, R. O. & NYE JR, J. S. 1998. Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 81-94. LENNON, A. T. & LENNON, A. T. J. 2003. The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Using Soft Power to Undermine Terrorist Networks, MIT Press. LIPSET, S. M. 1997. American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword, WW Norton & Company. LISTER, M. J. 2014. Climate Change Refugees. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (forthcoming). MAZZETTI, M. 2006. Spy agencies say Iraq war worsens terror threat. New York Times, 24. NYE JR, J. S. 2003. The velvet hegemon: how soft power can help defeat terrorism. Foreign Policy, 136, 74-75. NYE JR, J. S. 2004. Decline of America's Soft Power-Why Washington Should Worry, The. Foreign Aff., 83, 16. NYE JR, J. S. 2009. Get Smart-Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Aff., 88, 160. NYE, J. S. 1990. Soft power. Foreign policy, 153-171. NYE, J. S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs. NYE, J. S. 2008. Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94-109. PILLAR, P. R. 2006. Intelligence, policy, and the war in Iraq. Foreign Affairs, 15-27. RODRGEZ GARCA, J. M. 2001. Scientia Potestas EstKnowledge is Power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault. Neohelicon, 28, 109-121. SACHS, J. D. 2007. Climate change refugees. Scientific American, 296, 43-43. SADIKI, L. 1995. Al-la Nidam: An Arab View of the New World (Dis) Order. Arab Studies Quarterly, 1-22. SCOTT, M. 2010. Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and the Role of the Public Broadcasters [Online]. abc.net.au: ABC. Available: http://about.abc.net.au/speeches/soft-power-public- diplomacy-and-the-role-of-the-public-broadcasters/ [Accessed 10/05/14. STIGLITZ, J. 2006. The High Cost of the Iraq War. The Economists' Voice, 3, 1-3. STIGLITZ, J. E. & BILMES, L. 2008. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, W.W. Norton. WAGNLEITNER, R. 1994. Coca-Colonization and the Cold War: The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria after the Second World War, University of North Carolina Press. WILLIAMS, A. 2008. Turning the tide: recognizing climate change refugees in international law. Law & Policy, 30, 502-529. WILSON, E. J. 2008. Hard power, soft power, smart power. The annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 110-124.