Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RasTrent

Soft power => Hege

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any evidence that they could post to back the claim that an increase in soft power would in turn increase hegemony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have any evidence that they could post to back the claim that an increase in soft power would in turn increase hegemony?

 

 

There's a pretty famous card by Joseph Nye that makes that claim. It used to be in the disad impact thread, but The Penguin deleted it - you should pm him.

 

 

EDIT: here's a card that quotes Nye

 

 

Zwiebel, Army War College, 2006

(Michael, Military Review, Nov/Dec Ebsco-UT TM)

 

When one thinks of sovereign state power, the first thought is likely that of military capabilities. But the sovereign state has many instruments of power available to it, including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DW) instruments. In Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Joseph Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and a recognized expert on international affairs and the effects of soft power, provides some useful observations on power and its relationship to the sovereign state. Power, Nye says, is “the ability to influence the behavior of others to getthe outcomes YOU want.” Influence can be accomplished through forceful means, or hard power, such as military action or economic restrictions. Nye then describes an alternate source of power: soft power. He explains that soft power uses attraction to “get the outcomes YOU want without the tangible threats or pavoffs.”3

According to Nye, a state derives its soft power from three sources: culture, political values, and foreign politics. The strength of the state’s soft power depends on the attraction or repulsion its culture, political values, and foreign policy generate inthe citizens of the targeted country. To make soft power work effectively, a state must carefully select the methods that will attract others to its interests. Soft power, it must be said, is not anexclusive replacement for hard power: rather, it can strengthen applications of hard power, and it may be less expensive. Soft power can be directed at either an opposing state or at its individual citizens. Public diplomacy is one form of soft power employed by the United States. The Nation used it during the cold war to communicate American values to the populations of Communist countries (and to neutral countries and allied populations as well).

Edited by Lt. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are referring to these nye cards.

U.S. soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear

Nye, 96 – Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (Joe, Washington Quarterly, "Conflicts after the Cold War,” 19.1)

As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and sub national groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role Leadership by the United States, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations. This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.

Soft power necessary to prevent disease, terrorism, and WMD

 

 

Joseph Nye, Harvard, US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT - SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OF PERSUASION, April 29, 2004, p, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm

 

Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or shape the preferences of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national interests. When America discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When US policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce its leverage. The manner with which the US went into Iraq undercut American soft power. That did not prevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in the reconstruction of Iraq and made the American occupation more costly in the hard-power resources of blood and treasure. Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the US probably will remain the world's single most powerful country well into the 21st century. But not all the important types of power come from the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but transnational issues such as climate change, infectious diseases, international crime, and terrorism cannot be resolved by military force alone. Soft power is particularly important in dealing with these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce success, and can even be counterproductive. America's success in coping with the new transnational threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will depend on a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a better balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...