Abstract
The article deals with the basic approaches, resources, goals, objectives and results of the “power” using by the countries at the present stage. It analyses indices of “soft power” and “hard power” to further counting and strategic planning for the strategic decision-making process. There is the examination of different strategies for the use of “power” in foreign policy as a tool of national interests protection.
At the moment we can compare “hard” and “soft” power. We know the advantages and disadvantages of these concepts, their behavioral actions, means of implementation, resources and even the ability to control and predict the IR events. So, it is convenient to analyse the position of “soft power” in framework of well- established theories of International Relations and give the definition for prospective analytical debates.
Firstly, let’s define what does “International Relations” mean? what are the types of International Relations theories? why are they so important for analytical debates? Obviously, the primarily source of definitions is dictionary. The full definition of “International Relations” has been found in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “International Relations – a branch of Political Science concerned with relations between nations and primarily with foreign policies” [1]. So, if it is a branch of science, it must include some theories. There are the basic theories as Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. It also includes Marxism, but this theory is not actual for “soft power” as well as world politics nowadays. Nevertheless, only realistic and liberalistic theories will be analyzed.
According to Professor of International Relations at Sussex University, UK, Cynthia Weber: “International Politics is a huge field. It explores everything from wars to revolutions to global gender inequalities to demands for international human rights to international trade. To try to make sense of international politics, we often turn to International Relations theory. IR theory makes organizing generalizations about international politics” [2, p. 2]. Power is a part of international politics, that is why IR theories are able to consider the position of powers within themselves. But, there needs to look through other views on subject. Robert M.A. Crawford – Lecturer of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Canada: “IR is/was a distinct discipline with a well-defined set of problems around which policy and scholarly oriented analyses can/could converge, with a view to diagnosing and resolving dilemmas, or at least muddling through in spite of them” [3, p. 1]. IR has well established set of problems and position of powers is one of them. Martin Griffiths, Dean, School of History and International Relations, Flinders University, introduced a new term related with IR – worldview. “A worldview is a broad interpretation of the world and an application of this view to the way in which we judge and evaluate activities and structures that shape the world. Worldviews are necessary. They frame the domain of IR and provide the conceptual language and fundamental assumptions (both ontological and evaluative) on the basis of which specific phenomena and patterned relationships are explained via theory. Contemporary IR theory exhibits a wide variety of competing worldviews” [4, p. 9]. Because of existing different views on power, it can be really interesting to consider IR as a worldview. Despite the fact that task put the question of finding out the position of soft power, hard power is not excluded. So, the next step is to define the positivist theories of IR, which are realism and liberalism.
Realism is the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. Or the view that the subject matter of politics is political power, not matters of principle. Or the doctrine that the law is better understood by analysis of judges rather than the judgements given [5]. Political Realism is the direction of politics and paradigm in political science, founded by Hans Morgenthau. The Realists regard themselves as heirs to an extended intellectual tradition. It is customary to trace realism back to antiquity, with claims that its arguments can be found in important works from Greece, Rome, India, and China. The Realist arguments can also be found in Kautilya’s Arthashastra from India, that argues, ‘is concerned with the survival and aggrandizement of the state’ and ‘clearly instructs… in the principles of a balance of power system’. The Realists also claim Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) among them. Starting from a deeply pessimistic view of human nature, Machiavelli argues for strong and efficient rulers for whom power and security are the major concerns. The Realists also identify with Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and his notion of a ‘state of nature’ where the absence of overriding authority allows human appetites to be pursued without restraint – individuals engage in constant conflict, with their lives being concomitantly ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Political Realism’s prolonged existence gives it a distinct advantage over relatively youthful liberal alternatives [4, pp. 11-12].
The two main division of Realism are Classical and Neorealism. According to classical realism, because the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase their capabilities. The absence of international equivalent of a state’s government is a permissive condition that gives human appetites free reign. In short, classical realism explains conflictual behavior by human failings. The particular wars are explained, for example, by aggressive statesmen or by domestic political systems that give greedy parochial groups the opportunity to pursue self-serving expansionist foreign policies. For classical realist’s International Politics can be characterized as evil: bad things happen because the people making foreign policy are sometimes bad. The realist worldview was revived and revised with the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 Theory of International Politics, which replaced Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations as the standard bearer for realists. Waltz argues that systems are composed of a structure and their interacting units. Political structures have three elements: an ordering principle (anarchic or hierarchical), the character of the units (functionally alike or differentiated), and the distribution of capabilities. Waltz argues that two elements of the international system structure are constants: the lack of an overarching authority means that its ordering principle is anarchy, and the principle of self-help means that all of the units remain functionally alike. Accordingly, the only structural variable is the distribution of capabilities, with the main distinction falling between multipolar and bipolar systems. One difference between classical realism and neorealism is their contrasting views on the source and content of states’ preferences. In contrast to classical realism, neorealism excludes the internal make up of different states. In addition, whereas classical realism suggested that state strategies are selected rationally, Waltz is more agnostic. According to Waltz, state behavior can be a product of the competition among the states, either because they calculate how to act to their best advantage or because those that do not exhibit such behavior are selected out of the system. Alternatively, states’ behavior can be a product of socialization: states can decide to follow norms because they calculate it to their advantage or because the norms become internalized [4, pp. 12-13].
Cynthia Weber describe this two pointing of realism, but change classical realism by realism. Realists and (neo)realists agree that the overriding goal of states in this environment of international anarchy is to survive. This is their overriding interest. And the only way that states can reasonably ensure their survival is to increase their power. Power protects states because states with less power might fear those with more power and therefore be less likely to attack them. Additionally, realists and (neo)realists agree that there is no way out of international anarchy. It is unrealistic to think that a world government could be formed because states would never be secure enough – and therefore trusting enough – to give up their power to a world government [2, p. 16].
Both realism and (neo)realism accept the three fundamental assumptions that make the anarchy myth function – first, that the world is composed of sovereign nation-states; second, that there is no world government which means there is no international order; and third, that the absence of world government or an international order by definition means that international politics is anarchical. From these three elements, realists and (neo)realists both predict that sovereign nation-states in a system of international anarchy will behave conflictual. Cynthia Weber provides the next table (Table 2) in order to show the transformation of realism into neorealism [2, p. 15].
Table 2 Realism transformation
So, what the position of power in the context of realism? According to Nye, the modern school of realism emphasizes not human nature, but the structure of international politics. The structural approach emphasizes the anarchic nature of international politics and the fact that there is no Supreme authority above States to which they can refer. They are in the field of self-help, and provide military resources of great help. Motives such as greed or domination are less important than security and a simple desire to survive. States in the zero-sum game, where the rational to stand up for themselves because they cannot trust others. If the actor disarmed and others do not, the actor is likely to survive in conditions of anarchy there. Those who are friendly and trusting, as a rule, disappear over time. They are eliminated by the dynamics generated by the structure of the system. The path to security and survival for the actor to develop their own military resources due to growth and create alliances to balance the power of others. In this world, becomes in relation to others is more important than absolute gain. Whether rooted in human nature, as in the classical realism of Thucydides and Machiavelli or major systemic forces underlying contemporary structural realism, military resources, which provide the ability to prevail in war is traditionally portrayed as the most important form of power in global Affairs. Indeed, in the nineteenth century, the definition of a great power was the ability to win the war, and, of course, the war continues today. The world has become more complex since the nineteenth century and the Realistic model is not suitable for all parts equally [6, pp. 27-28].
Liberalism is the quality or state of being liberal. Or a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard. Or a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties [1]. Martin Griffits applies Liberalism as liberal internationalism, which is more appropriate within framework of international relations in twenty-first century. Liberal internationalism – the projection of liberal thought and political principles to the international realm – is the assumption that one can apply reason to extend the possibilities for individual and collective self-rule, or freedom. It reflects the broader liberal tradition of which it is part in that it comprises several political/philosophical strands, has emerged in a number of diverse national and historical contexts, has evolved over time in response to changing domestic and international conditions, and rests upon a body of elastic concepts that invite the exercise of judgment and interpretation in order to draw out their political and policy conclusions [4, p. 21].
Once liberalism fails to address itself to contemporary claims of justice and abuses of power it is prone to become the doctrine of the privileged and increasingly conservative or elitist in character. Liberalism’s normative dimension has been manifest in the presentation of powerful and attractive claims such as self- determination and human and minority rights and the development of moral discourses on questions such as distributive and environmental justice and the challenge globalization presents to state-based conceptions of democracy. As a practical as well as a theoretical project a further dimension of the liberal project has been to develop a politics through which to achieve its goals. Central to this dimension is a significant liberal societal base composed of political parties and/or civil society organizations that are in positions of power or influence [4, pp. 23-24].
Liberal internationalism has struggled to resolve tensions in the policy, political, and structural realms and faces an underlying crisis of belief in the intellectual and normative realms. Until this deeper crisis is satisfactorily addressed it is unlikely that liberal internationalism will reemerge as a major political force. Indeed, the future of liberal internationalism depends to a considerable extent upon whether the tensions and problems of contemporary liberal internationalism serve to fatally undermine the central project of combining individual and collective freedom or whether this crisis can be utilized as a regenerative experience from which a new globalism can emerge. There are also good political arguments for a new form of globalism. That the latter in practice places greater emphasis upon ‘soft-power’ dovetails with traditional liberal internationalist approaches [4, pp. 29-32].
The global information age creates the preconditions to a significant increase in the importance of the use of soft power in world politics. Most likely the country with a more developed connection to the global bond will have rather more soft power because of the great opportunities to disseminate information. The main issues that can be formed to change the attitude of the international community to a particular country, will be: whose culture, ideas and values closer to the accepted universal standards (such as liberalism, pluralism and independence)? Which course of foreign policy enhances the image and prestige of the country abroad [7, pp. 31-32]?
As we can see, the liberal theory of IR is more relevant to soft power, as well as realism to hard power. However, it doesn’t mean that both powers can exist only in the framework of relative theories. For example, soft power can be implement with realistic approach. Such phenomenon is called Complex Interdependence. Waheeda Rana, PhD Scholar at Quaid- i-Azam University Islamabad & Assistant Professor at International Islamic University Islamabad, conducted the full score of information about the term in his article and made a comparative analysis of it. The most interesting parts of article are adduced below.
The era after the Cold War clearly shows the implementation of power among national states through the provision of technical and economic progress. Brute force was manifested only in minor points, while the most important decision was to strengthen ties and cooperation for long-term development and prosperity. This led to an interesting debate between realists and liberals, each tried to convince that their arguments are more valid and relevant with respect to the prevailing global trends. In the context of this discussion, this paper aims to critically analyze the theory of “Complex Interdependence,” which challenged the fundamental assumptions of the traditional and structural realism. By synthesizing the views of the realists and liberals, complex interdependence has become a major component of the neoliberal point of view. Model “Complex Interdependence” was developed by Robert O Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, at the end of the 1970s. The introduction of a new concept has been the cause of some serious problems for the foundations of traditional realism, for its structure, focusing on military and economic capabilities. One problem is the complexity of understanding the behavior of the state, and therefore, strategic planning complexity. Complex Interdependence actually became a central component of the neoliberal point of view, and is widely used in the analysis of international policy makes an attempt to understand the willingness of States to enter into co-operative alliances with each other under the conditions of anarchy and dependence [8, p. 290].
At this point, in a globalized world, in the digital age, all the term “interdependence” is used more and more frequently. This term models the behavior of participants in world politics, which involved not only the state but also governmental and non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations and other players who are independent of each other. Basically, the dependence is determined by external forces. Interdependence in the global policy applies to situations that are characterized by interactions between countries or between entities in different countries [9, p. 8].
There are three key features of the complex interdependence: multiple channel, the absence of a hierarchy among the subjects and a minor role of military force.
Multiple channels. In international politics there are multiple channels connecting the societies, including all the interstate, trans-governmental, and transnational transactions. This is opposed to the unitary state assumption of realism. In this complex world of interdependence not only formal and informal interaction between governmental elites are a source of connecting societies but informal ties among non-governmental elites and transnational organizations are gaining more and more importance. Multinational firms and banks have a great impact on the domestic as well as interstate relations. These actors, besides pursuing their own interests, also “act as transmission belts, making government policies in various countries more sensitive to one another.” [9, p. 26].
Absence of hierarchy among subjects. In the world of Complex interdependence, there is no hierarchy among the issues. The dividing line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred and there is no clear agenda in interstate relations. There are multiple issues which are not arranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy. Among other things, “military security does not consistently dominate the agenda.” [9, p. 25]. The foreign affairs agendas have become more and more diverse now. As opposed to the realists’ assumption where security is always the most important issue between the states, in complex interdependence, any issue-area might be at the top of the international agenda at any particular time.
Minor role of military force. When Complex Interdependence prevails, military force could be irrelevant in resolving disagreements on economic issues among members of an alliance, however simultaneously be very important for the alliance’s political and military relations with its rival bloc. According to Keohane and Nye, intense relationships of mutual influence may exist but force is no more considered an appropriate way of achieving other goals such as economic and ecological welfare which are becoming more important, because mostly the effects of military force are very costly and uncertain [9, p. 28]. In fact, due to modern nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, all the actors are aware of the maximized costs of war [8, pp. 291-292].
A detailed examination of realism and complex interdependence had revealed the fact that these theories contradict each other in their nature and the degree of use are the same values in world politics. In other words, this theoretical approach in world politics gets hybrid traits. On the one hand, the spread of realist and neorealist paradigm is strong enough in terms of anarchic scenario where the state and members of international politics are trying to maximize their strengths. On the other hand, the complex interdependence thoroughly strengthened daily practice of doing things, where realization of the benefits, people are working closely with each other. Thus, the modern world order in general is a complex system that can not be fully described and disclosed to one theory. The best approach to the study of contemporary politics is the synthesis of realism and neo-liberal theories, as well as the use of other theoretical foundations in certain cases [8, pp. 295-296].
In the conclusion of the paragraph we can define the position of soft power in the framework of IR theories. Moreover, the correlation has been found out between powers and theories. That was a mistake to consider that hard power is equal to realism as well as soft power has the same aspects as liberalism. They can not be equal just because powers are not the theories of IR. They are just methods of Implementing the certain policies.
The difference of both powers is deserved a peculiar attention. Hard and soft powers cannot be strictly divided. They have some common points with other level of “hardness”. The Table 1 shows the both sides arrow, which means such “hardness”. As a tap can let out the cold and hot water, mixing lets the water be warm. Thus, mixing the behavior and resource of hard and soft powers lets them to implement smart power strategy. Such simplification will help us to separate soft power from others in order to focus attention on soft power usage by countries during the analysis in the second chapter. The scheme 1 helps to imagine the position of powers in the framework of IR theories.
Scheme 1. Position of powers Source: Made by the author
- Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Springfield: Merriam-Webster, available at: www. merriam-webster.com
- Weber International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2005.
- A. Crawford R. Idealism and Realism in International Relations. New York: Routledge, 2000.
- Griffiths M. International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge,
- Oxford Dictionary of OUP Oxford. Available at: www.oxforddictionaries.com
- JSN. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.
- Joseph S. Nye J. Soft The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004.
- Rana Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and. 2ndedition. Vol 6. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2015.
- Keohane RO, JSN. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Boston: Brown Little, 1977.