Power is one of the most fundamental concepts in global politics. It is the means of influencing other groups in global politics to achieve desired goals. However, power is unfixed and is variable in the application as there is a multitude of different powers (ie. soft, hard and smart). Power which is exercised through “the use of force and threats” is titled Hard Power as this variant of power enables groups in Global Politics to achieve their aims by spreading influence using methods of coercion and force (eg. through economic sanctions and military force). The counter to Hard Power is Soft Power where power is exerted through persuasion and influence (eg. through diplomacy and outreach). In this essay, I will assess the claim posed in the question by exploring the effectiveness of both Hard and Soft power in order to ascertain whether Hard Power is the most used in Global Politics. Although it has been argued by Realists that power in Global Politics is mostly exercised through Hard Power because they believe that economic and military power enable actors to achieve desired outcomes, it must be duly noted that Soft Power is increasingly effective and more frequently used nowadays due to technology, interdependence and globalisation. I will justify my claim that Hard Power is not the most exercised variant of power in Global Politics by critiquing Hard Power in the first two paragraphs and then shifting to an analysis of the strengths, applicability and usage of Soft Power in the third paragraph.
Firstly, Hard Power is largely favoured by many thinkers as it relies on force and coercion to achieve a group’s aims; this type of power is mainly accepted by realists – Realism is the political theory about power and security. Realists believe that the coalition of power and security leads to prestige, autonomy and self-help because perpetual peace is non-existent. Because of this idea, realists favour the centrality of economic and military power as they argue that possessing superior military and economic power will result in successful outcomes. For example, the continued existence of wars involving non-state actors requires states to resort to the use of force and coercion: this shows that these hard power techniques are often effective in mitigating risk and pursuing a state’s interest because violence can often be used as a form of suppressing enemies. However, military power, along with hard power, is becoming increasingly insignificant in modern-day politics as it has been very unsuccessful in many major conflicts since 2001 (ie. Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq) because it doesn’t work against contemporary non-state actors and there is increasing political reluctance for troops to be deployed by the West due to reduced support of military violence. This idea is important to note as non-coercive means of power exertion can produce a less forced response from a given state and lead to more effective results. For example, this idea can be seen in Henry Kissinger’s 1960s shuttle diplomacy where he used soft power to foster peace between Israel and the Arab World. A more modern example of how persuasion (soft power) can be effectively used to achieve goals is exemplified through the uses of education and propaganda. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other radical groups have been very effective in recruiting susceptible targets online through the use of soft power on social media platforms such as Twitter. For example, the Bethnal Green trio were school girls who felt isolated due to the cultural hegemony (Antonio Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony is defined as the Domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of the society so that their imposed views become the accepted cultural norm) and norms discriminating against Muslims in East London. This sense of discrimination made them susceptible to the soft power recruitment of ISIS. Aqsa Mahmood, an ISIS recruit from 2013, recruited the girls to join ISIS via Twitter. The understanding that persuasion (through social media and even diplomacy) can be used to achieve preferred outcomes shows that power is now increasingly exerted without the use of force and threats in Global Politics.
Secondly, Hard Power is still seen as very prevalent in Global Politics as the possession of military capabilities and economic prosperity is seen as prerequisites for building international status and power. This idea is mainly supported by the case study of the United Nations (UN) where the states that exert the most influence internationally are the P5 Nations (the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the People's Republic of China, France and Russia) and DPRK because they have the strongest military capabilities and economic resources. The nations can, therefore, set the global agenda in the UN. The US possesses unipolar military power whilst it, along with the other five nations, are among the multipolar economic order: these countries have a large number of resources for their disposal and, because of this, often achieve their desired outcome. Power can be measured through measuring resources and behavioural outcomes and the six abovementioned countries always come out as the most powerful because of their ability to exert hard power through sanctions and military force (due to large numbers of resources). The possession of strong military and economic power allows them to spread their influence globally as these nations can use economic and military threats. For example, President Donald Trump was able to exert the US’ economic power through a form of Hard Power in 2019 where he attempted to coerce President Zelensky of Ukraine into finding blackmail on Hunter Biden in exchange for economic assistance. Ukraine was having a large conflict with Russia over the Russian annexation of Crimea so it needed economic assistance but Trump exerted Hard Power through an economic ultimatum: he said he would release a congressionally mandated $400,000,000 military aid package to Ukraine if President Zelensky found blackmail on Hunter Biden so that Trump could achieve his desired outcomes. Another example of how military power enables parties to take control and build status is in Libya. Due to the power vacuum caused by their ongoing civil war (2014–), many radical and extremist ethnic groups can grasp power. ISIS has now been able to take control in the Libyan civil war due to the lack of authority in Libya and their high military and economic power – ISIS was perceived positively due to their strong disposable resources and favoured extremist ideals. This shows that countries with high economic and military power can exert hard power due to their large amounts of disposable resources; this ability to use hard power is also a prerequisite to being acknowledged as a powerful nation as in modern-day politics: a nation which can exert hard power effectively resulting in the intended outcomes means that the nation has a high status and power. However, the mere possession of resources does not always result in a country having the ability to achieve their desired outcomes as immaterial factors (eg. changes in leadership/tactics) can affect outcomes; sometimes, diplomacy and economic aid/trades are more useful than hard power exertion in furthering goals and interests. For example, the War on Terror in Afghanistan – which began as a consequence of Al Qaeda’s plane attacks on the World Trade Centre on 9/11/01 – has cost the US over $1.6 trillion due to extensive military expenditure but the war failed to accomplish the US’s goals as Al Qaeda was not removed from Afghanistan and nor was the Taliban (some may argue that the hard power exertion by the US in the Middle East has exacerbated the issue). But when Trump used soft power (diplomacy and mutual deals), this enabled him to achieve his desired goals as he was able to get the Taliban to promise that they will not allow its members or members of al-Qaeda to use Afghan soil to threaten American national security. Trump, through a change in strategy, was able to achieve his desired outcomes. This goes to show that in cases of war, soft power is more effective than hard power as both sides will often compromise for mutually beneficial deals. From this, politicians and politics students can understand that because our world is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent, exerting power in a violent method is becoming decreasingly effective.
The focus of the essay will now shift from the critical analysis of Hard Power to the analysis of the strengths, applicability and usage of Soft Power. Soft Power is a variant of power exertion which is supported by Liberal thinking as it complements the values of Liberalism – the beliefs that the international system creates opportunities so states can pursue internationally beneficial goals (prefers exhausting passive methods such as diplomacy to solve issues). Aspects of soft power such as cultural norms and social policies may even be more influential than brute force due to cultural globalisation. Cultural Globalisation is the increased sharing of ideas, meanings and values across the world. This essentially means a cross-border flow of cultural norms, values and media. Cultural Globalisation and soft power have enabled Power Diffusion – Joseph Nye defines power diffusion as the movement of power from state to non-state actors – internationally as non-state actors are increasingly aware of what is happening in the world. Because of this, there has been an increase in non-state actor movements, such as the #metoo movement and school climate strikes, which incites changes in governmental policies. These movements are peaceful protests and are enabled by the soft power dissemination of ideas and cultures. Movements such as the Extinction Rebellion have become increasingly powerful as they have been able to increase the scope and incidence of their protests; this has enabled them to convince the UK government to declare a climate emergency and move towards reducing carbon emissions by 80% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050. This shows that soft power, due to globalisation, is more used and more effective than other means of persuasion and influence. In addition to this, countries are increasingly able to achieve their aims through soft power as involvement in trade agreements works much more effectively than coercive tactics due to the age of economic interdependence. Interdependence is defined as when groups in Global Politics rely on each other, have shared interests or have an impact on each other whilst Economic Interdependence is when states are linked together economically through trade (their economies are mutually dependent). States are more willing to enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements as this enables them to achieve their desired goals. For example, China has pledged $1.4 trillion into African infrastructure investment and in exchange, China now has favourable access to Africa’s natural commodities and resources. This is very beneficial for both the Chinese and African economies as China needs raw materials for their large numbers of international exports whilst African nations need more public expenditure to better the lifestyles of their citizens and increase their international status. This example shows that economic interdependence and mutually beneficial trade deals (both forms of soft power) are very influential in current-day politics. Another reason why Soft Power is increasingly effective and globally used is because of our interdependent (not just economically interdependent) world. Many transnational crises such as climate change, cybercrime and pandemics cannot be mitigated through forceful means. These crises require a liberal response based on a tenet of inclusion rather than exclusion as nations need to increase international relations (through soft power) and unite as one to combat said issues. There is a chaotic distribution of power due to the transnational chaos (this is the third level of Joseph Nye’s 3D Chessboard of Power) so all nations have to unite and help. A real-world and current example of this concept is the Novel Coronavirus crisis. Because of increased globalisation and interdependence, this virus has spread very rapidly globally but, because it is a transnational crisis, nations are banding together to work on cures and help economically weaker nations fight the virus. For example, the WHO and the UN foundation just mandated a $15 million care package to help fund global efforts to contain the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus, particularly vulnerable countries with weak health care systems. Due to increased interdependence and interlinking of nations, soft power is much more necessary to use to spread influence and combat transnational issues.
In conclusion, Soft Power has become increasingly effective for individuals, non-state actors and nations due to globalisation and interdependence. Soft Power, through diplomacy and economic assistance, has been showed to be effective in defusing long-lasting conflicts, increasing international relations between large and powerful nations through diplomacy and economic deals, increasing the scope and incidence of international movements committed by non-state actors, enabling radicalisation by extremist groups and combatting transnational crises. These five aforementioned areas that soft power helps are some of the most important things that we, as humanity, face daily and will continue to face for a long time. In this essay, Soft Power has been proven to be more effective than Hard Power in two of these areas (ie. the resolutions of conflicts and the influencing of other actors using resources). Hard Power is becoming decreasingly effective in spreading one’s influence as Soft Power is becoming the more optimal choice due to the increased interdependence in our world. Many nations recognise this notion so this is why Hard Power is decreasingly used to achieve one’s aims: power is mostly not exercised through the use of force and threats.