Soft Power: a collection of writing & posts

[davidbfpo]

A short article on the British blog Defence in Depth (UK Staff College staffers) which starts with:

One of the most troubling concepts to appear on the scene in recent years is Joseph Nye’s much-popularized notion of ‘soft power’.

Link:http://defenceindepth.co/2015/09/07/...ut-soft-power/

[Bill Moore]

Thanks for sharing the link David, there were several parts I would like to quote, but will simply quote the section below.

Most importantly, though, what can soft power actually do as an instrument of policy? When it really comes down to it, it’s unclear how it is supposed to be used. Nye himself has always been vague and slippery when asked this question, often resorting to the fall back position that hard power is still useful.

While I consider myself a realist, which is one reason I reject much of our current COIN theory, I think the concept of soft power has merit. It certainly doesn't trump hard power, and I think my now the myth of the power of non-violent revolutions to triumph over hard power is discredited. Non-violence works when the other side isn't willing to use violence to crush the non-violent movement. That can be due to soft power (the power of the ideas of the non-violent groups), or the non-violent group co-opts that country's security forces and gets them to stand on the side line. Better yet, they protect the protestors. If this doesn't happen, and the state maintains the control of their security forces and willing to employ force to the level necessary the non-violent movement will fail.

At the higher level, state to state relations, I think soft power has more of an indirect effect than a direct effect. Yet at times it can have a powerful direct effect, I recall the USSR considered our declaration on human rights as equivalent to declaring war. They were scared to death of the power of that idea. Indirectly, when other states (especially democracies) consider who they're going to partner with their people and leaders do consider the power of ideas. For example, what international system they want to live within. One defined by the USSR (or even Putin now) or China, or one generally defined by the values promoted by the U.S. and other democracies? How many allies does Russia have? Belarus? China? North Korea? That translates to a balance of power in our favor, and that is a realist theory regarding power dynamics.

While the idea is iffy, historically there does seem to be merit to it. I do agree with our friends down under, that it shouldn't justify reducing your defense spending. Soft power still requires a hard power umbrella to have the desired effect.