Concept of Soft Power - Foreign Affairs and Defence

The concept of ‘soft power’ in International Relations.

As State’s that focus on soft power as a key approach in foreign affairs and defence.



Sir Harold Nicholson’s address to the BBC on the eve of the Second World War was optimistic as it stated that ‘in a world in which no single country tried to impose its will by force the system of the balance of power would of course become unnecessary.’ (refer footnote 1) He identified that if there was an absences of the use of hard power which was synonymous with states operating within the international system, that there would no longer be a requirement for referencing balance of power when referring to the international system or international order. This optimistic outlook taken by Sir Nicholson was turned around in 1958 when he conducted an address at Chatham House where he stated ‘ I shall always regard the balance of power as the best method, short of world government or an effective league of nations, of avoiding a major war.’ (refer footnote 2) ‘The major powers did not effectively employ diplomacy ensuring the discerning of objectives that each would accept and providing restraints on their own power, a requirement of such action that is expected in return. As peace can only endure after conflict if all the major players find it preferable to another war.’ (refer footnote 3) With the inability of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War and the natural tendency of states to assume power over weaker or competing states, stability is questioned resulting in conflict that could only be prevented through application of mechanisms gauging the deterioration of stability. These mechanisms being the balance of power or implementation of internationally recognized institutions, regulations and procedures that deals directly with the states and with the maintenance of stability and security. The balance of power is reflective of stable security, especially within a bipolar international system as was evident post the Second World War with the resultant Cold War. Within a multipolar international system, the system best representing the post Cold War era, the maintenance of stability is difficult to assess and maintain when the balance of power is reflective more of a states pursuit of their national interests as opposed to the pursuit of increase in power. States have pursued their national interests through a combination of both soft and hard power, the use of military and economic support to public diplomacy since the early 1800s.

In this paper, it is intended to identify how states have used soft power as a key approach in foreign affairs and the defence of their state and their national interests. This can only be achieved by defining the concept of soft power, drawing on the comprehensive work conducted by Joseph Nye on the concept of soft power but identifying further that defining a tool of statecraft and diplomacy as either a hard or soft power mechanism is only able to be achieved if it is known the intend behind the use of such a tool. Joseph Nye emphasized public diplomacy, and the advancement of cultural exchanges as being the dominant tools of soft power. I argue that the historically represented hard power tools, the military and the economic might of a state can also if applied correctly and efficiently by the state can be considered as tools of soft power that can in this context be used within the international system for the maintenance of a stable international order and for the advancement of a state’s foreign affairs and defence of its national interests. To effectively show how states have employed soft power since the 1800s it is necessary to consider the international systems that they were operating in and drawing on international relations theory, to place context on the avenues chosen by such states for this employment of soft power their advancement. It is important to note that the use of soft power is not in isolation to the use of hard power as both mechanism complement each other for the advancement of the states national interests within the international system.

The pursuit of national interests sees states pursuing a dynamic approach to interaction within the international system, reflective of an interdependence approach, with many acquiring alliances, allegiances or economic relationships with diverse recipient states as well as appealing to the recipient states with increase knowledge being provided of their culture and values utilizing government institutions, embassies, offering cultural exchanges and encouraging multinational corporations to gain access to foreign markets and consumers. To impose the will or national interest of a state only by force or the use of hard power, a realist approach to international relations, implies military action whether in the form of an act of war or simply increase in arms by a state that could be perceived as a threat to an opposing states security. An example provided by Derek Drinkwater clearly articulates this ‘by referring to the relationship between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy. If Germany is sufficiently armed to feel secure, then Great Britain must feel insecure, if France has sufficient war material to feel at ease, then Italy cannot feel at ease.’ (refer footnote 4) To impose will without being perceived as a threat to another state takes more effort, analysis, cooperation and flexibility by a state to ensure that other states do not take intervention that could impede its pursuit of advancing its national interests in such a form that is more reflective of an Idealist approach to international relations. The balance of power as previously articulated by Sir Nicholson would become unnecessary as it would be difficult to measure and would appear fluid in application. A state strong militarily may be weak economically and as such an ineffective player in international relations. Its ability to project its culture and values would be impeded. The state would be unable to impose its will by force without preliminary ground work, negotiations, mediation, development of alliances and allies in a neutral environment, developing financial support, offering either rewards or concessions, identifying weaknesses and strength in relation to their fellow state’s stance in such areas, each of which are mechanisms of soft power alongside the more traditions forms associated with public diplomacy, would be met with maximum obstruction from other states and would unlikely be able to conduct its intended operation.

Power and the way states pursue power is interpreted differently by different states based on their social architecture, ideology, historical and political experiences and their economic stability. Their idea of power and how to gain it is usually reflective of their experiences, knowledge and perceived experience of other states successes. To define power or a tool employed by the state as either hard or soft is quite difficult unless the intent of its use is clearly articulated by the state employing it and it is known what the reflective response of recipient states to this employment of a tool of power is clearly defined. A states power base historically is reflective of its military might; consisting of the military order of battle, the sophistication of its armaments inclusive of quantitative representation of its weapons and ammunition, if it is self reliant or dependent on an ally for the acquisition of current and future armaments, the size of its military inclusive of personnel numbers and their capability which is reflective of their training and experience. Historically, the state’s power base is also reflective of its economic stance within the international system. This is determined by its independent financial status reflective of it being able to meet the needs of its constituents by providing adequate natural resources, food items, technology, social services for internal use and for export to provide sufficient income to ensure that the state is able to advance itself within the international system. The size and location of the state can also influence the power base of the state. A land locked state that has limited access to natural resources with limited transportation systems would have a lower power base than a state that has access to maritime resources and a diverse range of transportation systems. An example would be the comparison of Singapore to Laos with Laos having limited transportation systems and being landlocked does not have the same power stance within the international community as does Singapore, a state that has gained significantly in power within the international system by being a transport hub. The size and nationality of the population also influences the power experienced by the state. If the state has a large population as opposed to a small population, the power is increased. Similarly if stability can be maintained within the state as opposed to a state plagued by internal conflict or secessionist movements, whether they be ideology or religious based is likely to have a higher power base. The pursuit of alliances, allies or alignments along with the pursuit of scientific knowledge and technological innovation held by the state influences the states power base. Which of these conditions is defined as a states hard or soft power depends on how they are actually employed by the state within the international system and what a state perceives as its national interest for advancement within the international system as well as the effect it desires to pursue by the use of this power on the international order. The use of public diplomacy to reference or advance these conditions within the international system assist the condition in being defined as soft power. Soft power as defined by Joseph Nye is attractive power, ‘he defines it being more than just persuasion, influence or the ability to move people by argument. He sees it as the ability to attract, and attraction leads to acquiescence. In terms of resources, soft power resources are the assets that produce such attraction and are not limited to culture or commercial goods.’(refer footnote 5) Military, culture, economics, political and lifestyles is representative of commercial goods for a modern culture, can provide reasons for attractiveness. Soft power and the active pursuit of the use of soft power opens up the form in which a state may wish to advance its national interests providing an attractive asset for inter-state interaction and cooperation. Effective means for the employment of soft power is active pursuit of public diplomacy, transfer of culture, embracing a common language or marketing cultural icons. China has been effective in advancing its national interests by pursuing such soft power. It has marketed itself within Africa by providing ‘aid for state development, aligned itself to values of non interference with African domestic issues and non strings attached financial and technical aid, the Beijing Consensus, and provided scholarships for over 1500 African students, creating enduring bonds between Chinese and African students.’(refer footnote 6)

The military and economic might of the state, which historically were synonymous with hard power and key assets for the defence of the state and its national interests, have been utilized by many states during peacetime for advancement as a tool of soft power alongside public diplomacy by diversifying their function. The success of such use is evinced for the military might by the increase or maintenance of the levels of military expenditures which has not resulted in a global conventional war, increase in inter state military exercises and for the economic might, increase in tourist trade on a global scale and the general adoption of improved standards of living in developing as well as developed countries through either domestic or international initiatives and provision of economic aid. Nye’s reference to soft power and the employment of soft power within world politics can be considered as representative of a constructivists view of international relations where ‘for example, it posits that the reality provided by the use of soft power results in the construction of signs and symbols of a language that socially construct the world through communication and conversation, permits states to reach intersubjective agreements about their contours and dynamics.’ (refer footnote 7) The current war in the Middle East sees the battle being played physically on the ground, the use of military as hard power and a battle within the media, the use of soft power where competing networks representing different national views are portraying different wars for the advancement of state and cultural initiatives. Nye noted that historically ‘military and economic might, were historically associated with hard power as they were used either as inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks) as opposed to attracting opinion or desire to assimilate.’(refer footnote 8) He identified that the ability of the United States to employ film and television to show to the world a culture originally only associated with dreams and desire to many populations was an effective use of soft power but this effect was only able to be achieved by the previous use of their military and economic might, the employment of hard power, which has not been recognized by Nye in his writings. Similarly other states have taken on this medium for transmission of culture, effectively using soft power to advance their causes and national interests both domestically and internationally. An example further to the referenced for the Middle East conflict is India. India has placed considerable investment in their film industry resulting in an increase in attractiveness of the Bollywood films currently being produced for both domestic and international consumption. As highlighted, military today can be a mechanism of either hard power or soft power, dependent on the employment associated by the using state and the appeal demonstrated both domestically and internationally to such an institution. The role of the military has developed significantly since the end of the Cold War where many states have employed the military for both domestic and international humanitarian and natural disaster relief or peacekeeping, increasing the attractiveness for both the state and military, evident by the ever-increasing military strength of states and the diverse roles being pursued for the employment of such services. Developments within military technology being transferred to developments for the civilian sector, sonar technology transferring directly to ultrasound technology used by pregnant mothers, and the military offering an alternative form of employment for states dealing with high unemployment levels has also increased the attractiveness of military services. Constituents can join the military for short periods of time and gain a trade or professional qualification that they can then use within the civilian sector after providing a period of service to the state without providing an economical burden for the period of their training. States that pursue economic aid to advance their national interests abroad as with Japan, the United States, Britain, China and the European Union are also using economic might as a soft power as it not only influences the recipient state but provides an avenue for attractiveness to the moral authority of the donating state. Similarly the provision of military aid post the Iraq war by Japan and European states as apart of state development programs has had the same effect by employing the military as a soft power resource or the provision of military assistance with facilitating peace negotiations for civil unrest, Norway assisting Sri Lanka’s issue with the civil unrest associated with the Tamil Tigers movement for self-determinations is an example of such a provision. In this light soft power is not restricted to cultural tools or mechanisms as discussed by some scholars of international relations.

Within international relations, the concern is not whether the state has hard or soft power but how the state uses its power within the international system to ensure its survivability, advance its national interests without bringing into question the security of another state which is reflective of power being employed as soft as opposed to hard power. A state is able to pursue advancement of its national interests via a soft power approach by encouraging cooperation via mechanisms of public diplomacy, negotiation and diplomacy, either state-to-state, state to international organizations or within the guise of a regional or international organization. It can also be achieved via the advancement of trade with other states that is equitable and in the interest of both states, providing support for the advancement of basic services as with education, supporting or enhancing NGO’s and multinational corporations in being able to provide basic services either domestically or internationally, offering of concessions in one area for advancement in another of mutual interest to more than one state and by providing economic incentives for developments or changes in a states administration that is reflective of recognized international ideals. Along with states pursuing the development of cultural exchanges and development of lasting relationships between societies and states.

In referencing societies, Barry Buzan, Professor of international relations sees society as a system with a form of order. He sees it as a system, sustained by the efforts of states engaging in a form of power play, whether it be hard or soft power play, that pursue functional or contractual relationships reflective of the common interests through the formation of institutions that enforce rules and norms amongst their members limiting the sovereignty of the state and regulating the cultural or social identity. He reiterates that as the international system moves towards a global civil society states begin to function as one with a common cultural bond. There is a movement towards the use of soft power being the more dominant power for foreign affairs and defence, however hard power is maintained by each state. The system moves from the use of hard power to soft power in the form of ‘increased dialogue between states and the consent to common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relation, recognizing their common interests in maintaining these arrangements’(refer footnote 9) is employed by each state to keep the international system developing and ensuring that a stable international order is maintained and the national interests of each state are met within reason. An increase in dialogue can be at either the state level, via military or industry cooperation or the movement of multinational corporations into the international system providing a sense of order which distinguishes a society from that of a mere system. A states application of power within the international system, whether it be hard power or soft power that is chosen, is dependent on whether the system is either a unipolar, bipolar or multipolar system. The maintenance of power in a unipolar system is dependent on maintenance of popular support that can only be achieved through the application of soft power, power of persuasion, negotiation, virtue of collective leaders and appeasement for ethical issues. It is easy to achieve power in the short term but very difficult to maintain for the long term unless mechanisms of soft power are employed and embedded in the international system. Something that ‘Otto Von Bismarch understood and applied for the successful unification of the German Empire in the early 1800s and something that was unable to be achieved by Napoleon Bonaparte in his efforts to establish a long-lived European peace based on French hegemony’ for the same period. “Since the rule of an annexed province calls for strong action and the use of force, something only a conqueror who is massive with arms can sustain, it can never be advisable to acquire dominion over subjects before first having made friends who can contribute to ones power and use methods reflective of current values and norms that can be considered as acceptable.”(refer footnote 10) The United States with its current over stretch associated with its war on terrorism and associated activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, maintenance of a military presence in both Germany and Korea, military cooperation arrangements with Asia and Europe as well as providing military assistance to domestic and global environmental and humanitarian situations is grappling with the challenges associated with being and maintaining the status of being the only super power. Militarily it maintains this status; economically it is only able to function on the same level as other economically powerful states. Resulting in it relying on public diplomacy to further its foreign affairs and defence and the attractiveness of such foreign affairs and defence. It has been a relatively short period since the end of the Cold War and the establishment of a unipolar system identifying the United States as the only military super power that due to its limited economic power in relation to other powerful economic states is seeing its military super power status and efforts of public diplomacy declining in parallel. A parallel can be made to the 14th and 15th century where the Roman and Florentine Empires, although not world dominating, were considered quite powerful empires in their own right. Referring to the scholarly writings of Plato and Petrarch, both were reflective of a unipolar system where they appealed to the employment of soft power, encouraged virtuous action and deterred wickedness that shaped ethical values. They had ‘appealed to the basic assumption that the political virtues of justice, prudence fortitude, temperance was necessary for the creation of a stable political environment and would ensure that the most vicious of tyrants would yield to this persuasive power of virtue.’(refer footnote 12) The period of time that they were able to maintain Empire status for was reflective of their employment of soft power vice the adherence to the employment of hard power.

The bipolar system, the most stable of the three systems is usually maintained by the employment of hard power and the movement towards sub servant states being played, or playing the super powers for the advancement of national interests within the international system. The Cold War, reflective of a bipolar system maintained stability within the international system for the duration of its existence by sub servant states adopting both hard and soft power mechanisms to pursue their national interests as a counter to the effects of the hard power mechanisms employed by the superpowers. The stability was only challenged during the period by the Cuban crisis, a direct super power to super power employment of hard power mechanisms, and it was only via the employment of soft power, the opening of dialogue that stability could be reestablished and maintained. It was also a period where states, as with Egypt, that were regarded as relatively weak in comparison to the super powers were able to manipulate the system by pursuing a form of soft power to play the super powers against each other advancing its national interests as well as challenging the stability of the international system. Egypt under the leadership of Nasser had achieved major success by playing the super powers, the Soviet Union and the United States against one another during the time of the Aswan Dam Project. Nasser placed a significant amount of analytical thought into the track required to be followed to achieve the desired outcome and had used diplomacy, a form of soft power to negotiate between the two powers for the best possible solution for Egypt’s national interests. This was done to ensure that the financing acquired for the project did not result in a dependency relationship associated with large foreign investment of such development projects restricting the overall influence able to be utilized by such powers. Nasser identified that the longer his reaction stands the more difficult to reverse it, especially by the use of force, hard power, by Great Britain, France and the United States. Hard Power was used as a result of Nasser nationalizing the Suez Canal, a retaliation action pursued by Nasser to the United States withdrawing from financial obligations for the Dam project and leaving the only support available to be from Russia stepping into provides the necessary financing. ‘War resulted with Great Britain, France and Israel forces moving against Egypt, a reaction that was condemned by the United States, influenced by Russia vetoing the agreements made through negotiation to pass through the Security Council as well as increasing the provision of arms to the Middle East. This hostility was later removed by actions taken by the United Nations.’ (refer footnote 13) Nasser’s use of soft power, notably time and diplomacy in an attempt to prevent further influence being open to external powers on his state resulted in the short term in war but in the long term removed the potential for a dependency relationship developing with a super power. He managed to maintain autonomy and scope for further negotiation with either Powers. It did however identify that such actions would elicit different responses from the superpowers, placing Egypt in good stead for future negotiations with such powers. ‘It highlighted that applying pressure to the United States generally elicited protestations of good faith and efforts to alleviate the stated grievances, where as applying pressure to the Soviet Union could be risky and resulted in counter pressure.’ (refer footnote 14)

The decline in the United States status as the only super power has seen the rise in the employment of mechanisms of soft and hard power utilized by othr states resulting in a movement towards a multipolar system with Russia, the European Union, Britain, China, and India establishing dominant roles alongside the United States within the international system for the maintenance of a stable international order. The multipolar system, a system where by stability of the international system is maintained through the use of both hard and soft power through a degree of interdependence relationships between states, institutions and corporations. The states actively pursuing a common interest for their national interests via state-to-state interaction or via international organizations, which in joining can be considered as the pursuit of soft power is reflective of state and constituent interaction and the power that can be exerted by the people which are influenced by the wider global society. This pursuit, although considering domestic influence is to maintain legitimacy and support with their constituents ensuring internal stability and the fostering of stable foreign relationships and defence of the state public institution that is the governing body. ‘Reflective of personal political survival of domestic politics rather than the survival of the state within the international system, considering the democracy and interdependence nature of the international world, domestic politics have the potential to be played out on the international stage affecting the defence of the state from external influences and the stability of the international system.’ (refer footnote 15) For Cuba the application of soft power in international affairs to have an economic war, mechanism of hard power, reevaluated proved to be successful. Cuba, even though plagued by a US economic war and resultant blockade inclusive of food and medicine items was able in 2000 to exert in the form of soft power pressure to have the blockade reexamined by granting 500 scholarships annually to young Americans from low-income families to study medicine free of charge in Cuba. The scholarships were aimed at minority groups within the United States, Afro-Americans and Latinos that faced hardships in living conditions, reflective of third world countries. The scholarships were offered worldwide with recipients being from the United States and coming from many third world states reaching as far as Africa. This placed a moral dilemma on the United States administration that could not be fought via the employment of hard or soft power mechanisms, resulting in the easing of trade sanctions in the area of food and medicine for Cuba. A mechanism of Hard Power that had been in place for a considerable time by the United States was reevaluated by the pursuit and employment of a mechanism of soft power by Cuba that influenced the opinions of societies within the United States. The cooperation provided through the provision of scholarships for the training of doctors to those that could not necessarily have afforded it or received indigenous state funds for the provision of such training proved to be a valuable and successful form of public diplomacy for Cuba.

Many post modernist scholars of international relations have reiterated the identification of domestic politics taking on an international presence and becoming a major factor in international relations and the need of state leaders to employ soft power and public diplomacy within a national context to ensure survivability and as a counter to the soft power generated within the society that is based on values, culture and ideology. Donald Puchala identified that ‘in the post Cold War world of international politics, the international system would be influenced by states reacting to domestically generated events abroad amplified and echoed via networks of interdependence, and states reacting to social, economic, demographic and physical movements where international relations, particularly in political mode are still about values. The values in question being identity, justice, equity, autonomy, security and more, usually embedded in ideologies and acted upon by protectors and projectors.’ (refer footnote 16) The provision of medical training to the under privileged United States constituents, provided grounds for a domestic issue; education, to be used within an international contexts for Cuba to gain support and make advances in its international affairs.

Soft Power in international relations has been employed by states regularly for the maintenance of a stable international order, a balance of power in approaching their foreign affairs relations and maintaining defense of their national interest. Germany, Japan, Egypt and Cuba are four states that have during history focused on the use of soft power to advance their state and the states national interests. America, France and Britain known for their employment of soft power, attractive power, in foreign policy over the years, especially since the end of the Cold War, has seen many changes in the balance of power within international relations. The international system itself is a mechanism of soft power for societies and populations to wield power, soft power to induce change either domestically or internationally. ‘As states develop, their societies go through a transformation, move from being traditional agrarian societies to middle-class industrial societies that influence political transformations, usually the degeneration of traditional authoritarian regimes to be replaced by a democratic system. The international system that facilitated social transformation and economic development provided the basis of soft power, people power that was able to transform the political institution of a state. A form of soft power that can only be countered by a state employing effectively and efficiently in a timely manner soft power to prevent such action as opposed to hard power that would only delay such a transformation.’(refer footnote 17) The United States has been able to ‘shape the desires of other cultures based on the attractiveness of their own culture and values and by being able to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preference because they seem to be too unrealistic.’ (refer footnote 18) Germany post World War II and the movement towards civilian power as opposed to military advancement was reflective of United States and European foreign policy being easily accepted by a population that was still feeling the effects of the wartime suffering. For West Germany this was most notable during the post war period where civilian power was at the forefront of their foreign policy agenda. ‘Its particular form of foreign policy identity, or role of concept promoted multilateralism, institution building and supranational integration and tried to constrain the use of force in international relations through national and international norms. This strategy taken by West Germany contributed enormously to the dynamic stability of an international order economically, politically and thru its security policies which have only recently been adapted to reflect the international norms placed on states post the September 11 terrorist attacks.’ (refer footnote 19) The civilian power status attributed to Germany was the result of circumstances, the emergence of cooperation, identification that economic advancement was more important than the development of power and that integration instead of autonomy, forfeiting aspects of sovereignty would provide a better platform for a reemergence within the international system and assist with pursuing national interests whilst still maintaining a stable international order. This was a significant change for Germany, to be flexing soft power as opposed to hard power, reflective of the idealist approach to foreign policy development as opposed to the traditional realist approach of its prewar realpolitik days where pursuit of power via conflict or competition as opposed to cooperation equaled the pursuit of its national interests. ‘The preference for Germany became political compromise over military force and cooperation over coercion.’(refer footnote 20)

Similar to Germany, Japan has been characterized as a civilian power that has pursued avenues other than military force to advance its national interests within the international system. It has an extensive Official Development Assistance (ODA) program, providing assistance to many Asian states along with extensive economic and technical cooperation programs. The ODA program is ‘on of the most valuable instruments to Japan’s foreign policy, helping to compensate for Japan’s limited direct-security contributions. From 1991 – 2000 Japan was the largest aid donor globally to developing countries.’(refer footnote 21) Japan has a strong and technically advanced Self Defence Force that is considered as a soft power as it is function is only for defence but is supported by the United States Defence Force through bilateral arrangements that is a hard power. Its ‘security policy since WWII has constrained this policy to be reflective of anti-military political culture determining nature to security and foreign policy. Alternative to Germany, it has been slow to redefine its role in international security due to its political culture of constitutional pacifism, the limited number of multilateral institutions in Asia for Japan to participate in and an inability to overcome the burden to history based on bitter colonial experiences.’ (refer footnote 22) ‘Japan is the largest source of ODA to South Asia and continues to increase as other sources of ODA for the region are shrinking or being diverted to other areas, such as Eastern Europe, guaranteeing for Japan an avenue for foreign policy projection, cultural exchanges, economic cooperation and advancement of its national interest within a region dominated by developing states.’ (refer footnote 23)


The application of power whether it be soft or hard power, within international relations is subject to legitimacy. Legitimacy within the international political order can only be owned by a sovereign state exercising its right to self-determination. Legitimacy cannot be transposed to multinational corporations or Non Government Organisation, although these institutions may be seen as influential to state decision-making due to their own economic power and power within civil society. ‘Legitimacy can transform a simple exercise of power into a system of authority. Compliance to a state’s power can be secured in the absence of legitimacy but only at a price. The structure of power is a complex mix of strategic bipolarity (today strategic multipolarity), nuclear multipolarity and political and economic diffusion of power and influence.’ (refer footnote 24) The establishment of the MFO in the Sinai was legitimized by the fact that it was an international force, consisting of United States, Egypt and Israeli forces supported by members of the UN exercising their soft power, even though its establishment was not UN sanctioned. Within the political and economic diffusion of power and influence are mechanisms employed under the guise of soft power that have hard power backing being the political and associated military institutions themselves and the economic might of the state or the power associated with an allied state. Japan, noted as a state that employs soft power in international relations through its ODA and cultural exchange programs and the maintenance of a Self Defence Force that is not employed in conventional warfare or peacekeeping operations has the backing of its ally the United States that is known for employing both hard and soft power within the international system for the advancement of its national interests and maintenance of a stable international order. Soft power mechanisms are difficult to define and are case dependent as to whether they are to be defined as either soft or hard power. The desired and perceived effects of how they are employed determine how such mechanisms are defined. Within the international system ‘authority and power are used to distinguish each other in the exercise of influence.’(refer footnote 25) Historically states and later the formation of state based international organizations have had the authority and power to influence decisions made or actions taken within other states. Today with globalization, the movement of multinational corporations into influential positions, decisions being made or actions taken by states have been influenced by a complex web of international actors that although had the power to influence did not necessarily have the authority. These actors are not considered by states as key mechanisms for official deployment in matters relating to foreign affairs and the defence of the state but are only considered as supporting mechanisms to state diplomacy and actions within the international system for the maintenance of international order. The affects of such decision making, emphasis on the use of tools; military, political, economical and cultural, available to the state being used as soft power mechanisms as a key approach in foreign affairs and defence has changed the balance of the international system providing different avenues for states to pursue their national interests and has called for the redefining of the state administrative system ensuring that a state’s sovereignty and ultimately a stable international order can be induced and maintained ensuring that a non violent solution is reached as an alternative to conflict.

Footnotes

1 Derek Drinkwater, 2005. Sir Harold Nicolson and International Relations: The Practitioner as Theorist. Oxford univ Press, Oxford. p. 76.
2 Drinkwater, loc. cit.
3 Frederick Kagan, 2005. Power and Persuasion. Wilson Quarterly,29 (3), p. 57.
4 Drinkwater, loc. cit.
5 Joseph Nye. 2004. Soft Power: The means to success in World Politics. Public Affairs, New York. p.6.
6 Drew Thompson, 2005. China’s Soft Power in Africa: From the ‘Beijing Consensus’ to Health Diplomacy, Asia Media: Media News Today.
7 Donald Puchala. 2004. Theory and History in International Relations. Routledge, New York. p. 220.
8 Nye, 2004. Op. cit., p. 8.
9 Barry Buzan, 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge. p. 37.
10 Frederick Kagan identified that both diplomats were quite skilful with the art of employing public diplomacy, stating that Bismarch understood the principles of Diplomacy better than any other statesman of modern times. He identified that Bonaparte’s failings could be attributed to being unable to define a goal for himself that the rest of Europe would find acceptable and using aggressive tactics that were not reflective of European values.
11 Mikael Hornqvist, 2004. Machiavelli and Empire. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge. p. 135.
12 ibid., p. 20.
13 Henry Kissenger. 1994. Diplomacy. 1994. Touchstone, New York. p.531.
14 ibid., p. 546.
15 Robert Jackson. 1990. Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge Univ Press, Melksham. p. 167.
16 Puchala, op. cit., p. 216.
17 ibid., p. 198.
18 Nye, op. cit., p.7.
19 Saori Katada, W Hanns & Takashi Inoguchi. 2004. Global Governance: Germany and Japan in the International System. Ashgate Pub Ltd, England. p. 89.
20 Katada, Maull & Inoguchi. op. cit.
21 Charles Morrison. 2003. Asia Pacific Security Outlook 2003. Japan Center for International Exchange, Tokyo. p. 86.
22 Katada, Maull & Inoguchi. op. cit., p. 112.
23 S. P. Gupta, Seizabro Sato & R. L. Chawla. 1994. Cooperation for Growth: Perspective on Japan-South Asia Relations. Macmillan India Ltd, Bangalore. p. 105.
24 Ramesh Thakur. 1987. International Peacekeeping in Lebanon: United Nations Authority and Multinational Force. Westview Press Inc, Boulder. p. 145.
25 ibid., p. 148.


Bibliography


Armstrong, David. Lloyd, Lorna & Redmond, John. From Versailles to Maastricht: International Organisation in the Twentieth Century. Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Armstrong, David, Lloyd, Lorna & Redmond, John. [1982]2004. International Organisation in World Politics 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bobbio, Norberto. 1989. Democracy and Dictatorship: The nature and limits of State Power. Trans Peter Kennealy. Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press.

Brown, Michael. Lynn-Jones, Sean. & Miller, Steven E. 1995. The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. London: The Mit Press.

Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Chapin, Peter. 2006. Soft Power and Public Diplomacy. Japan Foundation center for Global Partnership, Japan. [Online]. Available: http://www.cgp.org/popups/articleswindow.php?articleid=314. [2006, August 06]

Daniel, Kate. 2005. SBS World Guide: The complete fact file on every country. 13th Ed. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.

Drinkwater, Derek. 2005. Sir Harold Nicolson and International Relations: The Practitioner as Theorist. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Frederick, Kagan. W. 2005. Power and Persuasion. Wilson Quarterly. Summer 2005, Vol29 Issue3, 57-65. [Online]. Available: http://web6.epnet.com [2006, July 31].

Freedman, Lawrence. [1998] 2003. Strategic Coercion: Concepts and Cases. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Gupta, S. P., Sato, Seizabro. & Chawla, R.L. 1994. Cooperation for Growth: Perspective on Japan – South Asia Relations. Bangalore: Macmillan India Ltd.

Heraclides, Alexis. 1991. The Self determination of Minorities in International Politics. London: Frank Cass.

Holsti, K.J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Hornqvist, Mikael. 2004. Machiavelli and Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Isakovic, Zlatko. 2000. Introduction to a Theory of Political Power in International Relations. England: Ashgate Publishing

Jackson, Robert. H. 2000. The Global Covenant. Human conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Jackson, Robert, H. 1990. Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International relations and the Third World. Melksham: Cambridge Univ Press.

Johnsson, Christer & Hall, Martin. 2005. Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Katada, Saori N, Maull, Hanns W and Inoguchi, Takashi. 2004. Global Governance: Germany and Japan in the International System. England: Ashgate Pub Ltd.

Kegley, Charles Jr, and Eugene Wittkopf. World Politics: Trends and Transformation. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Kegley, Charles Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond. 2002 Exorcising the Ghost of Westphalia: Building World Order in the New Millennium, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kissenger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone.

Mansbach, Richard W. & Rhodes, Edward J. 2003, Global Politics in a changing World. 2nd Ed.Boston: Mifflin.

Moon, Jeremy, and Bruce Stone. 2002. Power and Freedom in Modern Politics. Crawley: Univ of Western Australia Press.

Morgenthau, Hans. & Thompson, Kenneth W. [1948] 1985. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 6th Ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Morland, Dave. & Cowling, Mark. 2004. Political Issues for the Twenty-First Century. Hants: Ashgate Pub Ltd.

Morrison, Charles E. 2003. Asia Pacific Security Outlook 2003. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.

Nye, Joseph S. JR. 2004. Soft Power: The means to success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Pollard, Vincent. K. 2004. Globalisation, Democratisation and Asian Leadership: Power Sharing, Foreign Policy and Asian Leadership. Hants: Ashgate Pub Ltd.

Puchala, Donald. J. 2003. Theory & History in International Relations. New York: Routledge.

Shepard, Paul. 2000, June 4. Castro offers free medical training for US students from poor areas. Independent.[online]. Availability: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060400-01.htm/ [2006, May 29].

Thakur, Ramesh. 1987. International Peacekeeping in Lebanon: United nations Authority and Multinational Force. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc.

Thompson, Drew. 2005, October 13. China’s Soft Power in Africa: From the Beijing Consensus to Health Diplomacy. Asia Media: Media News Daily. [Online]. Available: http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=32003.

Vital, David. 1967. The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. London: Oxford Univ Press.

Watson, Adam. [1982]1984. Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States. London: Routledge.