hard power is more significant than soft power Flashcards
LOA
No
Introduction → key definitions
hard power → coercive measures, involving military force + economic sanctions to compel others to act in ways they otherwise would not. Tangible resources e.g. military strength + economic leverage.
Soft power → ability to shape the preferences + opinions of others through appeal + attraction rather than coercion. Relies of cultural influence, diplomacy + moral authority to achieve influence without force.
What are the three debate themes?
- Upholding international norms
- Achieving a state’s aims
- Gaining support from citizens
How is the EU an example of this?
EU → economic incentives + promotes shared European values (encourage nations to strengthen democratic institutions + align with international human rights standards).
Prior to Russia’s invasion, EU provided financial aid + institutional support to Ukraine via the Association agreement. This support encouraged judicial reforms and anti-corruption measures. Ukraine was incentivised to do so - motivated by the prospect of potential future EU membership.
How is the AU an example of this?
AU → employs soft power to promote peace + democracy in Africa e.g. employing election observers + mediating political conflicts (2020 political crisis in Mali).
Focuses on African unity and shared regional interests to foster cooperation and stability without military intervention.
How is soft power better than hard power when it comes to upholding international norms?
Hard power often backfires and leads to LT negative consequences
Example: US attempted to impose democracy via military force in Afghanistan and Iraq → failed.
P1: Upholding international norms
For →
Hard power is now more important than soft power → only way to defend democracy + HR when faced with rogue states that ignore diplomacy.
Give examples of hard power being used to uphold international norms
Russian invasion of Ukraine → The EU, UK + US supported Ukraine with military aid, funding, and sanctions. This hard power response helped Ukraine resist Russia for over two years. The EU imposed harsh sanctions on Russia, targeting banks, energy exports, and Putin’s allies. In 2022 alone, the West gave over $60 billion in military, humanitarian, and financial support to Ukraine.
Iran’s nuclear threat → Iran’s nuclear programme threatened global security. While Obama and Biden pushed diplomacy through the Iran Deal (JCPOA), Trump and Netanyahu favoured hard power. Trump left the deal in 2018 and reimposed harsh sanctions on Iran’s economy to force renegotiation. Israel, seeing Iran as a major threat, used covert airstrikes and assassinations to block its nuclear progress.
P2: Achieving a state’s aims
Against → Soft power enhances a states global reputation and legitimacy
Soft power helps states achieve their goals by boosting global reputation and legitimacy, unlike hard power which often causes backlash + limits a country’s LT influence.
Soft power builds a state’s image as moral and cooperative, increasing influence in global decisions.
Examples:
Norway uses diplomacy to gain influence, e.g. mediating the Oslo Accords and conflicts in Sri Lanka, Colombia, and South Sudan.
For superpowers, culture spreads values — e.g. Hollywood promotes U.S. ideals like freedom and democracy worldwide.
China used the 2008 Beijing Olympics to boost its global image and show its rise as a major power.
Hard power can erode a states legitimacy and its harm reputation, causing accusations of imperialism and human rights abuses.
Example: Israel’s global legitimacy declined after killing over 40,000 in Gaza, with even European leaders criticising Netanyahu.
P2: Achieving a state’s aims
For → Hard power can lead to immediate results for a state even if its actions are unpopular
Hard power is seen as more significant today because states want fast results, even if it harms their long-term reputation.
Many states justify using hard power by pointing to past US actions, like human rights abuses and the 2003 Iraq invasion based on false claims.
Hard power is effective for quickly achieving goals like territory expansion or regime change when diplomacy fails.
Example: Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine aimed to overthrow the government, seize territory, and block Ukraine’s ties with NATO and the EU. Putin couldn’t achieve this through soft power, so he used military force unexpectedly. Russia also used economic power by cutting gas to countries supporting Ukraine (e.g. Germany, Poland), causing an energy crisis across Europe.
P3: Gaining support from citizens
Against → soft power is less costly and controversial in domestic politics
Hard power often carries high risks and costs, both economically and domestically, making it less appealing.
Military interventions + sanctions can lead to suffering and backlash, both in the targeted state and the initiating country.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq resulted in high civilian casualties, long-term instability, and a $2 trillion cost, leading to public criticism and contributing to the Democrats’ 2008 electoral victories.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also shows the risks of hard power, with a drawn-out conflict causing over 70,000 Russian soldier deaths.
In contrast, soft power (like Japan’s cultural exports, such as anime and manga) promotes national interests without the same financial and human costs, boosting the economy and global relationships.
P3: Gaining support from citizens
For → Hard power is vital for providing deterrence and security
An argument for hard power’s significance is its role in providing deterrence and security, which are top priorities for any state and its citizens.
Hard power, like military or economic strength, deters aggression by raising the cost of potential attacks.
NATO’s collective defence, supported by the military power and nuclear capabilities of the U.S., France, and the UK, deters attacks on smaller European countries.
Israel’s strong defence systems and alliances, particularly with the U.S., deter neighbouring states from launching military action.
Hard power creates a security buffer that soft power cannot, as cultural or diplomatic influence alone can’t protect states from external threats.
Overall argument
Both soft and hard power are important in global politics.
States should combine both through ‘smart power’ to achieve goals and uphold international norms.
However, with rising global conflicts and military assertiveness, hard power is more significant.
Hard power is necessary to deter threats and respond with equal force to uphold international norms.
