gened proposal 1

1

Hashim Malallah

POLS 2503.002

Prof. Harris

04/29/2019

US Soft Power and security Security preferencesPreferences

Background, Identification of the Research Question and Explanation of Interest

According to Joseph Nye, Soft power is the ability to get what one wants through

attraction rather than using coercive force (Nye 2008). Soft power is the ability to shape the

preferences of others through appeal and attraction. Soft power has immensely contributed to

the maintenance of US hegemony. The basis of United States (U.S.) soft power was liberal

democratic politics, free market economics, and fundamental values such as human rights, in

essence, liberalism. Undeniably, following its win for the Cold War, the American liberalism

had unparalleled appeal around the world. It is also imperative to note that a defining feature of

soft power is that it is non-coercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and

foreign policies. Of late, soft power has been increasingly used in changing and influencing

social and public opinion through relatively less transparent channels and lobbying through

powerful political and non-political organizations (Fan, 2008). According to Nye, with soft

power, the best propaganda is not propaganda. He also asserted that credibility is the scarcest

resource during the Information Age.

Moreover, the American soft power could best be enhanced by a dramatic increase in

spending on the civilian instruments of national security, diplomacy, security, strategic

communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and

development. According to the 2016/17 Monocle Soft Power Survey ranks, the U.S was ranked

as the leading country in soft power. Although the European Union scores the highest for soft

power when considered as a whole, the U.S is however ranked the first among sovereign states.

Commented [SH1]: You are missing a clear research question in this section. I can understand that you are interested in soft power, but what is your research question of interest for the study?

Commented [SH2]: Note that in-text citation should be formatted as (Nye 2008: page #)

Commented [SH3]: Connect these two paragraphs

2

In this regard, the soft power wielded by the U.S has increased my interest in studying

the topic to understand how the soft power benefit U.S foreign policy, specifically in terms of

global security. The U.S with its soft power in particular has made many countries look upon

it, be attracted and appealed to it (Parmar, & Cox, 2010). This is the reason it has been a melting

point of different cultures drawn from immigrants. It has also increased its world engagements

with other countries through security, trade, war aids and even in humanitarian aids. This makes

it a country of interest to study its soft power and how it influences its foreign policy in regard

to national security.

Hypothesis

While there could be many research questions in relation to the U.S soft power, this

proposal will delve into the exploration of a single hypothesis: US soft power increases its

hegemony in terms of security in the international system, yet the context of shared values and

interest is crucial.

In countries like Saudi Arabia where there are several complex and historical factors

that facilitate the process of shaping interest and changing behavior it is more likely that soft

power yields positive outcome preferences in terms of security. Those outcomes include shared

defense strategies, counterterrorism, war in Yemen and oil. Saudi Arabia has been a good ally

to the US in terms of shared goals in the region and this mutual relationship is important to

achieve the desired outcomes. Oil policies also have an impact on why soft power in Saudi

Arabia might yield positive results in global security.

It is also crucial to note that the context of shared values and interest between the two

countries is imperative. Country like Iran is not expected to yield positive outcomes on security

due to soft power given the long-lasting conflict between Iran and America since the hostages’

Commented [SH4]: Through what means?

Commented [SH5]: Not sure what you mean here.

3

crisis after the Islamic revolution of 1979. A third country like Egypt that fall somewhere in

between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of security outcomes resulting from US soft power is

also essential to consider in the study. Studying such country allow us to omit other variables

that might influence security preferences other than US soft power, assuming that the US has

an interest in country like Egypt.

Expectations

Given that soft power is the ability to attract and co-opt, rather than coerce as is the case

with hard power, this study expects to reveal that the soft power has the ability to shape the

preferences of others through appeal and attraction. Being non-coercive, it is expected that soft

power with its currencies of culture and political values will greatly influence the outcome of

global security in the international system. It is also crucial to note that security influence over

the international system might be either positive or negative depending on the full context. In

countries where the US have similar or shared values it is more likely that soft power yields

more positive results than in other countries.

Definition of the Critical Concepts and Analysis

Soft power: is the national resource that can lead to a country’s ability to affect others

through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction

in order to obtain preferred outcomes.

National security: is a collective term that indicates the united states’ policies regarding

national defense and foreign relations.

International security: refer to the variety of measures taken by states and international

organizations, like, UN and EU in order to ensure mutual safety and survival.

4

Hard power: is the use of military or economic coercion to get others to change their

position (Wilson III, 2008).

Foreign policy instruments: are the forms of pressure and influence available to decision

makers that represent an ascending scale of seriousness in terms of the commitment of

resources, the impact of third parties and the degree of risk in use.

Foreign policy techniques: refer to the policy options available to decision makers

pursuing a given set of objectives.

As noted earlier, soft power is the ability to attract and co-opt, rather than coerce as is

the case with hard power. Overall, it appears that soft power strategies are more effective in the

contemporary international system than hard power strategies. Nye wrote that, when one

country gets other countries to want what it wants, this may be called co-optive or soft power,

in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants. It is all

about culture and having a national goal to “build our country into a socialist cultural

superpower in the context of soft power” (Kondo, 2019). America has always aimed to increase

its soft power, give a good American narrative, and better communicating America’s messages

to the world.

Soft power has appeared as an alternative to raw power politics and that is the reason it

is often embraced by ethically-minded scholars and policymakers. But soft power is a

descriptive rather than a normative concept. Like any form of power, it can be wielded for good

or bad purposes. While soft power can be used with bad intentions and wreak horrible

consequences, it differs in terms of means. It is on this dimension that the U.S might construct

a normative preference for greater use of soft power. This is the reason as to why the term is

now widely used in international affairs by analysts and statesmen.

Commented [SH6]: Write these as one complete paragraph. So, state something like: There are six main concepts in understanding soft power. The first is soft power, which is defined as…(provide citation). Second, is national security, which is…

5

Independent and Dependent Variables

It is notable that the topic of interest is soft power and its influence on U.S foreign policy

in terms of international security. Therefore, the independent variable in this case is soft power

which is measured by its recourses and currencies. The dependent variables on the other hand

are foreign relations, foreign policies and foreign influence, which are measured by actors’

policy outcomes, preferences, and voting in international organizations in the realm of the

international security. It is worth noting that the dependent variables are what will be

measured and affected during the study. Undeniably, the dependent variables of foreign

influence over security respond to the independent variable of soft power resources and its

applications in some countries.

Literature Review

It is imperative to note that Joseph Nye introduced the concept of soft power in the late

1980s. According to Nye, (1990), power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get

the outcomes you want. There are several ways how this can be achieved. One of these ways

is coercing them with threats. Another way is inducing them with payments. The final way is

that, a country can attract and co-opt others to want what it wants. Soft power gets other

countries to want the outcomes a country wielding the soft power wants in any given field. This

is co-opting people rather than coercing them.

It is imperative to note that soft power can be contrasted with ‘hard power’, which is the

use of coercion and payment. Hard power used to be the ultimate source of security in the global

arena. Nevertheless, the changing nature of actors’ in the international system in an era of

globalization and post-worldwar2 has a noticed shift in power resources. It however does not

mean that hard power sources have been eradicated witnessing the amount of conflict in many

Commented [SH7]: ?

Commented [SH8]: There are several DVs identified here. Which do you believe is the most important and focus on that one.

Commented [SH9]: Not sure what you mean here.

6

regions around the world. Therefore, soft power can be wielded not just by states but also by

all actors in international politics, such as NGOs or international institutions. Nye believes that

it was the “second face of power” that indirectly allows the U.S to obtain the outcomes it wants.

A country's soft power, according to Nye, rests on three resources: “its culture or in places

where it is attractive to others, its political values or when it lives up to them at home and

abroad, and its foreign policies or when others see them as legitimate and having moral

authority”.

It can best be noted that the U.S may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics

because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity

and openness and want to follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract

others in world politics, and not only to force them to change their behavior by threatening

military force or economic sanctions (Nye Jr, 2004). This soft power or getting others to want

the outcomes that the U.S wants to co-opt people rather than coerce them.

It is also imperative to note that soft power resources are the assets that produce

attraction which often leads to acquiescence. Nye asserts that, Seduction is always more

effective than coercion, and many values like global security, democracy, human rights, and

individual opportunities are deeply seductive. Further, Angelo Codevilla as noted by Khawaja,

(2006), observed that an often-overlooked essential aspect of soft power is that different parts

of populations are attracted or repelled by different things, ideas, images, or prospects. More

importantly to note is that, soft power is hindered when policies, culture, or values repel others

instead of attracting them.

Stuenkel, (2016) further argues that soft power is a more difficult instrument for

governments to wield than hard power for two reasons. Many of its critical resources are outside

the control of governments, and soft power tends to “work indirectly by shaping the

7

environment for policy”, and sometimes it takes years to produce the desired outcomes, even

in terms of global security. As noted earlier, soft power can be categorized into three broad

categories that include; culture, political values, and policies.

Moreover, Nye, (2004), reiterates that soft power is a descriptive, rather than a

normative, concept. However, soft power can be wielded for corrupt purposes. For instance,

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao just to mention a few all possessed a great deal of soft power in the eyes

of their aides, but that did not make it good. Therefore, it is not necessarily better to twist minds

than to twist arms. Soft power does not contradict the international relations theory of realism.

Overall, it can be seen that soft power is not a form of idealism or liberalism but simply a form

of power or a way of getting desired outcomes.

The success of soft power heavily depends on the actor's reputation within the

international community, as well as the flow of information between actors. Thus, soft power

is often associated with the rise of globalization and neoliberal international relations theory.

Popular culture and mass media are regularly identified as a source of soft power as is the spread

of a national language or a particular set of normative structures. Ilgen, (2016), notes that, a

nation like the U.S with a large amount of soft power inspires others to acculturate, avoiding

the need for expensive hard power expenditures. More particularly, international news is crucial

in shaping the image and reputation of foreign countries. The high prominence of the U.S in

international news, for example, has been linked to its immense soft power.

Limitations of the Soft Power

Soft power has been criticized as being ineffective. Neorealist and other rationalist

authors dismiss soft power out of hand as they assert that actors in international relations

respond to only two types of incentives: economic incentives and force. Imperatively, as a

8

concept, it can be difficult to distinguish between soft from hard power. Though military and

economic force was not used to pressure other states to join its coalition, a kind of force which

is representational force was used (Nye Jr, 2004). Therefore, this kind of force threatens the

identity of its partners, forcing them to comply or risk being labelled as evil. This being the

case, soft power is therefore not so soft. Rationalist merely see this as an implied threat, and

that direct economic or military sanctions would likely follow from being ‘against us’. In

cultural studies, the concept, soft power is often used for culture. It is however argued that soft

power cannot replace culture, but it is only a subset of culture. Additionally, the outcome of

soft power in countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea, where US culture lies pole apart from

their norms and cultures, might not be as effective as in other countries.

Research Method and Design

Soft power and its influence in U.S foreign policy in terms of global security will best

be approached through a multiple case study. Undeniably, security in foreign policy has been a

well-researched concept and as such, it has been developed greatly. One of the complications

of soft power literature is that it focuses on the influence attempt and/or the outcome of soft

power and not the capabilities (Wilson III, 2008). Both of those can be difficult to measure,

especially the agenda setting and preferences setting powers as we cannot know for sure what

lead to the changed preferences or to the renewed agenda in other countries. In this regard,

studying soft power from the international perspective will allow me to objectively scrutinize

its foreign policy outcome over security.

I will start my research with the conceptualization of soft power as a national resource

and identify the element resources. Then I will choose 3three countries of interest that I will

assume they have had experienced US soft power in some way. Countries I expect that US soft

power resources might have influenced security outcomes preferences are like, Israel and Saudi

9

Arabia. On the other hand, countries like Iran and Russia who have had a long cultural and

political struggle with the US are expected to yield negative results in security outcome

preferences in regard to US recourses. I will nevertheless restrict the study to Saudi Arabia and

Iran. Additionally, I will also choose a third swing country case that might lean either way to

test whether change in security preferences was actually due to US soft power recourses, like

Egypt.

Data Collection

There is currently only one international Soft Power Index, “THE NEW

PERSUADERSThe New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power 2010.” This was

created by Jonathan McClory with the goal in mind to study the United Kingdom’s (UK’s)

ranking in the world in terms of soft power and to find out what the UK’s strategic partner

countries are doing in soft power in relation to foreign policy (Ivanov, 2018). A dataset is not

the best means of collecting data for this project, since you are doing a set of case studies. Look

over the slides on qualitative designs and the textbook to identify how you would complete

these studies.

Conclusion on the Viability of the Qualitative Research Design/Study

In conclusion, with the aid of the multiple case study design which is the most viable

given the nature of the data which is qualitative, soft power will be measured through a

composite index or ranking. The Soft Power Index will combine a range of statistical metrics

and subjective panel scores to measure the soft power resources. The metrics will be organized

according to a framework of five sub-indices including culture, diplomacy, education,

business/innovation, and government. Although the well measure the soft power resources, this

does not translate directly into ability to influence as change in preference in the international

Commented [SH10]: Who is the third country?

10

system might be due to other reasons, specifically under the dialogue over national security.

This is a possible problem of the study that I try to solve given the complex nature of actors’ in

the international system and their unexpected behavior to survive and obtain their nations’

security.

11

References

Fan, Y. (2008). Soft power: Power of attraction or confusion? Place Branding and P

Ilgen, T. L. (Ed.). (2016). Hard power, soft power and the future of transatlantic relations.

Routledge.

Ivanov, E. V. (2018). RUSSIAN “SOFT POWER” IMPACT ON RELATIONS WITH THE

US AND THE EU. Скиф. Вопросы студенческой науки, (4 (20)).

Khawaja, I. (2006). Symposium: Angelo Codevilla's No Victory, No Peace. Reason Papers, 28,

7-18.

Kondo, D. (2019). Soft Power :( Auto) ethnography, Racial Affect, and Dramaturgical

Critique. American Quarterly, 71(1), 265-285.

Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign policy, (80), 153-171.

Nye Jr, J. S. (2004). Soft power and American foreign policy. Political science

quarterly, 119(2), 255-270.

Nye Jr, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public affairs.

Nye Jr, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of

political and social science, 616(1), 94-109.

Parmar, I., & Cox, M. (Eds.). (2010). Soft power and US foreign policy: theoretical, historical

and contemporary perspectives. Routledge.

Stuenkel, O. (2016). Do the BRICS possess soft power? Journal of Political Power, 9(3), 353

367.

Commented [SH11]: Incomplete

Commented [SH12]: Incomplete and format according to MLA, APA, or Chicago citation style.

12

Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110-124.