Hard Power

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Table 2 Decisive Factors between Sharp Power and Other Powers

Source: organized by the author.

2.1 Hard Power

The development of the concept of hard power is quite unique. It is actually highlighted by the concept of soft power that will be introduced later. Originally in the theoretical framework of international political relations, a country used military and economic coercion and conciliation to force another country to surrender, is a typical model under the international realism framework and has not been given a specific term for hard power (Campbell & O’Hanlon, 2006). Later, owing to the proposition of soft power, the original typical model was relatively defined as hard power. In the 1980s, Professor Joseph Nye from Harvard University distinguished the notion of “hard power” and “soft power”

Totalitarian Regime Stifle public criticism Control the media Lead propaganda work

Non-mandatory but Active Measures

Infiltration Purchase Bribery

Civil Society Freedom of speech Normative values Credible story

Legitimation

Stimulating social support Weaken and isolate others Maintain Party hegemony

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

when he coined soft power as a new and different form of power in a sovereign state’s foreign policy (Kayhan, 2008).

The definition of “hard power” is the means of using military and economic power to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. The degree of this sort of political power is considered aggressive, coercive. However, it is the most instantly effective way when imposed by a country upon another country which with less military and economic power. It relies on power measurement by the realist school of thoughts in international relations theory.

According to Joseph Nye (2003), “hard power involves the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will.” The “carrots”

here represent the favorable actions—for instance, the reduction of trade barriers, the offer of an alliance or military protection. In contrast, “sticks” speak for threats, including military intervention, economic sanctions, or coercive diplomacy. As another American Scholar Ernest (2008, p.114) described, “hard power as the capacity to coerce another to act in ways in which that entity would do not have acted otherwise”. Therefore, hard power can be generalized as linked with the possession of certain tangible resources, such as population, territory, natural resources, economic and military strength. Hard power also remains important and crucial for a state to protect and guard its national sovereignty and independence. Hard power has always been a normal measure pertaining to the U.S.

foreign international relations. The U.S. has become a super power since the Second World War of the 20th century. Relevant cases in proof can be seen in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War confrontation. Furthermore, the Iraqi War (also known as the

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Second Persian Gulf War), the Afghanistan War, and the war on terrorism all regarded hard power as a guideline.

Since the U.S. relies too much on unilateralism, it is believed that the unilateral use of hard power means can resolve international disputes. Yet, the complexity of international issues often far exceeds the expectations of policy makers. Hard power has begun to be questioned and challenged by scholars at the end of the 1900s. According to Nye (2004), he criticized “they focus too heavily on using America’s military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft Power”. For example, the use of military force on foreign soil has been harshly criticized in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan War, and both provide a stand for the arguments that such “hard power”

approach cannot effectively succeed in fighting terrorism and nation-building. Excessive use of force may actually lead to terrorists abetting and recruiting local populations to become members of the organization. “An extra dollar spend on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar’s worth of security (Armitage & Nye, 2007, p.10)”.

Wagner (2014), also points out that “The German invasion into Poland in 1939 and the UN economic sanctions against Iraq in 1991 following the first Gulf War are examples of the use of hard power”. Furthermore, as an authoritarian regime hard power and coercion can be deployed freely at their will, while in a democratic system, they are responsible for the electorate, which means that they cannot merely wage war or compel other nations.

Although hard power capabilities are a necessary under the current international situation, it is not enough to guarantee states security. He argued that the role of soft power is much more important in helping a country from having more enemy, prevent terrorists from earning more supporters from the moderate majority. For a small country, it has less hard

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

power resources and bargaining power to put other states under pressure and negotiate. In the case of Norway, Leonard (2002) argued that when compared with hard power, “the accessibility of soft power depends much less on the size of a state”, which delivering the idea of small states have definitely the ability to build soft power. Regarding cooperation, there are difficulties in dealing with multilateral framework among states. At this point, soft power can play as an intermediate force by conveying and transmitting values to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction, as an alternative or complementary approach. In the light of Armitage (2007, p.9), “the United States should be a beacon for the rest of the world- not out of step and out of favor”.