What is Soft Power and H ow do Countries U se I t?

1. What is Soft Power and How do Countries Use It? By JuditTrunkos PhD Student at The University of South Carolina trunkos@email.sc.edu Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

2. Ideology Realism • Power is the core concept • States are the actors • National security is the most important international agenda • States behave rationally Liberalism • Other issues such as economics or diplomacy can be the focus of the agenda • Non-state actors can also be the actors • State is subject to outside influence • Interdependence, reciprocity (Nye and Keohane 1977) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

3. Power • Dahl (1961)-first face of power: coercion (threats or rewards) • Bachrach and Baratz(1964)-second face of power:(agenda setting) • Lukes (1970)-third face of power (shaping beliefs, preferences) • Nye (2011) soft power-(second and third faces of power) • Power as resource: (Dahl) • Power as behavior outcome: (Nye) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

4. Power in International Relations Hard Power • Coerce with political, economic or military power. • (Realism: force, military capability) Soft Power • Ability to get what you want though attraction and not coercion (Nye, 2004). • (Liberalism: education, art, sports, values) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

5. Skeptics of Soft Power • Ferguson (2004) there is nothing new about soft power “Soft Power is merely the velvet glove concealing an iron hand.” • Gelb(2009) “Soft Power now seems to include everything.” • Gray (2011, p. ix) “hard power must remain the essential instrument of policy, soft power is unsuitable for policy directions and control as it relies too much on the foreign countries’ perception.” Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

6. Definitions of Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy Nye 2004 • “The ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment” (p. x) “Includes culture, values and foreign policies” (p. 11). Nye 2011 • “The ability to affect others through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes.” (p.20-21) “Includes intangible factors such as institutions, ideas, values, culture, perceived legitimacy of policies (p.21).” Cunnings’ 2003 Cultural diplomacy—"the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding“ Chong 2007 • “Long-term propaganda of the community discourse (P. 54).” Melissan 2005 • “The post modern variant of power over opinion.” Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

7. Tools of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy v. Cultural Diplomacy Public Diplomacy • Government sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries: its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges radio and TV. (One way communication) • Sponsored by the government • Embassies and diplomats play a major role Cultural Diplomacy • Cultural diplomacy establishes a two-way communication with other countries. • Primary focus is not merely political but also cultural (athletic, education, art) • The actor can take on his/her own agenda independently of the government. • More high culture and education focused (less popular culture, publications, radio or TV) • Can be sponsored by the government but also by private institutions or NGO. • Embassies play a major role but not the only role Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

8. McClory’s Soft Power Index (2010) Business/Innovation: • International Patents; Business competitiveness corruption. Level of Corruption: Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, Innovation Education: • Think Tank Presence, Quality of Universities, Foreign Students Government: • UN HDI Score Index, Good Governance Index, Freedom Score Index of political freedom and personal liberty, Trust in Government, Life Satisfaction Culture: • Tourism, Reach of State Sponsored Media Outlet, Foreign Correspondents, Language, Influential Languages, Sporting Success Diplomacy: • Foreign Aid Overseas, Languages Spoken by Leader, Visa Freedom, Strength of National Brand, Number of Cultural Missions Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

9. State Application of Soft Power Unites States:(Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking: 8, Soft Power Ranking 3 ) USIA-United States Information Agency Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State • Academic Programs Fulbright Program • Professional and Cultural Exchanges International Visitor Leadership Program The Netherlands: (Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking: 1, Soft Power Ranking 10) SICA Dutch Centre for International Cultural Activities • Visitor Program (diplomats and professionals) • Regional Projects (Russia, Turkey, Brazil, China) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

10. Soft Power Index Result 2010 • 1 France • 1 UK • 3 USA • 4 Germany • 5 Switzerland • 6 Sweden • 7 Denmark • 8 Australia • 9 Finland • 10 Netherlands • 11 Spain • 12 Canada • 13 Singapore • 14 Norway • 15 Japan • 16 Italy • 17 China • 18 Israel • 19 Korea • 20 South Africa • 20 Brazil • 22 Mexico • 23 India • 24 UAE • 25 Turkey • 26 Russia Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

11. Non-State Actors of Soft Power • Private Individuals (actors, directors, artists, athletes, immigrants, writers) • Civil Societies • Private Institutions (art, dance, music, sports) • NGO’s (UNESCO) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

12. References • Bachrach, Peter andBaratz, Morton S. (1962). “Two Faces of Power”. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec., 1962), pp. 947-952. Chong, Alan. (2007). “Foreign Policy in Global Information Space. Actualizing Soft Power”Palgrave McMillan. • Cunnings, Milton C. (2003). Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government. A Survey • Dahl, Robert, A. (1961). “Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City” (New Haven, CT; Yale University Press). • Ferguson, Niall. (2004)“Colossus: The Price of America's Empire.” New York: Penguin Press. Intro • Gelb, Leslie. (2009)“Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy. p.69 • Lasswell, Harold D. (1958) “Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. • Lukes, Steven. (2005).2nd Ed “Power: A Radical View”. London McMillan. (Original 1974) • Melissan, Jan.(2005) . “Theory and Practice” in Melissen Ed. The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan. (p.3-27). • Nye, Joseph Jr. (2004) “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs. New York. • Nye, Joseph Jr. (2011) “The Future of Power” Public Affairs. New York. Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

13. Appendix A: Concept of Soft Power 1st-face Coerce, Payment Direct Influence Indirect Influence 2nd face-Agenda Setting National Resources Influence Government/ Strategy Indirect Influence 3rd face-Preference and Belief Setting Soft power=indirect influence of other countries’ foreign policy Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina

14. Appendix B: Mechanism • Influencing mechanism Foreign Public Government using Soft Power Foreign Government's Foreign Policy Media, Internet, Programs Media, Internet, Public Opinion Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina