Reem+Aziz

Power is a concept that is talked of by many but understood by few. The dictionary defines power as “the ability or capacity to perform an act effectively” as well as “the ability or official capacity to exercise control.” (Online Dictionary) However, there are many ways that one may perform an act effectively or exercise control. For example, you can force people into submission and into doing what you want them to do, or you can coerce them with threats or attract them with bribes (Nye, 2002-03). On the level of countries, power involves the possession of large amounts of the following elements: population, territory, natural resource, economic strength, military force and political stability. (Nye, 2004) Traditionally the power of a nation was determined by war. This form of power, whose foundation lay in military force and conquest, is coined hard power.
 * Power in the Information Age: Soft power as the new public diplomacy and its effect on US foreign policy with regards to the Middle-East **

The term hard power was inspired in opposition to Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. According to Nye, the world is moving away from the emphasis of military force and conquest towards a form of power that co-opts people rather than coerces people. Soft power embraces the belief that a country may obtain desired outcomes in world politics through setting an example and aspiring for a high level of prosperity and openness rather than through the use of force (Nye, 2004). Soft power is about getting people to want to do what you want them to do without having to force them into wanting to do it. The characteristics of soft power include the ability to persuade, move and attract people by argument (Nye, 2004). While hard power uses resources such as force, sanctions payments and bribes, soft power uses political values, culture and foreign policies to attract others and inflict change (Nye, 2004). The transition from hard power to soft power is rooted in three major events, namely the rise of nationalism, the anti-casualties attitudes of the people of post-industrial societies due largely to the switch in focus from glories to welfare and lastly, the fact that in most great powers, the use of force would jeopardize their economic objectives (Nye 2002-03). However, this is not to suggest that wars play no role in international relations today but only to raise the claim that the stated reasons have shifted from conquering and colonialism to safety and security.

One of soft power’s key instruments is public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is unlike traditional diplomacy for two reasons. According to William Rugh, traditional diplomacy involves the conduct between governments, so that diplomats deal primarily with ministries such as that of foreign affairs. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, deals primarily with the //general public// regarding foreign affairs. Most traditional diplomacy is conducted in secret through classified documents while public diplomacy is open and unclassified (Rugh, 2006). While an important aspect of public diplomacy involves the management of foreign policies abroad, by far the most important element to an effective program is interpersonal interaction. This interpersonal interaction has been greatly facilitated by the rise of the role of media, specifically TV, radio and most recently information technology. Information technology and media are weapons of soft power as they provide a means for empowering the majority of the public. As quite accurately stated by Julie in her blog entitled “Joseph Nye on Soft Power” - “it used to be that the better army won the battle, but today the better story wins.” (According to Julie) For example, in the aftermath of September 9/11, the US launched a “hard power” war on terrorism in the Middle-East. From that time onwards and until the present day, the image of the United States in the eyes of the Arabs has been continually deteriorating and the onset of the Iraq war has made it even worse. Furthermore, the use of soft power in the Middle East through media channels such as Al-Jazeera as well their internet sites has impaired public opinion of the United States in regions both within and outside of the Middle East. Within the United States and by 2005 support for the war in Iraq had fallen to 41% due to media coverage and death tolls (CBS News). According to these polls, 55% of the population of the United States believed that launching a war against Iraq was a mistake compared to the 69% who supported the war in 2003 (CBS News). Furthermore, by 2005 two to every one American rejected financing the war through an increased government deficit (CBS News). On the other hand, no where in the Middle East was US employment of soft power more successful than in Lebanon. According to Raja Kamal of the Middle East Times, American values and traditions have been continuously shared for almost half a century through the American University of Beirut, benefiting Lebanon as a whole region (Raja, 2008). This has not only helped shape the mindsets of young leaders but also yielded immense returns. According to Armistead, information is the most important element of power in today’s society as it is so easily transferable. Groups, organizations, nation-states and even singular individuals can now influence government policies as was never before possible (Armistead, 2004). Traditional diplomacy is no longer an option for the leading information societies because the public, being more informed and able to access information from several sources and viewpoints, desires greater involvement in their government’s politics. This rise in public diplomacy mean’s that governments now have to focus more energy on soft power and publicly democracy, rather than hard power.

According to the above examples and the theory of public diplomacy, the stakeholders of soft power include reporters, media, editors, university faculty, university students especially student leaders, intellectual and cultural personalities, governments and most importantly the people as a population. On the other hand, the main stakeholders of hard power are government institutions, foreign ministries and weapon manufacturing companies. Not all academics have embraced the idea of soft power and information as being prevalent element of power. Neorealists for example, continue to promote the idea of power politics through predominantly military means (Armistead, 2004). They believe in the use of force by the United States, despite the fact that it may not be sanctioned by international law. Therefore neorealists support the use of hard power in achieving their goals and altogether dismiss the idea of soft power or the transition from traditional to public diplomacy. The anti-imperialist left - which are on the opposite side of spectrum to the neorealists – also support the use of hard power (Kaldor, 2007). They believe that the United States is a great power simply pursuing its interests in foreign countries, such as oil in the Middle East. They support the United States use of military force in achieving its aims and believe that underneath the coating of information reported to the people such as “war on terrorism,” is an interest in foreign oil and oil transportation routes (Kaldor, 2007). Both the neorealists and the anti-imperialists hold traditional views of supporting military use and do not support the idea of information being the modern weapon of power. Another line of critics have argued that because relatively few countries have access to the Internet, that information cannot truly change global politics (Armistead, 2004). These critics argue that since only twenty percent of the world has access to the internet, soft power cannot be effective in those countries that have not been introduced to this new technology. In fact, many of the countries that are lagging behind, such as most of those in the Middle East, play a significant role in the United States foreign policy. Therefore hard power must be used as it is the only kind of power they can relate to. Supporters of soft power do not dispute the fact that many countries do not have access to information technologies, but respond with the claim that standards have been set and that the benchmarks are high (Armistead, 2004). In other words, they claim that once the people of those countries realize the power of information technologies, they will fight for the information revolution and no longer accept the rule of the dictators that impeded upon their progress. Armistead, Leigh. __Information Operations: Warfare and the Hard Reality of Soft Power__. Illustrated ed. Brassey's, 2004. Andersen, Julie R. "Re: Joseph Nye on Soft Power." Weblog comment. __According to__ __ Julie __. 8 Sept. 2006. 3 Feb. 2009 . Kaldor, Mary. __Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention__. Polity, 2007. Kamal, Raja. "Amazing Soft Power." __Middle East__ __Times 25__ 7 July 2008. University of Chicago. 3 Feb. 2009 . Nye, Joseph S. __Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics__. Illustrated ed. Public Affairs, 2004. Nye, Joseph S. "Limits of American Power." __Political Science Quarterly__ 117 (2002-03): 545-59. "Power." __WikiAnswers__. 1 Feb. 2009 . Rugh, William A. __American Encounters with Arabs: The "soft Power" of U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East__. Illustrated ed. Greenwood Group, 2006. Roberts, Joel. "Poll: Fading Support For Iraq War." __CBS News__ 10 Oct. 2005. 2 Feb. 2009 .
 * Bibliography **