Soft Power In Foreign Policy

“Soft Power” and the U.S. Foreign Policy

This essay deals with the topic of soft power in the foreign policy of the United States. I would like to introduce this concept and also mention the controversial concept of American Empire. In the second part of this paper I would like to discuss the impact of recent events on the perception of the United States around the world. I would focus on the racial incident and the disclosure of the torture report by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

At the start, it is necessary to define the term “soft power”. As the term suggests, there is also the so called “hard power”. Joseph S. Nye explains in his article that “Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion

To mention few examples, the soft power could be media, popular culture, academic exchange programs or American cultural centers in foreign countries. In the definition Nye mentions economy as the part of hard power. I would say that economic means could be used as both, as hard and as soft power. Some of the economic instruments in foreign policy like economic sanctions and embargoes on certain commodities (for example oil or arms) or trade barriers would be classified as hard power. On the other hand, investments of American companies or export of American products belong into the category of soft power. Also in the case of military, the classification is not simple. There are situations, when military can be used for soft power. The concept of medical diplomacy is one of these cases. Tommy G. Thompson defines ''medical diplomacy" as “the winning of hearts and minds of people in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere by exporting medical care, expertise, and personnel to help those who need it most.” The help could be organized by NGO’s or by government that can send into the affected country soldiers and other military personnel. That is what happened this year in the West Africa Ebola epidemic. The United States send around 4,000 troops to Liberia to help build infrastructure and care facilities and to work with public health organizations on

This report surly damages the image of the United States abroad but many other governments have to explain their role in the program. The important outcome is, that other countries will not take the United States seriously if they will use the argument of protection of human rights anymore. The racial issues in Ferguson and other cities damaged the image but the torture report is another level.

Even though the practices are despicable, I can see one positive aspect of this report. The fact that this report was disclosed can be seen very positively. The thought was brought up in one of my classes and I have to agree. The release of the report shows that even late the U.S. could come clean and take responsibility. This would not be possible in some authoritarian regimes. The question that arises now is whether and how the leaders of this program and other responsible people held accountable.