Overview: Some scholars argue that international relations in the post-Cold War era is fundamentally different from the Cold War era and, subsequently, states should use “smart power” strategies to achieve their goals within this new environment (e.g., Nye 2011). Critics of “smart power” agree that the international system has changed in the post-Cold War era, but maintain that power is “returning” to international politics and the effective use of power (particularly hard power) is still crucial for achieving objectives (e.g., Gelb 2009, Kagan 2007). These tradeoffs between hard, soft, and “smart power” form the basis of the final examination.
Prompt: Choosing ONE of the cases listed below:
- United Kingdom
- France
- Germany
- Brazil
- Russia
- China
Examine the extent to which “smart power” dominates the foreign policy in your selected case. Does the foreign policy of your selected case reflect a commitment to smart power as Nye recommends? Or does it reflect a greater reliance on hard power as Kagan and Gelb suggest? Should it emphasize smart power? Why? Why not?
To address this question, your paper should do the following:
- Briefly define hard, soft, and “smart” power.
- Explain the arguments in favor of states relying on hard, soft, and “smart” power in the post-Cold War era (i.e., Why should states emphasize hard power? Soft power?
“Smart” power?) - Detail the main foreign policy objectives in your selected case, examining whether they are consistent with Nye’s concept of smart power.
- Argue whether foreign policy in your selected case should/should not reflect the aims of smart power (i.e., Does your case’s foreign policy “fit” the international context?)
Sample Solution