Soft power as a strategy for U.S. competition with China

Globalization, soft power, NGOs, and world order

Soft Power

What is a soft power?

Soft power is a concept that describes the ways and means that a particular nation uses in persuading other nations to accept her policies. A nation that uses soft power may uses things like cooperative programs and financial aids in attracting other nations. The nation considers other nations as partners and uses incentive ways to capture their interest. Soft power contrasts with hard power, which uses coercion, military force, and other influential ways in achieving desired objectives.

How do proponents of using a soft power argues that the U.S. should address the increasing economic and military growth of China?

Some of the proponents that are using soft power in exhibiting their international image, for instance, Soviet Union, Russia, Moscow and these nations believe that in the near future China will be leading in terms of economy and soft power. This is because in the recent decades, economic and military growth in China has been impressive, and her neighbors are looking for partners in order to bring the balance of power in China. If a nation is capable of increasing its soft power, its neighboring countries should not feel bothered in balancing its power? For example, Canada and Mexico do not look for partnership with China in order to balance U. S soft power, like the way U. S Seeks partnership with her Asia neighbors in order to bring a balance of power in China. For a country to enjoy soft power, it must enjoy limited returns from its investments. This is what China lacks and it, therefore, proves difficult to enjoy the balance of power. China has a huge influence in African countries and in Latin America, but receives a negative influence in U .S, Europe, India, Japan, and South Korea. Nations that enjoy soft powers use both culture and narrative in exhibiting their international image, but it becomes difficult if the message sent conflicts with the domestic realities. This is the reason why Chinas' increasing economic and military growth is not a threat to U .S because it lacks limited returns opposed to U.S. Despite soft power being very popular, it is a confusing power, and no single country can pride to exercise this power. Transition can occur any time, thus, causing power shift from superpower countries to rising nations.

Does a soft power represent the U.S. best a big picture a foreign policy strategy over the next several decades?

There is link between a country being attractive to its partners and having the ability to influence the very same countries within the international relations. Therefore, it is uncertain to consider that U.S. will remain a superpower country and at the same time enjoy the soft power in the next several decades. As discussed, for a nation to enjoy the soft power it must be attractive, in terms of international relations and increase its economic and military growth. Soft power does not belong to a particular country and thus U.S. should not be visualize it as a foreign policy strategy, it should be aware of the rising nations like China.

Non-State Actors (1.5-2 Pages)

sources that supports Non-government organizations (NGOs) and private military and security companies (PMSCs) each receive funding from different types of sources..

The international private military and security industries and Non-government organizations (NGOs) provides opportunities for both the states and non-state actors to accomplish their goals without much hassles. They provide both the technical and financial support in places they consider require immediate help.

How is the source of their funds likely to influence their behavior?

These sources, and in this case, the IBRD, have a great influence on sources that supports Non-government organizations (NGOs) and private military and security companies (PMSCs). This is because they determine their going concern and, they have the highest priority in the running and operating the institutions. Likewise, this is a trend affects even the NGOs and the PMSCs, in that, the Word Bank and the IMF have a great influence in the running and operation of this organizations. In most cases, these organizations determine how the funds they offer will be used based on what they consider significant.

In general, are the services that these types of non-state organizations provide superior to the level of service that could be provided by governments?

The services and the funds they offer are incomparable with the level of service offered by governments. This is because governments operate under predetermined budgets and in case of emergencies, it becomes difficult for governments to act. This is much different from these charitable organizations because they are formed with an objective of responding to emergencies that may result to violence if unattended.

Marxism and Constructivism

Marxism and constructivism present a critique of current world order and a vision of alternate global orders.

Realism and constructivism are in most cases viewed as international relations paradigms that are in conflict. On one hand, Realists asserts that international relations are sheer reflections of the essentials of power politics and balances of power. On the other hand, constructivists argue that international relations are a reflection of the power politics as well as the values and identity politics. However, the two paradigms never conflict with each other. Rather, realism suits well with some variants from constructivist paradigms, regardless of having unrecognized compatibility. Furthermore, it is possible to combine major variables of realism and constructivism and even synthesize them, but their contended incongruity hinders them. This hindrance based on their ontological and epistemological factors. This is a contention that surpasses their proponents.

Describe the critique that constructivism makes of realism and balance orders. Is this a valid criticism? Why or why not?

The Balance of Power seeks to explain the formation of an alliance. According to this theory, and based on international relations, nations must ascertain their survival retaining or increasing their political power within an independent world. In case of any form of attack, it is the duty of the state to prevent its occurrence by balancing the power. The nations ensure that it enjoys the balance of power by utilizing its internal efforts, for instance, through enhancing its economic capability, increasing the military enforcement, and inventing on cleaver and viable strategies.

The nation can also maintain its balance of power through the external balancing, and this happens when states seeks ways to enhance ways of forming partnerships. On the other hand, Realism argues that there is no actor above the state of controlling his or her relations. Instead, states should have a free will to interact with other states without being compelled by any higher powers. With this in mind, I suppose this should be a valid critique because those states that attempts to enjoy the balance of power assists other nations develop with the aim of competing with other nations. This also means the presence of realism and balance of power helps develop good relations between nations.

Describe the appraisal that Marxism makes of liberal, a consent-based world order. Is this a valid condemnation? Why or why not?

Marxism argues that liberal individualism establishes on formal rights and liberties, but the material inequalities that form those rights and liberties remain insignificant. For instance, everyone has a right to own an automobile, but the right becomes meaningless because there is no money to purchase the automobile. Therefore, Marxism asserts that a right becomes valuable if one has money to own that right. In essence, the value of right is measured by the sufficiency of material that makes it possible to exercise it. However, liberals argue that material conditions should not be a determining factor to exercise rights, but exercising a right should be an issue of justice. Marxists contradicts with them and asserts that equal rights that liberalism establishes are valueless.

Therefore, Marxism makes liberal a consent-based world order in that material power limits individuals from exercising their rights. This is not a valid condemnation from Marxism because, even though one has a right to own anything, then, the world would remain uncontrollable.

Finally, are the alternative world orders presented by these theories realistic? Explain?'

The international world orders presented by these theories are very realistic because we are able to evaluate the international relations from a theoretical point-of-view. Similar to the New World Order, these world orders offer a conceptual structure on which an individual can evaluate the global relations.

Earth in 2113

What type of system is this?

The type of system presented in this case is the Multi-polarity system. This system comprises a number of influential nations that exercises a balance power. In this system, the essential values are clear to every state actor, and the actors must adhere to the set norms and incase they fail to follow them they drop out from this system.

What type of order will emerge from this system? Why?

Multipolarity order emerges from this system, which means it is a world that comprises a number of balancing centres of power.

Based on the order that emerges, what are the chances that the major challenges faced by humanity can be addressed?

With Multi-polarity order, it will be certain that the world would have transformed. There is tremendous spread of capabilities, in terms of wealth and power politics, which seems to shift from the North and West towards the East and South. The older order under the United States and Europe is paving way for a world that comprises non-western developing states and non-state actors. Most people would consider this as a transition to multi-polarity.

However, it is uncertain how this nations and non-state actors will shape wealth and power. There are high chances that these nations will embrace the central features of the liberal global order and invent new policies. If the transition pushes through towards this direction, there is a possibility of international conflict, which will be unavoidable and predetermined. There is also a possibility of global war. The rising nations might consider it as an opportunity but, on the other hand, it might be a global change with huge problems. It would therefore be very difficult for these rising nations to address such challenges because they might lack influence in the north and west. They would face many challenges trying to create alliances with nations that once experienced the aspect of balance of power.