Conflictness of the international environment makes it especially important to study the causes and methods of warfare, the tactical and strategic data, and many other parameters that affect the outcome of the conflict. Understanding what methods should be used to achieve a particular purpose, is the key to building an effective foreign policy. Although the war in human consciousness is automatically associated with the concept of war elaborated by Clausewitz who saw it as the continuation of international relations with other methods, there are other approaches in the political science. It makes me think what approach is more relevant and decisive at the present stage?
The evolution of international relations has led to a significant change in the theoretical basis of political science. For a long time dominant in this area was considered the school of political realism, founded in the postwar years by Hans Morgenthau. Following the logic of realists, especially the law of international relations is the use of force in the classical sense (armed conflicts, aggression, war, etc.), where victory is always on the side of the one who has more resources, more modern weapons, a numerous and prepared army, etc. The Cold War has brought to the international relations the exaggerated attention to the factor of force as during the Cold War the existence and the future of the planet completely depended from nuclear missiles and strategic weapons. The fruitlessness of bipolar confrontation and crucial factors in the US non-military victory became the impetus for the conceptualization of this fundamental contradictions made by American scholar Joseph Nye.
Based on this, I will first give the definition of hard and soft power, and to determine the components that are most relevant in the context of the essay topic. Then I will give a classification of contemporary conflicts, in order to see is there any universal approach. Also, on specific examples we see that soft power is not a panacea as well, and that the key to a successful campaign is a combination of hard and soft power is commonly meant by the term «smart power».
The concept of force includes both the traditional opposition of the regular staff of armies, the physical destruction of the enemy's property, blockade of ports, straits, presence and patrols in key regions, the military-technical intelligence, and other technologies of power action, supported by the state, but from which the government is distancing and which do not fall under international law and under the possible response by the enemy. That, however, does not prevent the enemy from using similar or the same methods.
- local conflicts;
- creation of hotbeds of instability in enemy territory, or in important regions for him - in the locations of oil and gas pipelines, logistics routes, power lines, water supply arteries;
- sabotage in enemy territory;
- disabling infrastructure and technological elements of circuits that are essential for the sustenance of the functioning of the State;
- acts of intimidation and provocation;
- organization of the riots;
- physical elimination of the key figures.
Events can be held in the population buffer, border, ethnically and religiously volatile areas where the aim to initiate riots. This kind of activities may also be carried out behind enemy lines and in other countries for the purpose of intimidation or provocation. In the role of key players in such wars can act private military companies, whose participation has not yet been regulated by international law, subversive groups and individual agents, the rebels and guerrillas (or gangs), radical groups (including religious, nationalist, football fans, etc.).
Widespread use of these instruments in the foreign policy of George W. Bush Jr. Administration pushed the aforementioned Joseph Nye to conceptualize an alternative approach used by the United States. The fact that the foreign policy of George. W. Bush relied primarily on US military superiority and the US desire to preserve the status of the world's sole superpower, ready to act alone, if necessary. The then president openly declared that Washington did not negate the idea of preventive war, if in respect of the United States and its allies were taken aggressive actions. This concept was enshrined in the US National Security Strategy of 2002.
According to Nye, soft power is characterized by three main components: first, the culture (defined as a set of important for the values of society, can’t be reduced solely to the mass culture - Hollywood products and fast food), secondly, political ideology, and thirdly, foreign policy (understood as a diplomat in the broadest sense). The first two components are the historically established heritage of the nation; the third is the subjective factor, brought by being in the present time in power politics. The soft power is not only the impact but also the attractive power. Resources of soft power in world politics are all that inspires and attracts the source of the corresponding effects, allowing the one who controls it and achieve the desired result. Soft power allows you to secretly influence international processes, even those countries that have a limited set of traditional resources, the effect of, for example, are not members of the UN Security Council, do not possess nuclear weapons or are in the geographic periphery.
In spite of this soft power as a separate instrument of foreign policy cannot be regarded as a unique method of warfare, since its main purpose is precisely to prevent war by achieving state’s own goals peacefully. Nevertheless, relying exclusively on soft power ended in failure of European foreign policy towards Russia as at the time of the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and in the aggression towards Ukraine. In the same way President Obama has been criticized for being too uncertain policy towards China, which enabled the latter significant build-up its military and economic potential, which represents a real threat to US strategic interests.
It is to be taken into consideration that here are significant differences, the analysis of which helps to better understand the essence of the category between the concepts and practice of soft power and hard power. Thus, the methods of the influence of soft power are: voluntary participation by other countries in the major events of foreign policy - the impact of the object, in its geopolitical projects, the adoption of common objectives and the illusion of achieving the overall result, the intense communication flows. Hard power is based on armed violence (military intervention); economic pressures; blackmail: military, political, energy, raw materials, food, etc .; bribery of a national political elite. In today's world there is a flexible balance of the use of methods of soft and hard power. Soft power and hard power are using different ways to achieve the power that can vary, depending on the status of the country. Thus, the impact on the way the country is usually a rogue threat of force; to a satellite is a remuneration, economic incentives; and for the partner and ally possible to use methods from the arsenal of soft power, namely the declaration of common interests and goals and promises to achieve a common result with a straight section of preferences.
On this basis, it is important to understand how the two concepts relate to various types of conflicts that we are witnessing at the present stage of development of international relations. Among today's conflicts can distinguish the following typology:
- Network and network-centric warfare. They are different from the classic wars due to the lack of a united front or striking force of the regular army. Combat operations are carried out in different areas of an enemy state. Not only military, but also the illegal police units are actively used. The name of this type of wars is given on the basis of organizational management structure and technological component of communication.
- Asymmetric war. These are wars that also have no united front, rear, accumulation of forces. Often they are used in combat are not equal in terms of opponents. By asymmetrical wars it is used to understand guerilla warfare, sabotage, provocations and terrorist acts, point destruction of the enemy leadership.
- Hybrid war. Hybrid warfare involves the use of various methods and technologies in the conflict. That is, the hybrid warfare can be both network and informational, and economic.
- The information war. Information wars have a wide range associated with the production, distribution, control and manipulation of information in order to influence the enemy. The logic should include cognitive and cyber warfare. But there is no precise definition.
- Cognitive war. Impact on enemy minds, the change in its view of the world. For cognitive activities include the production of content - news and cultural (text, video and audio), the use of psychological and manipulative techniques. This misinformation causes the enemy to take the wrong steps, but does not change his outlook, it is necessary to refer to the information exposed and propaganda designed to change the attitude of the enemy to anything - to the cognitive.
- Cyber-war. It is the impact on the infrastructure communication channel, the data via computer technology. Under the cyber-war is necessary to understand not only the electronic espionage, hacking-mail or data theft, but also the impact on the information systems of the enemy infrastructure - aviation navigation, railways, subways, traffic lights, electrical, plumbing and heating networks, payment systems, large enterprises, government databases, Internet and system software in computers, smartphones and tablets. Such exposure can lead to the collapse of any modern state.
- The economic war. Key areas of such methods are to create unequal competitive environment, access to credit, technology, markets, the establishment of various duties and conduct of selected financial and tariff policy, the introduction of restrictive measures, economic and financial sanctions, confiscation of property and financial assets, various blockades. A separate long-term focus is to provide financial, technological and infrastructural dependence of states and companies.
The variety of war types often leads to confusion with the classification. If the network and asymmetric wars clearly refer to the "hard power", with the purpose of the physical destruction of living force and the destruction of infrastructure, the definition of cyber war in this section depends on its outcome. The economic war, though war and are called in the hard power section, are a set of non-violent methods of influence. Information and cognitive war are in the area of soft power. But, as practice shows, and acute conflicts, and the slow process of the impact on the country often contains a set of methods, which is defined as smart power.
In the XXI century, the channels of state influence on international processes, and other countries are expanding. Today, more important influence than military power, and possession of nuclear weapons, is an economic success, the credibility of ideological and cultural attractiveness of the country. However, the level of conflict the international environment does not allow states to opt out of the development of its power potential, that is, hard power, the use of which today is the most real existential threat to the security and existence of the state. The combination of these two factors forcing the state to move away from a one-sided focus on a particular campaign, that allows us to talk about the phenomenon of smart power as the most optimal approach to the interpretation of the concept of power and at the same time the most promises more effective tool of reference for proactive foreign policy.
References
Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Politics among nations; the struggle for power and peace. New York: Knopf.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Pallaver, M. (2011). Power and Its Forms: Hard, Soft, Smart. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/220/1/Pallaver_Power_and_Its_Forms.pdf
Wagner, J. (2014, May 14). The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations. Retrieved March 06, 2016, from http://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/
