 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Hard power" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In politics,hard power is the use ofmilitary andeconomic means toinfluence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form ofpolitical power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of less military and/or economic power.[1] Hard power contrasts withsoft power, which comes fromdiplomacy,culture andhistory.[1]
According toJoseph Nye, hard power involves "the ability to use thecarrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will".[2] Here, "carrots" stand for inducements such as the reduction of trade barriers, the offer of an alliance or the promise of military protection. On the other hand, "sticks" represent threats - including the use ofcoercive diplomacy, the threat ofmilitary intervention, or the implementation ofeconomic sanctions.Ernest Wilson describes hard power as the capacity to coerce "another to act in ways in which that entity would not have acted otherwise".[3]
While the existence of hard power has a long history, the term itself arose whenJoseph Nye coinedsoft power as a new and different form of power in asovereign state's foreign policy.[4] According to the realist school in international relations theory, power is linked with the possession of certain tangible resources, including population, territory, natural resources, economic and military strength, among others. Hard power describes a nation or political body's ability to use economic incentives or military strength to influence other actors' behaviors.[citation needed]
Hard power encompasses a wide range of coercive policies, such ascoercive diplomacy,economic sanctions,military action, and the forming ofmilitary alliances fordeterrence and mutual defense. Hard power can be used to establish or change a state of politicalhegemony orbalance of power.[citation needed] Although the termhard power generally refers to diplomacy, it can also be used to describe forms of negotiation which involve pressure or threats as leverage.[citation needed]
TheUnited States has demonstrated a 'hard power' policy in regard to theIraq War, theAfghanistan War and its continued war on theTaliban.[5][6] To be more specific, the United States' attack on Iraq in 2003 was initially justified based on concerns about Iraq's possession ofweapons of mass destruction (WMD). In part by referring to "War on Terrorism,"George W. Bush administration used hard power measures to uproot Iraqi dictatorSaddam Hussein and to handle subsequent crisis in Iraq.
Joseph Nye has used the term to define some policy measures in regard toIran as well.[4] For instance, there are many sanctions against Iran passed byUN Security Council and numerous nations such as the United States and those of the European Union also impose bilateral sanctions against Iran. They impose restrictions on exports of nuclear and missile to Iran, banking and insurance transactions, investment in oil, exports of refined petroleum products, and so on. Such measures are taken by many nations to deter Iran's possible nuclear weapon programs because they wanted to ensure that the Islamic Republic of Iran is forced to negotiate a deal (p5 +1) in order to reduce its nuclear weapons programme which was steadily on its way to creating Iran into nuclear power. The economic sanctions imposed saw a major economic collapse of the Iranian economy in terms of inflation and GDP. This in may part was described as effective use of economic hard power compared to less effective attempts such as those on North Korea.[7]
