OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 112-114
Notes and Reflections
HARD, SOFT OR SMART POWER:
CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION OR STRATEGIC DEFINITION?
Brígida Rocha Brito
PhD in African Studies by ISCTE-IUL,
Professor in the Department of International Relations of
at Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa (UAL), Deputy Director of JANUS.NET.
Researcher at OBSERVARE (UAL) and at Centro de Estudos Africanos (ISCTE-IUL)
The reflection presented here summarizes the discussions around conceptual
differences, advantages, and risks associated with strategies inherent to Hard Power
and Soft Power, as well as the emergent concept of Smart Power. The opportunity for
this reflection was provided by the participation in the conference “Hard Vs. Soft Power:
Foreign Policy Strategies in Contemporary International Relations” organised by the
Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, at Cambridge University, in June 2010.
The discussion around the concepts of Hard and Soft Power (Pamar et Cox, 2010) is not
a recent one and has been largely explored by the academic community in Thematic
Meetings in the scientific areas of international relations. There are several authors,
including the distinguished Professor Joseph Nye, Janice Bailly Mattern, and Judah
Grunstein, who have analysed these concepts in great detail based on real examples,
and using the United States of America as a common reference.
It appears to be generally agreed that Hard Power consists of the capacity, displayed
by a country, to reach specific objectives through the use of physical force or economic
influence, often recurring to military force, in an uncertain, though eventually effective
manner. On the contrary, Soft Power (Nye, 2007) anticipates action through mediation
and persuasion, which implies the adoption of strategic principles that combine
symbolic or cultural reference elements with political or ideological values that reinforce
leadership.
According to reference literature, the main difference between the two concepts
appears to lie on the appeal to responsible and liable intervention characteristic of Soft
Power, versus the simple imposition by force of Hard Power. Soft Power opens the way
to new negotiation perspectives according to new horizons: international relations tend
to improve from the merging of several factors presented in an interrelated manner by
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 112-114
Hard, soft or smart power: conceptual discussion or strategic
Brígida Rocha Brito
113
Ambassador Pekka Huhtaniemi1 who defines them as the "three Ds" in “Hard Vs. Soft
Power: Foreign Policy Strategies in Contemporary International Relations”, a meeting
organized by the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, held at Cambridge University in June
2010: Diplomacy; Defence; and Development. Soft Power, indeed, allows the merging
of the three as it promotes: diffusion of social and cultural values that are essential to
progress at the international level; the creation of social networks that facilitate
exponential increases in human contact and the development of communication at
world level; the empowerment of women, by recognizing their power to informally
promote peace, prosperity, and security; the activity of civilian organizations in the
mediation of conflicts and development of peace.
According to Philip Dodd2, Soft Power is defined as a way of being tendencially free,
democratic, and open, which, naturally, has political and economic implications. This is
clearly expressed in Barack Obama's rhetoric. When one speaks of Soft and Hard
Power, the ideas of peace building and peacekeeping are implicit, which gives it a
strategic meaning for intervention, rather than a simple conceptual connotation. Jack
McConnell3 approaches this topic establishing a difference between peacebuilding and
peacekeeping. He recognizes the former essentially as a national strategy, which may
be influenced by international forces, and associates the latter, from a methodological
perspective, with the involvement of civilian society in the search for stability, a task
accomplished by all actors rather than imposed by a few. In that context, Hard Power
may be, under certain circumstances, an unavoidable resource in peacebuilding4.
According to Hubertus Hoffman,5 the building and keeping of peace follow their own
codes, which control the actions of the different players involved in these processes.
These codes imply: 1) defining of a cost-success relationship, primarily in situations of
tension and conflict; 2) focusing activity on the location, defining partnerships with
local players, and reinforcing autonomy; 3) conceiving double strategies, including
actions of Hard and Soft Power, diversifying possibilities through an approach that
Hoffman defines as intelligent, close to the idea of what is designated as Smart Power;
4) avoiding analysis radicalisation and recognizing prior mistakes as a step to prevent
them in the future; 5) opening the dialogue and debate in order to find more solutions
on the ground, mainly at the civilian level, of innovative and alternate nature in their
modus operandi; 6) promoting respect for human beings and valuing human rights
through tolerance and respect.
1 H. E. Ambassador Pekka Huhtaniemi, Finnish Ambassador in the U.K, conference participant who
presented “The Finnish Approach to Hard and Soft Power” at the “Hard Vs. Soft Power: Foreign Policy
Strategies in Contemporary International Relations”, Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (org), Cambridge
University, June 2010.
2 Professor Philip Dodd, a guest professor from the University of the Arts London, and a participant who
presented “A soft power constellation: China, US and India in the 21st century” at the Conference “Hard
Vs. Soft Power: Foreign Policy Strategies in Contemporary International Relations”, Academy for Cultural
Diplomacy (org), Cambridge University, June 2010.
3 Jack McConnell, former Prime Minister of Scotland, who presented the paper” Peacekeeping or
Peacebuilding: shifting the balance?” at the conference “Hard Vs. Soft Power: Foreign Policy Strategies in
Contemporary International Relations”, Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (org), Cambridge University,
June 2010.
4 Bill Paker, Professor at Kings College London, who presented “The role of military force in the modern
world” at the Conference “Hard Vs. Soft Power: Foreign Policy Strategies in Contemporary International
Relations”, Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (org), Cambridge University, June 2010.
5 Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann, President of The World Security Network, who presented “Codes of tolerance as
soft factors of peace-making” at the Conference “Hard Vs. Soft Power: Foreign Policy Strategies in
Contemporary International Relations”, Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (org), Cambridge University,
June 2010.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 112-114
Hard, soft or smart power: conceptual discussion or strategic
Brígida Rocha Brito
114
It is in this sense that, in the conceptual discussion, mainly considering the advantages
and risks of the above mentioned concepts (Hard and Soft Power) when strategically
applied to specific cases, a new concept emerged: Smart Power which, not amounting
to the sum of those two prior ones, recognizes their potential, and combines human
and knowledge dimensions. This concept is usually identified with the Obama
Administration, which, contrary to the policies of the previous Bush administration,
clearly dominated by the principles of Hard Power, still attempts to reinforce the values
of Soft Power.
Smart Power, a concept developed in 2003 by Joseph Nye and later adopted by
politicians and academics, requires the adoption of intelligent policies which combine in
a harmonious, and often subtle, manner, elements of Hard Power with actions typical of
Soft Power, allowing for more effective and successful results (Nye, 2007). This new
concept values the importance of acting intelligently, determining action in function of
specific needs: national and international context; cultural characteristics, current
political system; economic influences. However, more than any other prior model, this
one includes a strategic dimension, as it is driven by action that involves all, forces the
shaping of partnerships at different levels of intervention, in the concept of global
partner, and values different participation. Following some of the principles of Soft
Power, Smart Power avoids some of the massive deployments of military forces and
follows a diplomatic approach to the resolution of conflicts. It creates conditions for the
development of new opportunities and the redefinition of integrated sustainable
strategies, as they generate autonomy. At the international level, the concept of Smart
Power appears to be gaining support and catching the attention of politicians,
academics, and strategists.
References
Bially Mattern, Janice (2007). «Why soft power isn’t so soft». In Berenskoetter et al
(ed), Power in World Politics. London: Routledge
Nye, Joseph (2007). “Smart Power”. In The Huffington Post [online]. [Accessed on 20
July 2010]. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/smart-
power_b_74725.html
Parmar, Inderjeet et Cox, Michael (ed) (2010). Soft power and US Foreign Policy.
Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives. London: Routledge
How to cite this note
Brito, Brígida (2010) " Hard, soft or smart power: conceptual discussion or strategic definition?".
Notes and Reflections, JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, N.º 1, Autumn 2010.
Consulted [online] on date of last visit,
observare.ual.pt/janus.net/en_vol1_n1_not3
