Between Soft Power and a Hard Place

Abstract

Following the classic international relations theory of Joseph Nye, this article tries to identify his influence in the Bush Doctrine. The ‘hard power’ determines the unilateralism of the military in the foreign affairs of the US government. The ‘soft power’ is legitimized by the very values on which the Bush Doctrine is based, such as ‘civilization’, and ‘democratic’ values, but they are questioned as hegemonic. Inter-American relations show how these tensions between hard and soft power highlight the differences between the Department of State and the militarist branch of the government, through their ideologues, around the struggle of the United States’ worldwide hegemony.

Keywords

Bush Doctrine diplomacy foreign affairs ‘hard’ power inter-American relations ‘soft’ power

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brooks, S. and Wohlforth, W. (2002) ‘American Primacy in Perspective’ , Foreign Affairs 81(4): 10–33 .

Bush, G.W. (2001) ‘Inaugural Address of the 43rd President of the United States of America’, 20 January. Transcription available at: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html].

Bush, G.W. (2001) ‘Remarks by President George W. Bush after Two Planes Crash into World Trade Center’, 11 September. Transcription available at: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911.html].

CIDOB (2001) ‘George W. Bush’. Available at: [www.cidob.org/bios/castellano/lideres/b-082.htm].

The Economist (2004) ‘George Bush, Contradictory Conservative’, 26 August. Available at: [http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2004-September/004193.html].

Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1977) Power and Interdependence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown .

Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996) ‘Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy’ , Foreign Affairs 75(4): 18–32 . Available at: [http://www.ceip.org/people/kagfaff.htm].

Kuczynski, P.-P. and Williamson, J. (2003) After the Washington Consensus: Restarting Growth and Reform in Latin America. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics .

La Jornada (2002) ‘Participan soldados de EU en lucha contra la guerrilla en Colombia’, 9 December, México, D.F.

10.

Millennium Challenge Corporation [http://www.mcc.gov/].

11.

Nye, J. (1999a) ‘Redefining the National Interest’ , Foreign Affairs 78(4): 22–35 .

12.

Nye, J. (1999b) ‘The Challenge of Soft Power’ TIME, Online Edition, 22 February. Available at: [www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107990222–21163,00.html].

13.

Nye, J. (2004) ‘The Decline of America’s Soft Power’ , Foreign Affairs 83(3): 16–20 .

14.

Preciado, J. (2002) ‘México sin una visión post 11-S’, author’s opinion column in PÚBLICO, 13 September, p. 21–21.

15.

Rice, C. (2000) ‘Promoting National Interest’ , Foreign Affairs 79(1): 45–62 .

16.

SIVAM (2004) Available at: [http://www.sivam.gov.br/INDEX.HTM].

17.

‘Support for Plan Colombia’. Available at: [http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/plncol/].

18.

US Department of State (2001) ‘International Narcotics Control Strategy Report’. Available at: [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2001].

19.

US Department of State (2002) Electronic Publications from the official webpage, ‘Drug Facts and Figures’. Available at: [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/].

20.

US Department of State (2003) ‘Fact Sheet on President Bush’s National Drug Control Strategy FY-2003’. Available at: [http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ar/colombia/drugfact12.htm]. (White House Fact Sheet, outlining President Bush’s FY-2003 National Drug Control Strategy, issued 12 February 2002.)

21.

Transparency International [http://www.transparency.org/].

22.

Zoellick, R. (2000) ‘A Republican Foreign Policy’ , Foreign Affairs 79(1): 63–78 .