How Russia's "humanitarian" intervention in Syria is related to the West

Russia's intervention in Syria is not primarily targeted on fighting the so-called Islamic State. It rather supports Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in his battle against other, sometimes moderate, rebel groups. This puts pressure on both the USA and the European Union. Especially the latter is struggling to uphold its liberal values in the face of a growing refugee crisis.

What pro-Russian observers of the Syrian civil war praise as a "humanitarian intervention" to stabilize the government and bring back peace to a war-torn country is actually just another one of Putin's strategic maneuvers to further consolidate Russian foreign policy interests confronting the West.

This map of the New York Times analyzes the current situation in Syria and shows where both Russia and the USA used their respective military forces to carry out airstrikes. The American Air Force aimed their strikes at IS-controlled territory, whereas Russia almost exclusively hit rebel groups in strategic areas where Syria's army afterwards began to carry out ground operations, often with the help of Russian military.
This shows that Russia is not actually interested in fighting the Islamic State and prevent further horrifying crimes against civilians and "infidels". Instead, Putin wants to display Russia's military power to the USA and show that he is capable of effectively engaging in the civil war, as opposed to American airstrikes who have so far only proven to be little effective. Putin also wants to help Assad's regime to get back on its feet to have a long-term ally in the Middle East.
When thinking about recent Russian engagement in Georgia, Ukraine or the Baltic States, this can be put into the context of an increasingly aggressive Russian foreign policy.

Another implication of Russia's engagement in Syria is yet another wave of refugees trying to escape from the civil war and looking for asylum in Europe.
This puts pressure on the European Union as more and more people cross the borders and move to wealthy countries such as France, Germany or England. EU border states such as Greece or Bulgaria have de facto abolished the Dublin II regulations and let refugees move to other European countries to not be responsible for their asylum applications.

In countries like Germany, liberal politicians have so far more or less managed to uphold a "refugees welcome"-policy that tries to reflect on the values of humanity and liberalism. Refugees from countries like Syria are granted shelter at least for a certain period of time. Right-winged opposition to this is growing but has not yet succeeded in overturning these principles.
In the face of the recent crisis of the Greek economy, European politicians know very well that even national economies have their limitations and might eventually collapse. The very large number of refugees may pose a serious problem to the economic power even of a country like Germany. This is why European politicians hesitate to put an end to the inhuman situation at Europe's borders such as the Mediterranean Sea where tens of thousands refugees have died already: The EU could not possibly handle the influx of all refugees without risking a collapse of its economic and social systems. They need to deter people from crossing EU borders in an inhuman way.
In summary, the dilemma of European liberals looks something like this: To be able to maintain a liberal attitude in domestic policies, they do little to prevent refugees from dying at the outer borders of the EU which is cynically not a very liberal thing to do.

To get back to my initial argument, Russia is certainly not unhappy with Europe's current situation. A struggling European Union might allow Putin to even further his aggressive foreign policy and destabilize the West.
Sadly enough, the ones who suffer the most from this are millions of Syrian people either stuck in a horrible civil war or struggling to make their way to Europe.

Sokolski, the Iran Deal, and Hillary Clinton

The Iran Deal is a policy that has raised a lot of controversy among our politicians in the last view months. I agree with Sokolski in “Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran” that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. When it comes specifically to how this situation should be handled, my views directly parallel that of Hillary Clinton’s—support for the Iran Deal but with some more aggressive stipulations.

There’s a number of reasons Sokolski puts forward about why Iran should not be allowed to go nuclear. The first reason, and what I think is the scariest, is the domino effect that will ensue with other Middle Eastern states once Iran goes starts making nuclear weapons. Once Iran starts, a lot of the other states in that region will demand to have nuclear weapons. That in itself will cause instability in the region. Security issues for the United States also arise, because Sokolski points out that a more confident Iran could equal more terrorist groups and operations, or even worse there’s the great risk of the nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Finally, there is also a risk to the world economy. Iran could use its nuclear capabilities to threaten or attack Saudi Arabian oil facilities and pipelines, and therefore dramatically increase the price of oil.  

Hillary has formally endorsed the Iran Deal and showed President Obama support for it, especially supporting his diplomacy. But with this support she has had a few stipulations which she voiced to the administration as Secretary of State. Originally, when she ran for president in 2008 her and then Senator Obama had conflicting ideas on how to handle Iran. At the time, she claimed that Obama’s diplomatic plan was far too optimistic and even naïve. So as she started to accept the Iran Deal, she still had some stipulations. I remember reading an article online on Politico a few weeks ago talking about how when she was Secretary of State, she pushed for consideration of a measure that would give Israel the approval to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. I agree with her support with stipulations because I feel like it’s the happy medium needed. The Iran deal in my opinion seems like the only option right now because the United States, once again in my opinion, cannot afford another conflict or war. I feel that there are much more important other issues domestically going on that require attention and funding. But at the same time, the United States can’t pass policies that would hurt or put the country at risk. So I feel that diplomacy is necessary but with stipulations in place so that the U.S. isn’t put in a problematic position where conflict could be further escalated. 

The Ultimate Power Couple

Ask any politician or economist where the future is and they will tell you: the Pacific. Even Hillary Clinton said it is America’s time to pivot to the Pacific, but for many nations, such as Russia, that pivot has been made. As of late, Russia and China have had an increasingly close relationship, one that could potentially threaten the Western domination of world power. Russia and China have come a long way from their disputes in the 1960s regarding Communism and territory. Ever since settling border disputes, the Russian-Sino relationship has been, for the most part, on an upward trend. Both nations realize the benefits that come hand in hand with their alliance, and neither nation is willing to jeopardize it, at the moment. China has the wealth and Russia has the natural resources, and this combination has led to billions of dollars in natural gas deals. Also, China and Russia both have a strong disregard for conforming to the wants of the west. On their own, these two nations pose a possible threat, but not nearly as powerful like the threat created when they unite.

            There are speculations that China will be the next world superpower and take over the West. However, when looking at soft power, their demographics pose a large issue, except Russia may have a solution to this problem. China is incredibly over-populated and its next step might be to expand, and Russia’s under-populated Siberia is right next door. Russia does not have the money to pave their own roads, let alone invest in Siberia which is basically dead weight for Russia. So for the Chinese, having Siberia seems like a viable option. The Chinese are not only after the land occupied by Siberia but rather the untapped resources within it. China knows those resources are there and if at some point the benefits of Siberian resources outweigh a relationship with Russia, China will not hesitate to take over that area of land. When combined, Russia and China have a strong and lethal alliance when it comes to other superpowers. Both nations want what is the most beneficial and for their nation economically regardless of what that entails. In addition, both Russia and China have become nations with limited freedoms and increasing propaganda. The similarities between Russia and China make it seem obvious that Putin and Xi Jinping would get along.

            Russia and China share a common anti-West sentiment. It is difficult for Russia and the United States to have a strong relationship because they disagree so readily on issues regarding human rights and political systems. China and Russia, on the other hand, do not. During Soviet times, China disliked Russia’s willingness to live peacefully with capitalist societies and believed for Communism to spread, there must be a much more aggressive policy to spread the communist revolution. However, currently this disagreement is no longer an issue. Russia and China are now both equally anti-West and both use the West as a scapegoat. In China, the people of Hong Kong cry for democracy from a government that lacks transparency with their population. These cries are blamed on America’s attempt to undermine China. Very similarly, protests in Kiev during the Ukraine Crisis were blamed on America’s attempt to undermine Moscow. Both China and Russia rely heavily on propaganda and both are more than willing to go after those who pose a threat to their governments. These commonalities make it much easier for Russia and China to have a strong, powerful relationship. Both nations are similarly anti-West, both nations value propaganda, and both nations want what will economically benefit their nations, no matter the cost.

            As we can see from these two examples, the time of the Pacific has arrived. Russia and China have put into motion an extremely beneficial relationship that is bound to flourish. Neither Russia nor China values human rights, and both rely on propaganda, making these two nations similar and therefore more likely to cooperate with one another. They are also willing to work side by side without creating conflict. Also, Russia and China are economically dependent on each and have a mainly business relationship so they will not try to have political influence over one another, thus creating a relationship that is much harder to ruin. However, one can argue that perhaps disputes of the past could be brought up again. During the era of the Soviet Union, the two nations disagreed whole-heartedly on the ideology of Communism, and the two nations approached the political system differently. Although great strides have been taken towards a stable relationship between the two nations, their unstable history suggests that their current relationship has the possibility of going astray. But, for the time being it is clear Putin has officially made the pivot towards China, and will continue to focus on Russia and China’s relationship.

Education as the basis for helping weak or failed states

Education not only provides knowledge and enlightenment of one’s self but it can help pave the way to the growth and development of a nation. Education is an important foundation of progress. This is why the first step towards helping weak or even failed states is to help these states develop a good and inclusive educational system. Education should by no means be forced upon anyone but access to education is a basic human right that also people in developing and weak states deserve.

Education enables one to make informed decisions, it allows for technological advancement, medical discoveries and a better, more informed life. There are countless examples of education improving not only the life of the educated individual but also the state as a whole. An educated community leads to a stronger nation. However, it is important to make sure that making education available to the citizens of weak or failing states does not mean an infringement upon their culture or forcing western ideologies on them.

Unfortunately, there are children who are denied the access to education because of their family’s financial status. In many countries, especially in weak states, education is not funded by the government and it therefore often times costs a lot of money for a child to attend school. Money that many families do not necessarily have. Taking away a child’s right to education based on a lack of financial stability is not only unfair to the child but it is also promoting the stagnation of the state. Other factors that prevent groups of people from getting an education include gender, cultural norms and traditions, and a lack of infrastructure. To assist states in overcoming some of these barriers should be one of the most important duties of richer and more developed states.

However, if education is not provided in a culturally sensitive manner it could be compared to colonizing practices that invade and appropriate the culture of another state. Education however, does not have to and should never mean an encroachment upon the local culture. Instead we should merely help these states to provide the option of education to their citizens. We must work with the weak states and allow them to identify for themselves what their needs consist of. Instead of imposing what we think these countries need in relation to education, it is important to listen to what they believe they need help with and then present them with aid tailored to those needs. For example, there are a multitude of organizations already founded within some of these states that focus on providing education. Activist, such as Malala Yousafzai fight for education for girls in Pakistan and in other developing states. These are the types of initiatives that should be funded, because they originate in the country itself. If we focus on local initiatives, we might be able to ensure that we do not impose our own values on another culture or force our ideas upon while we would still promote education and enable the nation to move forward and advance.

I am not proposing that education is the sole solution. However I think that education would be a first step towards working to improve and foster the growth of a nation.  Education is not only a short term fix, but rather it can enable a state to become independent and ultimately take over themselves and prosper. There are many other measures that might need to be taken and we must go about helping weak states in a thoughtful and deliberate manner.  Instead of imposing our ideas of education on these states we should support progressive inititatives that grow out of the local culture. Education is not a simple or easy answer when thinking about helping weak states, however it is a very important step that can lead to the positive change of a weak state.

When Peace Can Encourage War

The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) is a natural result of most democratic states in the world. It notices trends of war (or lack thereof) between democracies and states of other governments. While the DPT decreases the likelihood of war in many situations, it also has unfortunate downsides that are often underplayed.

Since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, every American president has used the Democratic Peace Theory to guide his international decisions. This policy states that liberal states are less likely to go to war with each other because of expected norms and behaviors. Two democracies will not go to war with each other because they will solve conflicts through negotiations and speaking. However, the same standards do not apply to a democratic state with another state of a different type of government.

The DPT, however, is slightly skewed. Democratic states tend to have a relatively secure economic wealth and political stability, which gives them national security. Since most democracies are like this, it does not guarantee success if war to occur; it also increases the cost of war, since the other democracy would have similarly equal resources and military. In decreasing the value of war against other democracies, they usually tend to war against weaker states that consequently tend to have a different forms of government.

I am not arguing the validity of the DPT, since it has historically proven very accurate. Instead, I am bringing to light the unfavorable results of the Democratic Peace Theory. Statistics show that going to war increases the chance of a democratic leader being re-elected to office. Acting selfishly, reelection is a motivating factor for invading a weaker, non-democratic state. In doing this, a leader often enters in the name of “spreading democracy.” The problem with this is that states with alternative governments do not necessarily want a change. It is easy for democratic leaders to see democracy as the ultimate form of government, but not all people view the world this way. Invading in the name of democracy often creates more upset and unrest than if they hadn’t entered at all.

An example of such a case can be seen with the creation of the Truman Doctrine, which led to intervention of Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. The doctrine made it the “foreign policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. Leading later the U.S.’ containment policy, the U.S. attempted to fight dictatorships and assert democracy in countries that did not ask for it. Korea and Vietnam were both devastating wars, and can be seen as a result of the Democratic Peace Theory, which aims to assert democracy and only fight non-democratic states.

While the DPT does indeed decrease the chances of war with other democracies because of norms, similar institutions, and leaders, the consequences of DPT can be severe and forgotten about.

The "War on Terror" from a constructivist and marxist point of view

I will try to explain the Iraq war in 2003 from a constructivist / marxist point of view that takes into account the economic background and the underlying principles of capitalism. I will also show why the concept of a "capitalist peace" is eventually not applicable to world politics.
This does not necessarily reflect my own opinion on the Iraq war, but I believe it is a very interesting perspective on the matter.

Constructivist theory explains International Relations by focussing on the formation of actors, structures and politics over time. Every actor, every institution and every political outcome of the system of I.R. is understood as a result of mutual interactions and social processes that take place between individuals, states and other actors in a certain political context. Constructivism argues that this political context is also created by man and needs to be understood in the same way. In short, nothing can really be taken for granted.

Constructivism thus understands capitalism as a form of social life where the reification of everyday life has extended to the point that human labour is transformed into a good that workers need to sell on the job market. Unlike realist or liberal theories that incorporate capitalism as a given, almost natural state, marxist constructivism is challenging the idea of capitalism itself.

Capitalism is ever-expanding by definition as it is based on the principle of a growing economy. All countries of the western world have more or less accepted capitalism as their preferred economic system. The grade in which capitalism influences the respective societies varies from country to country.
Capitalism strives to create private spheres of influence (the free market) in which the states' governments play little or no role in order to ensure the unlimited accumulation of wealth.

The theory of "Fordism" explains why capitalism was especially successful in the USA: Big companies like Ford (hence "Fordism") cooperated with unions and the government to create a very dynamic and powerful capitalist economy. The idea behind this is to structure society in a way that every part is serving the economy. No governmental restrictions or working class uprising should slow down the process of continuous growth and accumulation. This strong economy allowed the USA to become a major hegemon in world politics in the 20th century.
The biggest problem that arises with this economic system is the growing need for resources, especially oil. Since the USA has a relatively small number of oil fields in its territory, it soon became obvious that it needed access to sources of oil from other regions of the world.

After World War II, from which the United States emerged as an unprecedented global power alongside the Soviet Union, American I.R. strategists envisioned a world order that was tailored to fit the American economy and would ensure a constant supply of resources. This was especially important considering the upcoming Cold War. In practice, this meant that the USA sought to expand its influence to the middle east, where some of the world's biggest oil fields are located.

Some constructivist scholars argue that the "War on Terror" after 9/11 was intended to secure the USA against terrorist threats and at the same time establish a world-wide American dominance. This would serve the American economy in multiple ways: alongside the establishment of USA dominance, more countries would accept a capitalist economy and turn towards global trade, providing new key markets for the American economy. Also, the necessary resources (oil) to keep the economy growing would be provided.

In short, the "War on Terror", including the Iraq war, can be explained by the historical implementation of a fordist capitalism that forced the USA to strive for global hegemony in order to ensure constant economic growth.

This explanation also proves the concept of a "capitalist peace" wrong. Even between two capitalist states that benefit from trading with each other, there will eventually be competition for the finite resources on this planet, because both of their capitalist economies are looking to expand and grow.

Religion as soft power in Malaysia

Religion is a broad term that is associated with different meanings depending on the person defining the word. It often plays an important role in shaping the identity of certain peoples and states. While religion can be the basis for morality, and positive actions, it can also be used to justify questionable actions or to control people. In certain states, religion has a lot of influence both culturally, economically, and politically. If presented correctly, religion has the ability to influence what a person wants through the hope of a more fulfilling life. Therefore, the use of religion can be considered an example of soft power.

An example of a state in which religion plays a very big role is Malaysia. Religion has a huge impact on the culture of the country as well as on its domestic policies, which in turn affect its international actions. One of Malaysia’s unique characteristics lies in the presence of multiple religions that are able to coexist peacefully side-by-side in this country.

After spending three months working in Malaysia, it was easy for me to see the impact that religion has in this country. In the street one sees women who are wearing saris walking beside women wearing the hajib; there are statues of Ganesh being sold next to Buddhist statues; and there are the Hindu temples, Christian churches, and Moslem mosques that are located within a couple of feet from each other. However, despite the co-existence of religions in Malaysia, Islam has the biggest influence both culturally and politically.  There are several examples of this, such as the significant number of words in the Malay vocab, whose origins can be traced back to the Arabic language, which is the chosen language of the Islamic religion. Another example is the amount of public holidays in Malaysia that are based on religion, the majority of which are Islam oriented.

These influences are also present on a political scale. In the Malay constitution, which states that all Malaysian citizens are equal, freedom of religion is an important component. However, Islamic dominance can be seen through the benefits that the Muslims tend to receive in the economy, in social life and in politics. Bumiputera (a term referring to the indigenous people of Malaysia) receive special treatment from the government such as affirmative action in University admissions, discounts when purchasing vehicles as well as real estate. The interesting part is that these indigenous people, for the most part are Muslims. In fact, in daily context, Muslim and Malay are used interchangeably. The constitution also states that Malays must be Muslim, otherwise they are legally not considered Malay. Furthermore, it is possible to obtain these privileges if one converts to Islam. This means that the clause in the constitution which entitles Bumiputera to certain rights, really applies to Muslims.  

While I was in Malaysia, I met many people of many different religions. Focusing on Muslims, I met some who were devote Muslims, attending mosque five times a day, always wearing the traditional clothing and so on. However, as with all religions I also met Muslims who were not quite so serious about the religion. For example, Allah deems it unlawful for a Muslim women to have a husband that does not practice Islam. Therefore, the man must convert to Islam before being able to marry the Muslim women. One of my good friend’s parents were in this situation, where her mother was Muslim and her father converted to Muslim in order for them to be able to marry. After talking with her more about this subject it became clear that her father was not a devote practitioner of Islam. She told me that he did not object to converting to Islam for two reasons, one, to be able to marry his wife and two because being considered a Muslim gave him certain benefits.

After experiencing Malaysian culture first hand, the influence that Islam has in that country is obvious. It is evident that the common perception of Malaysia as a multicultural country supporting the beliefs of multiple religions is not quite correct. The culture and domestic policies are shaped by Islamic influences. The economic promotion of Islam as well as the favorable treatment of the Bumiputra make the Muslim religion very attractive and can potentially influence personal religious decision about whether or not to practice Islam. Furthermore, it could influence a person’s decision of whether or not to convert out of Islam, for once a Muslim converts to another religion they no longer fall under the Bumiputera category. The Muslim community exhibits soft power because it promotes its religion through economic and political actions that provide desirable benefits to those who are of that religion which in turn makes that religion a very attractive option.

Rhetorical Coercion in the Iraq War

Rhetorical Coercion in the Iraq War

            Reading “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11” two weeks ago it was (and still is) my favorite reading we have done for class so far because of how instantly and powerfully I believed in the Krebs and Lobasz’s point that the Iraq War was allowed to be fought because of rhetorical coercion done on the part of the Bush Administration.

            Last weekend when my parents were here for Parents’ Weekend, I remember sitting with them at G-Man and explaining to them this point from the reading. When I got to the points about the rhetoric that George Bush used when communicating to the public about this issue, specifically his use of the world “evil” and his rampant “moralistic binaries” (as Krebs and Lobasz call them), my mom instantly agreed and said how often ex-President Bush would do this and constantly reinforced it to the American public. Once I explained the concept of rhetorical coercion in this case to her, it instantly made sense to her, and she doesn’t have any political science or international relations background. The argument Krebs and Lobasz here is very simple and straightforward. Because of the extreme polarization Bush used, it made it very difficult for many Americans to not be reasonably coerced. As the reading points out, ex-President Bush tapped into the 60-75% of Americans who at the time believed in Satan.

            This also extended to politicians because they would receive tremendous backlash from their constituents if they didn’t represent what their people wanted. Now obviously it is a politician’s job to represent his or her constituents but if they could’ve made their own informed decision about the Iraq War and did not have to worry about public accountability, the war wouldn’t have happened. Democratic politicians were backed into a corner so to speak from other reasons as well. One point that Krebs and Lobasz brought up that I thought was particularly interesting was this: It is better to overreact than underreact in a situation like this—if a politician underreacts and another disaster happens, the backlash is exponential. In addition, politicians can’t look “soft” in the face of terrorism. At the end of the day, the number one concern for most politicians is getting re-elected. This rhetorical coercion put Democratic politicians in a position where they either followed what the Bush Administration was doing or risked getting re-elected. We all know how this turned out.

            I very strongly believe Krebs and Lobasz’s point that the reason the Iraq War was allowed to start and did not face opposition from Democratic politicians is that they faced rhetorical coercion from the Bush Administration. I think that their reasons for the Iraq War are the most logical compared to the other theories we read about in class.

The High Cost of a Low Probability

“If you see something, say something.” This popular slogan is seen on posters in airports, subway stations, and many other public transportation sites. But how many times will you actually “say something?” The “see something, say something” campaign, originally developed by New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2002, is an effort to raise public awareness about terror and crime indicators. Since then, the slogan has been adopted and used by various congressmen, historic sites, and at public events. By seeing the signs, do people feel safe? Or is it just another added cost from the Department of Homeland Security? Post 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney developed what is known as the "1% Doctrine." This doctrine means that the United States must treat low probability but high impact events as if they were certain. But is homeland security really worth all the funding?

First, for the sake of human psychology, I believe that homeland security is worth the cost. In human nature, there is a tendency to inflate situations and imagine the worst case scenarios. The public demands substantial government action even if the risk level does not warrant a great response as a result of probability neglect. People sometimes do not consider the probability of the likeliness of the occurrence of an outcome, but rather only focus on the consequences. According to Debs and Monteiro, the capacities of terrorists are far less dangerous than the press reports it to be. This causes a demand for increased safety measures from the public resulting in the government spending more public monies. Security measures are cost-effective when the benefit of the measure outweighs the costs of providing the security measures. This means that preventing a disaster will be greater than the cost of that disaster. The issue with this is that there is no way to exactly measure an imminent security threat. We are spending for a small reduction in probabilities that are already very low.  Are low probabilities worth the high costs? Allocating funds towards the unexpected in a spectrum of situations leaves us prepared and with a feeling of security. While there is no way to eradicate uncertainty, the costs of prevention are far less then the costs of an attack.

Second, in the article "National Security as an Ambigious Symbol" by Arnold Wolfers, he mentions the law of diminishing marginal returns. This means that for each addition of national security that we implement, there is a sacrifice for something else. But are the trade-offs worth it? Lets look at Hurricane Katrina as an example. In 2005, New Orlean’s Levees were not built for the worst case scenario when Hurricane Katrina hit. The government chose not to upgrade the levees and in turn over 1,800 people were killed and the hurricane cost the city nearly $150 billion. The probability of the Hurricane actually hitting New Orleans was very low. Therefore, the government chose to make trade-offs. Rather than spending on category five levees, they put the money towards education and city upgrades. This was because the chances of the Hurricane hitting the city were low and the government did not know how high the cost of destruction would be. educed the risk even further.  While it is hard to calculate exact risks and the benefits we receive from Homeland Security, it has been determined we are definitely safer and more prepared.

The result of from the lack of preparedness also caused people to lack faith in the government. George Bush boldly told the public to rely on local relief organizations rather than the government. As Bush lacked the backing of the American public, the Congressional members also began to lack faith in his abilities and decisions. After Hurricane Katrina, he was unable to get his approval ratings back up which hurt him as his presidency came to a close. If the government had chosen to spend on both the prevention and recovery efforts from Hurricane Katrina, Bush would have had more support on his political agenda for proposals on tax cuts, immigration policies, and more. Therefore, the government should spend on Homeland Security for their own benefit as well if they want to maintain the support of the public.

To conclude; since the attacks on 9/11, US expenditures on Homeland Security have been extremely effective. Implementing security measures and spreading public awareness has reduced the risk even further.  While it is hard to calculate exact risks and the benefits we receive from Homeland Security, it has been determined we are definitely safer and more prepared. For the sake of preventing fear inflation, maintaining government support, and for being prepared for any situation, homeland security is definitely worth the cost.

Soft Power is More Effective than Hard Power

Soft power is the use of persuasion to change people’s perceptions to get what you want. Hard power involves coercion in any form such as economic or military to force people into submitting to your requests. While hard power is immediate, it also only has a short-term effect because it’s an involuntary change. On the other hand, soft power requires time, but it makes for long-term change because the people or state act voluntarily. Soft power can be proven more effective than hard power because it reduces the chance of conflict and increases the contentedness of the state, while still creating deep change.

While hard power has its advantages, such as a near-guarantee of success and control. However, in today’s age it creates discourse and conflict. Hard power is tangible and involves threats such as an army or economic sanctions. Coercion is a key tool that results in immediate results but only make short-term change. The people that are being coerced are not content with their situation and will rebel in some form or another, increasing the chance of conflict and even war. An example of hard power lacking effectiveness is the demands placed on Germany after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay huge reparations. The treaty gave the Allies a blank check to later specify the sum that Germany would have to pay. The country had large sums to pay, but had been forced to accept defeat and accept the Treaty. They had little motivation to pay the reparations. Germany often defaulted on payments until France used more hard power and occupied the Ruhr. Their passive resistance led to inflation that wrecked the economy. This gave Hitler the stepping the stones he needed to begin his movements, gain support, and ultimately lead to World War II. This example shows how hard power can make change, but since it’s involuntary and forced, the change is shallow and short.

Soft power, on the other hand, does not guarantee success nor does it guarantee control in the same way that hard power does. It takes time and patience, but it results in long-term effects because the change is voluntary. By using persuasion and non-coercive methods, a state creates trust and respect with the other states or people it is trying to make an agreement with. It usually results in people that are more content with whatever change occurs because they agree that it is right for them. This, in turn, reduces the chances of discourse and conflict. Soft power is intangible, and rather than using military, it uses culture and ideology to influence peoples’ beliefs. The European Union was created to make a collection of states that wasn’t based on force, as so many preceding empires had been. Many negotiations created agreements between countries based on cooperation, allowing each country to ensure it’s own state would be kept safe. In 1993, when the EU was officially created, changes were made to improve the economy. Because of this, peace prevails. Now, mutual confidence exists between countries that used to be enemies, and it’s due to the use of soft power, persuasion, cooperation, and agreement.

Many factors hinder hard power, including globalization, new military technology, and new types of international problems. The world’s interdependence economically, agriculturally, and militarily makes coercion hard to enforce and hard to even use. If it were to used in one state and created conflict, that could affect many other states and circle back to harm the original state. Soft power is not only more practical in today’s society, but it is also the method that leads to a content state with happy people and peace.