Politique Européenne - Sonia da Silva, Lausanne, December 2009

Is European Soft Power a contradiction in terms of neo-realism?

In this paper I will explore the significance of Soft Power in International Relations. I will then focus on Soft Power as the source of emerging security and defence policy of the EU by questioning whether this kind of Soft Power is a contradiction in terms of Neo-Realism theory.

Since the end of the Cold War, the EU decided to abandon the anarchic Hobbesian world focusing on Kant’s sphere of perpetual peace. The quest for eternal peace as well as acting as a global player, although its relative lack of military power and close alliance to Soft Power, makes the EU unique according to many authors (e.g. Koechlin 2008; Manners 2002; HydePrice 2006).

The broad definition of Soft Power comes from International Relations theory and was first defined by Joseph Nye in 1990. In his book “Bound to lead: the changing nature of American power” Nye argues that Soft Power refers to accomplishing international aims through persuasion (political ideas, norms and policies) and co-option rather than what he names Hard Power. The latter requires the use of armed force or some other forms of coercion like the use of economic sanctions (Tulmets 2007). According to Elsa Tulmets Soft Power, in the long run, means lower costs because it avoids the use of traditional coercive foreign policy tools such as military interventions preferring to opt for prevention and crisis management activities. These conceptions of power are closely related to two major paradigms of International Relations, Neo-Realists on the one hand and Liberals on the other (Pollack 2001).

Their opposite position is not about the definition of International Relations but rather the interpretation of Anarchy. For Neo-Realists anarchy symbolizes the eternal state of war, the constraint that requires states to rely on themselves and compelled them to follow the policy of force.