Hard power is the fundamental dimension of power and is the foundation of any nation’s national interest and power. The meaning of hard power, as described by Machiavelli, is to protect and extend any country’s national interests and influence others using force and military power. The conventional wisdom of power advocates that military intervention, coercion, economic blockade and sanctions are the fundamental elements of hard power, which are used according to national interests in any given time and context. This concept of state- and military-centric power prevailed during the two World Wars and the Cold War. In fact, the World Wars and the Cold War were result of the primacy of hard power in political and military science. It is needless to justify military and economic power as the most influential elements of the state as they can control and influence other states. The US used its hard power to the maximum extent to deter the Soviet Union and bring down communism during the Cold War. Likewise, the US’s military interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and its ongoing fight against global terrorism is the use of its hard power. The US imposed economic blockades on Iran, Cuba and Myanmar to exert pressure on them.   

But hard power does not always necessarily translate into influence because there are limitations to hard power. Even the superpower US lost the Vietnam War despite its well-trained, resourceful and mighty army. The US could not even control North Korea, Iran and Myanmar using 

hard power. Therefore, a country will not be able to continue enforcing its hard power and a military-focused policy because it is neither economically possible nor militarily relevant. 

 

In the aftermath of the debacle of the military intervention in Iran and Afghanistan and the ensuing economic downturn, some US scholars developed a concept complementary to hard power. Harvard University professor and Secretary of Defence under the Clinton government, Joseph S Nye, for the first time used the term soft power and defined it philosophically in his book Soft Power, published in 2004. Foreign policy, diplomacy, economic support, peace building, nation building, culture and art are the core elements of soft power. And any country can extend its influence based on these elements. When the concept developed, it swiftly became popular among western countries and scholars. That is natural because soft power is rather humane, cost-effective, less devastating and pro-peace when compared to hard power. As a result, the US and some developed and democratic European countries have officially recognised ‘soft power’ as a fundamental principle of foreign policy. 

It is argued that where hard power fails, soft power prevails. But soft power is not a panacea for all problems. Soft power alone cannot solve the problems of terrorism, conflict and war. Therefore, soft power is not a substitution to hard power. The US defeated Japan and Europe using hard power during war but at the same time, the US provided economic assistance and political support to establish them as democratic and developed countries. The US became a superpower because of hard power but China is following a strategy of soft power on its way to becoming a superpower. China is trying its level best to use its economic might to extend its national interest and influence in the regional and global arenas. 

 

Smart power is a new concept in international relations and strategic studies that was developed in the first decade of the 21st century. The fundamental concept of smart power is to integrate hard power and soft power into a coherent and composite strategy for success, based on information and intelligence. However, it is not an absolute formula for success, regardless of political, diplomatic, military, security and economic context. Rather, it is a smart and gradual process of strategic thinking. Proponents of smart power accord importance to 

information and intelligence and suggest drafting an appropriate and smart strategy based on these two foundations to prevail in a given context. 

However, ‘smart power’ is still an under-developed concept due to which strategic thinkers and scholars have not been able to define it accurately. Hence, it remains a jargon. Moreover, it is not an easy process to fuse hard and soft power into smart power strategies as described. It is also quite difficult to quantify ‘smart strategy’. But no matter how abstract and ambiguous it may be, smart power will prevail in the age of technological advancement. When compared to hard and soft power, smart power is cheaper and more effective and has nothing to lose even in cases where it cannot achieve anything. 

Since smart power was conceived during the information revolution and the economic decline of the US and Europe, it has become popular among western scholars and policymakers. Even President Barack Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed the basic tenets of smart power to slough off the war in Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East. The US is a unique country for this blend of hard and soft power to continue its supremacy. 

Hard, soft and smart power are integral parts of countries’ foreign and national security policy. But given the 21st century’s complex power equation and balance, it is believed that soft and hard power were more effective and appropriate in the post-Cold War era. But this is not a Machiavellian age of conventional wisdom and conventional war. Therefore, smart power is now the best strategy for any nation in the globalised, liberal world of the informational revolution and modern nation states. 

 

Wagle is affiliated with the Nepal Institute for Policy Studies