VCE Stuff > VCE Global Politics
VCE Global Politics Question Thread
hums_student:
--- Quote from: Jimmmy on June 09, 2019, 08:35:01 pm ---___
--- End quote ---
Hey Jimmmy,
Military power is a form of hard power. However, hard power does not mean that it must be carried out, or that it must inflict some form of damage, it just means that it has the potential to do so.
'Power' by definition in global politics refers to the ability to influence, control, or manipulate the actions of another global actor. This refers to both hard and soft power. I know that 'influence' sounds like something exclusively reserved for 'soft power', but it's not.
Soft power would be referring to the usage of things such as culture and history to influence, control, or manipulate other global actors into seeing something (for example, an agreement or a treaty) as more appealing.
To put simply (in very un-technical terms), 'hard power' is coercing the other party into doing something reluctantly because they fear the alternative would be much worse, while 'soft power' is enticing the other party into doing something willingly. Military power would definitely fall into 'hard power' in this regard.
Tl;dr - the definitions by VCAA and the info from textbooks and past students are not contradictory. Military power is indeed a form of hard power.
Hope that makes sense. Good luck with your SAC! :)
Jimmmy:
--- Quote from: hums_student on June 09, 2019, 08:59:32 pm ---Hey Jimmmy,
Military power is a form of hard power. However, hard power does not mean that it must be carried out, or that it must inflict some form of damage, it just means that it has the potential to do so.
'Power' by definition in global politics refers to the ability to influence, control, or manipulate the actions of another global actor. This refers to both hard and soft power. I know that 'influence' sounds like something exclusively reserved for 'soft power', but it's not.
Soft power would be referring to the usage of things such as culture and history to influence, control, or manipulate other global actors into seeing something (for example, an agreement or a treaty) as more appealing.
To put simply (in very un-technical terms), 'hard power' is coercing the other party into doing something reluctantly because they fear the alternative would be much worse, while 'soft power' is enticing the other party into doing something willingly. Military power would definitely fall into 'hard power' in this regard.
Tl;dr - the definitions by VCAA and the info from textbooks and past students are not contradictory. Military power is indeed a form of hard power.
Hope that makes sense. Good luck with your SAC! :)
--- End quote ---
Hi Hums,
I'm still a little bit confused, perhaps an example might help clarify? We're doing Australia as our A-P state. We've investigated a range of joint AUS/U.S. military bases across W.A/N.T (eg. Pine Gap, North-West Cape etc). Obviously, they're 'military' bases, would you categorise them as hard power? Similarly, Australia has participated in 'training' many Pacific state's militaries (eg. Solomon Islands during RAMSI mission) and their military has helped in clean-up efforts after (eg. Cyclone Pam, 2016). Would you classify these as 'hard power'?
Our teacher mentioned that 'the Australian military wouldn't really be a 'threatening' force to international states', so that its roles in joint-partnerships/training/clean-ups are more soft than hard.
Thoughts?
hums_student:
--- Quote from: Jimmmy on June 09, 2019, 09:19:50 pm ---____
--- End quote ---
Regarding your examples, they would both be considered hard power.
VCAA's distinctions between soft and hard power are very clear:
Military and economic = hard power
Cultural and diplomatic = soft power
Australia's military is definitely not a threatening force but we're also allies with the US ;) Even if we're not, any usage of military power would be considered hard, no matter how weak it is.
The thing to remember is that hard power does not necessarily have to be threatening. For example, offering economic aid to another state would be considered hard power. I do agree that this is quite confusing, because offering aid seems more like 'the carrot' than 'the stick'. However the thing is most countries do not offer aid on pure altruism, it's more of a 'I'll help you with this, in exchange for that you must listen to what I say' kind of thing.
So going back to your examples, military bases would be 100% hard power because they send the message of 'don't mess with me'. Australia training Pacific Island states can be seen as aid, which is also hard power.
It's weird that your teacher would classify Australia's usage of military power as more soft than hard. I would suggest double checking with your teacher on that, because it doesn't line up with other sources.
Soft power would be referring to stuff like Australia letting foreign politicians pet koalas.
Have you read upon the distinctions between soft and hard power by Joseph Nye? He was the one who came up with the terms and VCAA stick very closely to his definitions and examples.
Jimmmy:
--- Quote from: hums_student on June 09, 2019, 10:15:10 pm ---Regarding your examples, they would both be considered hard power.
VCAA's distinctions between soft and hard power are very clear:
Military and economic = hard power
Cultural and diplomatic = soft power
Australia's military is definitely not a threatening force but we're also allies with the US ;) Even if we're not, any usage of military power would be considered hard, no matter how weak it is.
The thing to remember is that hard power does not necessarily have to be threatening. For example, offering economic aid to another state would be considered hard power. I do agree that this is quite confusing, because offering aid seems more like 'the carrot' than 'the stick'. However the thing is most countries do not offer aid on pure altruism, it's more of a 'I'll help you with this, in exchange for that you must listen to what I say' kind of thing.
So going back to your examples, military bases would be 100% hard power because they send the message of 'don't mess with me'. Australia training Pacific Island states can be seen as aid, which is also hard power.
It's weird that your teacher would classify Australia's usage of military power as more soft than hard. I would suggest double checking with your teacher on that, because it doesn't line up with other sources.
Soft power would be referring to stuff like Australia letting foreign politicians pet koalas.
Have you read upon the distinctions between soft and hard power by Joseph Nye? He was the one who came up with the terms and VCAA stick very closely to his definitions and examples.
--- End quote ---
Alright, I think I understand now how Australia's use of military power (eg. bases, training etc.) is hard power on international states, but in relation to (eg. our relationship with the U.S.), would having those military bases be fostering a regional relationship through the use of diplomatic power? As obviously, without discussion and negotiation, the bases wouldn't exist, and Australia aren't really coercing/threatening the U.S. to have a military relationship with them, nor are they threatening violence with them.
If that's correct, I think it all makes sense. My teacher hasn't classified Australia's use of military power as only soft, we've addressed Sovereign Borders & Operation Okra (missiles on Iraq/Syria) as hard, but he's 100% told us that the examples I've just given you are more soft than hard, which partially concerns me for the SAC.
In terms of Nye, we obviously learnt the VCAA definitions and have gone briefly over Smart power, but less so into the specific examples and distinctions he has said. I'm investigating that now.
hums_student:
--- Quote from: Jimmmy on June 09, 2019, 10:33:01 pm ---____
--- End quote ---
The thing is, military power does not automatically correlate to violence and/or threats, it really just refers to using the state's military to achieve certain aims, which could very well extend into the field of aid and diplomacy.
Regarding military and diplomacy though, it is definitely a bit of a grey area and can be interpreted both ways. Back when I did global, I played safe and classified all military power as hard (that was what my teacher said anyway, so it'd be unwise to go against the teacher for a SAC). It could potentially be a factor that distinguishes between a low and high 40s response on the exam (potentially. I'm not 100% on this). I never went down that route for global though, but if you think you can argue it then go for it!
I think it's definitely safe for you to classify military power through the use of diplomacy as 'soft power' for your SAC as your teacher will be the one marking.
Good luck! :) I hope I didn't make it more confusing lol.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version