University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2007 Soft Power And Hard Power Approaches In U.S. Foreign Policy: A Case Study Comparison In Latin America John Weinbrenner University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Weinbrenner, John, "Soft Power And Hard Power Approaches In U.S. Foreign Policy: A Case Study Comparison In Latin America" (2007). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 3405. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/3405 SOFT POWER AND HARD POWER APPROACHES IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: A CASE STUDY COMPARISON IN LATIN AMERICA by JOHN WEINBRENNER B.S. University of Central Florida, 2004 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2007 © 2007 John Weinbrenner ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of soft power versus hard power in U.S. policy towards Latin America. In recent years America’s unipolar moment has been challenged from populist leaders in the region to its inability to get a handle on the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit drugs that reach its shores. This thesis is a step to understanding the difference between power and influence as well as the effects of hard power and soft power in U.S. foreign policy. A historical comparative case study analysis has been conducted utilizing the cases of FDR’s Good Neighbor policy and Reagan’s contra war policies. This qualitative approach examined specific short-term and long-term goals of each policy and analyzed each strategy’s ability to achieve those stated goals. The results of the study reveal that both soft and hard power approaches can have positive as well as negative effects on American influence in Latin America. iii For Nanny iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and guidance of my committee. Dr. David P. Houghton’s suggestion to focus on two specific cases set the course for what has been presented here, without that insightful proposition the thesis would have gone in a much- troubled direction. Dr. Waltraud Q. Morales’ expertise on Latin American affairs pushed my own understanding of the region to new promising heights and benefited the final product through her close investigation. Lastly, my chair Dr. Chris J. Dolan for his helpfulness, candor, and overall guidance over the past few years, his assistance in my endeavors as an undergraduate and graduate student have been greatly appreciated. A personal thank you goes out to my family, my fellow students at the University who pushed my intellectual capacity further and further with each class and open debate – I am forever indebted to their service, and finally Brittany for allowing so much time to be shifted away from our relationship so this project could be completed. Thank you. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................... 12 The Conceptual Framework of Power .................................................................... 14 Foreign Policy Continuity and Change ................................................................... 23 The Relationship Status........................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 37 Population and Variables ........................................................................................ 38 Research Strategy.................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER FOUR: THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY ................................................. 48 The Good Neighbor Policy as Soft Power .............................................................. 51 The Effect on Influence........................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER FIVE: CONTRA WAR.................................................................................. 78 The Contra War Policy as Hard Power ................................................................... 82 The Effect on Influence........................................................................................... 93 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION................................................................................... 106 General Deductions............................................................................................... 106 Short-term and Long-term Implications................................................................ 108 Drawbacks to Nye’s Smart Power ........................................................................ 113 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 114 LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................ 118 vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The current state of international relations is often referred to as the unipolar moment due to the uncontested military capabilities and overall prowess of the United States. However, with this power has come resentment and resistance, which ultimately questions how much bona fide influence the most powerful country in the world truly possesses. This paper is an analysis of U.S. power and how it affects influence in the Latin American region. I hypothesize that the traditional use of hard power as the predominant foreign policy method employed towards Latin America has damaged overall U.S. influence. By examining the effects of two historic cases, one that exhibits soft power traits and another that depicts hard power tactics a better understanding of American influence in the region can be attained. What exactly is the difference between soft power and hard power? These terms were developed by former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Joseph Nye to illustrate the different characteristics of power when used to influence behavior. When power is used to coerce or induce conduct it reflects the concept of hard power. Hard power is typically associated with the realist perspective of international relations theory that mainly asserts power comes from military and economic means. In other words, the ability to financially implement economic sanctions on a nation or unilaterally invade another country with one’s army in order to influence the behavior of it are hard power strategies. Therefore, hard power is the ability to force the outcomes one wants. Soft power on the other hand refers to the power of attraction. Rather than being threatened to a particular outcome actors willingly go along with the preferences of another state, thus “soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others” (Nye, 2004, p.5). Political ideals, 1 popular culture, and cooperation like that found in multilateral organizations can often prompt actors to be attracted to the desires of another country. For example, during the Cold War freedom of political expression along with American pop culture caused many Russians to want what the United States had. At the same time, although soft power attracted the Russian people to the free market system, hard power through America’s nuclear arsenal threatened the Soviets from intruding too far into the American sphere of influence. In sum, soft power can be linked to as Nye says, the “co-optive end of the spectrum of behavior, whereas hard-power resources are usually associated with command behavior” (Nye, 2004, p.7). The specific cases I am utilizing to reflect soft power and hard power tactics will be Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor policy and the contra war in Nicaragua taken place during Ronald Reagan’s Administration, respectively. By examining these two dissimilar cases one should be able to uncover which type of power approach leads to more influence in the Latin American region. Influence is vital because it equates to the achievement of American objectives. The level of American influence in geopolitics has most recently come into question during the current Iraq War. In 2003, the United States led a military coalition in the swift and successful invasion of Iraq. There was little argument that the United States’ massive military capacity was the chief reason for the victory, and it is without debate that the United States could have performed equally as triumphant on the battlefield if a ‘coalition of the willing’ had never been formed. However, the current situation of rebuilding war-torn Iraq has proven to be a challenge the United States does not appear to have the power to do alone. In regards to insurgents, radical Islamic fundamentalism, and sectarian violence U.S. influence is absent from the scene. During the early stages, perception of American power was exceedingly high for 2