Structural Power is "the power to decide how thing will be done and the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to each other" (Strange, 1994).
In 1990, Japan failed to demonstrate its structural power when its checkbook diplomacy (US$ 13 billion) meant little to the people of Kuwait after the Irawi invasion. Japan's efforts went unrecognized in the advertisement in the NYT while America was thanked. This is because American lives were at stake compared Japan's donation. Structural Power for the US was demonstrated through military strength and protection; whereas Japan's economic strength was underestimated/unappreciated. This led to Japan's rebranding with the Korzumi doctrine and so Japan could be recognized for the power it has.
In modern day, structural power is much more subtle--after the Paris attacks, "powerful" countries responded accordingly. Eaton writes how both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron made public statements in response to the attacks. However, no response was made for the Beirut whom had suffer from suicide bombers around the same time. This is a statement of structural power for France, the UK, and the US since they commanded global attention over their statements and responses. Likewise it shows how Beirut does not command the same power at all.
Here's Mr. President:
How else is structural power demonstrated in modern time?
Bibliography
Man, T.S. (2007). Japan's Grand Strategic Shift from Yoshida to Koizumi: Reflections on japan's strategic focus in the 21st century. Akademika 70 117-136.
No comments:
Post a Comment