The end of the era of soft power?

There are carrots, there are sticks, and there is soft power. Soft power is one of three ways in which a nation is able to influence a desired outcome in an international context, according to the most common definitions of the term, used by American political scientist Joseph Nye after making it a foreign policy term. One, through military force, threats and coercion; Two, through the use of economic and financial sanctions and restrictions. Together these two are considered the hard power of the country.

And then there is the use of soft power, an intangible mix of a country’s culture, connectivity, governance and freedom to influence others to align themselves with their goals. “While you can get others to admire your ideals and get what you want, you don’t have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to lead them in your direction. Temptation is always coercive. and many values, such as democracy and human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply enticing,” Mr. Nee wrote in his treatise, Soft Power: The Means of Success in World Politics,

Over the past few decades, especially after the visit of the late US President Richard Nixon to China and the opening up of the world economy, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the invention and enthusiasm of the Internet gave it globalization, the soft power favorite for global powers. option appeared. It was realized that in the 21st century, countries are moving away from confrontation and focusing more on ending global poverty and inequality.

India’s rise on the global stage was also driven by its soft power: as the home of most world religions, from Bollywood, yoga and Ayurveda, to its multicultural and pluralistic base.

a tough world

However, more than two decades into this century, that resolution is already in some doubt, with the assumption that the efficacy of soft power is declining. This is due to a number of reasons, notably the rejection of soft power by global leaders, increased global polarization, the rise of populism, the militarization of diplomacy and the undermining of the exemplary values ​​that the big powers adhere to.

The biggest shortfall in soft power diplomacy has come from the major global powers themselves. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, much more brutal and counterproductive than its operations in Crimea, where it actually won a referendum before annexing Ukrainian territory in 2014, showed that through a show of soft power. His desire to ‘reunite’ the regions has largely given way to hard power supremacy.

The sanctions by the US and the European Union in retaliation for Russia’s actions point to the increasing weaponization of economic measures. The US withdrawal of tala stocks and barrels from Afghanistan, despite the Taliban takeover, acknowledges that any attempt to ‘win hearts and minds’ had failed. China’s complete shutdown on information in the weeks and months following the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, with its aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India, has shown a similar defiance.

change in india

Closer to home, the Narendra Modi government has shown little respect for soft diplomacy over hard means. In dealing with Pakistan, for example, the cancellation of talks and trade, the use of military force across the Line of Control in 2016 and air strikes against terrorist attacks in 2019, and a ‘take it or outright’ attitude on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute There are more obvious signs of this. There has been an erosion of India’s soft power in Pakistan, with less perceptible, but more long-term ramifications: tough hands on visas, the cancellation of all cultural exchanges and a ban on collaborations in Bollywood and other film centres. In dealing with China and its violations across the LoC since 2020, the Indian military has continued to negotiate and trade has increased, but the government has rejected other bilateral ties, including cultural ties.

between the polarization

So what are some of the big reasons for the decline in soft power over the years?

A blow to soft power has come from the growing polarization among world powers in multilateral fora. For a decade now, the UN Security Council has been paralyzed by the use of the veto by the P-5 (permanent member), which has the US, UK and France on one side and Russia and China on the other. After 2008, Russia’s annexation of Georgian provinces and then Crimea led to its expulsion from the G8 (now G-7) group of the world’s richest countries.

China’s moves in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait have also pushed it out of the Western system. The US National Security Strategy 2017 and National Defense Strategy 2018 explicitly stated that it sees China and Russia as its greatest threats, setting the stage for greater risk, and ‘with or with us’ Clear policy of emergence, with less space. To discuss or discuss other issues.

It could only generate a new version of the Cold War, with less and less room for a middle ground – and this year will see a complete crackdown at the G-20 summit in Indonesia, with members divided over whether Whether or not to reject the Russian President Vladimir Putin. As India assumes the presidency of the G-20 in December this year, it will also face some tough choices in its effort to build any global consensus after Ukraine.

rise of populism

The second major challenge to soft power diplomacy comes from populism and the rise of populist leaders around the world. According to Jan-Werner Müller ( What is populism?), who studied dozens of democracies that have taken an authoritarian or extremist turn in recent years, the core of populist thinking appeals to an anti-pluralist, anti-elitist constituency that is inherently a majority. One of the common features of governments in the US (under Donald Trump), Brazil, Hungary, India and others is that their foreign policy focuses on domestic political gains among this majority audience, something that would explain protectionist economic policies. , a sharp escalation of hostilities with neighbors and rivals, and anti-immigration measures. In addition, populist regimes raise doubts about ‘internationalism’, the very antithesis of soft power, which relies on the intensification of globalization and the use of an inclusive culture to work its effects.

Journalist Ronan Farrow in his criticism of foreign policy during the Trump era War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence ) points to another phenomenon that drives soft power diplomacy away: the rise of militarized diplomacy and the introduction of security officials at the negotiating table for regular bilateral relations. “Military-to-military deals flourish even when civilians do not have the right to negotiate … the foreign ministry is still there” [at the table], But increasingly, foreign militaries and militias have better seats,” writes Farrow, as he traces the changes in American diplomacy since 9/11 and the wars that followed, and that during Trump’s years in office. came to a head.

2+2 Example

India-US relations have also changed in the same way. While the earlier “2+2” Strategic and Commercial Dialogue involved the foreign and commerce ministers of both sides, it was changed to a meeting of foreign and defense ministers after 2017. It is clear that defense ties with other countries are also taking on a more important position, as India has established similar foreign defense “2+2” arrangements with Australia, Japan and Russia.

In addition, more and more military leaders, retired generals, etc. are being preferred for many senior cabinet positions in democracies such as the US and India. While there is no doubt that defense and security are important components of any bilateral relationship, including them for all negotiations would undoubtedly undermine other forms of diplomacy.

The one who has a power is always right?

In the end, there has been a decline in the example that powerful nations are setting for the rest of the world. This is especially important because soft power depends for a large part on the ‘attractiveness’ of another country in the way it is governed. China and Russia are showing ‘might is right’ the way regional growth pays dividends. Brutal regimes such as the Myanmar Junta and the Afghan Taliban have learned that in the absence of global leadership, they can continue to keep political prisoners in prison or girls out of school, without much pushback.

Between 2017 and 2020, the US walked out of several international understandings reached by consensus: from the Paris climate agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the Iran nuclear deal, and global organizations such as UNESCO and the United Nations Human Rights Organization. Rights Council. US President Joe Biden has reversed many of those decisions, promising to lead “not only by the example of our power, but by the power of our example”, but the challenge will be whether that commitment will last for a long election period. will be sustainable.

The Indian ‘example’ to its neighbours, too, is losing its sheen. For decades, South Asian countries viewed India as a sustainable, pluralistic, inclusive democracy with strong institutional balance, a thriving opposition and a vibrant media. In view of recent attacks on minorities, government sanctions on the media and NGOs, and the collapse of the opposition at the national level, it is difficult to argue that this is still the case. SAARC members, most of whom have strong religious majority and authoritarian tendencies, may no longer want to follow India’s example, or may learn the wrong lesson from it.

In terms of soft power, as with hard power tools of carrots and sticks, nations will do what you do not what you say.