China and Russia have just provided the world with sharp contrasts in the use of power. As the French analyst Dominique Moisi recently put it: “Whereas China intends to seduce and impress the world by the number of its Olympic medals, Russia wants to impress the world by demonstrating its military superiority — China’s soft power versus Russia’s hard power.”
Some analysts in the US, such as Edward Luttwak, have concluded that Russia’s invasion of Georgia proves the “irrelevance” of soft power and the dominance of hard military power. In reality, the story will turn out to be more complicated for both countries.
Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment. It is not the solution to all problems. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il’s fondness for Hollywood movies is unlikely to affect his nuclear weapons program. And soft power got nowhere in dissuading Afghanistan’s Taliban government from supporting al-Qaeda in the 1990s.
But other goals, such as the promotion of democracy and human rights, are better achieved by soft power, which can also create an enabling or disabling environment, as the US discovered in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
Skeptics who belittle soft power because it does not solve all problems are like a boxer who fights without using his left hand because his right hand is stronger. Soft power is rarely sufficient, but it is often crucial to combine soft and hard power to have an effective “smart power” strategy.
As US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last year: “I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better integrating it with hard power.”
Military force is obviously a source of hard power, but the same resource can sometimes contribute to soft power behavior. The impressive job by the US military in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and the South Asian earthquake in 2005 helped restore the US’ attractiveness.
On the other hand, misuse of military resources can undercut soft power. The Soviet Union had a great deal of soft power in the years after World War II, but destroyed it by the way the Kremlin used its hard power against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Russia is now going through a period of nationalistic reaction to what it regards as the humiliation it suffered after the Soviet empire collapsed. With the rise in energy prices boosting its economy, Russia has seen an opportunity to reassert its power over its neighbors. In addition, it felt aggrieved by plans for further expansion of NATO, a proposed ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and Western recognition of Kosovo’s secession from Russia’s ally, Serbia.
Russia has sought to weaken Georgia’s government for some time. Early last month, Russia set a trap in South Ossetia, and Georgia foolishly walked into it.
If the Russians had used their “peacekeeping” force solely to protect South Ossetians’ “self-determination” (citing the precedent of Western actions in Kosovo), they would have done little damage to their soft power and the benefits could have exceeded the costs. By bombing, blockading and occupying many parts of Georgia, delaying its withdrawal, parading blindfolded Georgian soldiers and failing to protect Georgian citizens, Russia lost its claims to legitimacy and sowed fear and mistrust in much of the world.
Neighbors such as Ukraine have become more wary. An immediate cost was Poland’s reversal of its resistance to a US anti-ballistic missile system. When Russia appealed for support of its Georgia policy to its fellow members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China and others refused.
Longer-term costs may include the failure of Russia’s proposal for a new European security system, a revived European interest in the Nabucco and White Stream gas pipelines that skirt Russia and a decline in foreign investment.
In contrast, China ended last month with its soft power enhanced by its successful Olympic Games.
Last October, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) declared Beijing’s intent to increase its soft power, and the Olympics were an important part of that strategy. With its establishment of Confucius Institutes to promote Chinese culture, increased international broadcasting, attraction of foreign students to its universities and softer diplomacy toward its neighbors in Southeast Asia, China has made major investments in soft power. Opinion polls show an improvement in its international reputation.
But China’s government did not achieve all its Olympic objectives. By not keeping its promises to allow peaceful demonstrations and free Internet access, China undercut its soft-power gains.
It will take more than a successful Olympics to overcome these self-imposed limits. For example, a recent Pew poll showed that despite China’s efforts to increase its soft power, the US remains dominant in all soft-power categories. So, while China won the most gold medals, the Beijing Olympics did not turn the tables on the US outside the sports arenas. One hopes that China’s leaders will learn the importance of free expression for establishing soft power.
Of course, only time will tell the ultimate outcomes of the guns and gold of August for Russia and China. Unlike an Olympic competition, their recent performance will not be given a final score until well after their power games have been played.
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant
RSS