fearlesshistory

In politics and history, there are two terms which are used to describe the foreign policy actions of a country; “hard power” and “soft power. Hard power is the military and political power of a country. For example, the United States has, arguably, the most sophisticated and efficient military of any country on the planet, which gives it a great deal of “hard power” to use in certain situations. Hard power can be thought of as the proverbial “hammer” in foreign policy. Soft power, on the other hand, refers to the economic, cultural, linguistic, and other influences that a country exerts on other countries. For hundreds of years, France exerted “soft power” by exporting its food, wine, music, and language (which was used as the language of diplomacy from the 11th century well into the 19th century). Soft power can be directed by governmental forces, but in modern societies, it can also be a by-product of the country’s industrial, commercial, economic, and cultural output. For example, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Universal Studios are not in any way owned or directed by the United States government (with, of course, the exception of certain periods of censorship in WWII and the Cold War, but that is different from actual control), yet the exert upon the world an almost intangible and pervasive influence. In Arab countries, for example, Coca-Cola is sold nearly everywhere; it is bottled, distributed, and sold locally, but the image and the drink are easily recognizable regardless of the language of the script, and it all originates from America. Other “soft powers” include music (Rap/Hip-Hop, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Jazz, The Blues, and other musical forms), clothing (especially blue jeans), and aesthetic norms of beauty (Egyptian women, for example, will dye their hair blonde in some cases, to match the “beauty” they see in films and television imported from the ‘States, especially Baywatch). This power is actually more useful in obtaining one’s objectives than “Hard power” for the simple reason that “soft power” is invited into the country and alarms raised against it are usually done so by hard-line conservatives who, more often than not, are dismissed as cranks, hold-backs, and neanderthals.

For example, the Ottoman Empire was one of the most feared powers in Europe and the Mediterranean for centuries. Though it existed well before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, since then the rule of the Ottoman Sultan extended from the gates of Vienna, to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, across North Africa, and well into Mesopotamia. It wasn’t until the 18th century that European powers could even hope to compete with the Ottoman Empire and not until the 19th century that they were capable of standing up to the Ottoman Empire. About that time, Ottoman culture was experiencing something relatively foreign to it; the importation of culture. Lacey parasols and the latest fashion from France filled Ottoman womens’ magazines and the learning of French or, to a much lesser extent, English, was a mark of distinction and cosmopolitanism. Demand for European goods was so high that the Sultanate began a propaganda war to admonish women to dress more modestly, in the style of their mothers and grandmothers, or (barring that) to at least patronize Ottoman-owned shops and not ones run by Frenchmen, Englishmen, Dutch, or Germans. It was a losing proposition because European methods of dress and learning had been demanded and acquired by Ottoman subjects; they had invited the “soft power” of Europe into their midst, thus eroding the internal prestige that the Ottoman culture had within its own society. Europeans were seen as becoming more cosmopolitan, more international, and more tolerant than Ottomans and thus were accepted as equals or, in some cases, admired as exceeding the levels of the Ottoman people. Soft power accomplished much of what could not be accomplished by military force alone; Ottoman women would never have accepted French soldiers in their rooms or submitted to forced education, Ottoman men would have taken up arms and fought invaders, not had them over for a discussion of politics over coffee or tea (or brandy). Essentially, a foreign country accede to the demands of the country wielding the “soft power.”

This brings us to the Ukraine and its problems with Gaz-prom; according to Gaz-prom, which is owned at least in part by the Russian government, the Ukrainian energy companies owe Gaz-prom several billions of dollars in back pay for natural gas delivered. The Ukrainians say they’ve paid their debts on time and in regular order. Still, Gaz-prom has cut off supply of natural gas to the Ukraine over the whole dispute. In the middle of winter. When almost all the homes in the Ukraine use natural gas to heat their homes. Though the government of Vladmir Putin (for who could argue that he does not really run the government a’ la Dick Cheney-esque political maneuvering no matter that Medvedev is the titular head of Russia) denies that there is little to gain from shutting off the natural gas, one must wonder at the timing of it all.

The Ukraine had been in talks all throughout the summer of 2008 about closer relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and, indeed, the NATO chairman has released a statement at the beginning of December on the close relationship between the Ukraine and NATO. This, of course, is yet another in a long line of former Warsaw Pact members who have joined what is fast becoming the dominant exertion of American and European”semi-soft” power (though based on “hard power” of military superiority, NATO is more of an economic, political, and cultural organization in its present configuration and thus falls somewhat into the “soft power” arena), a development that must frustrate and alarm Russian officials,generals, and politicians like Mr. Putin. Given, also, that another former Warsaw Pact ally, Poland, is geared toward accepting a US-built, NATO-sponsored missile defense shield, any development of NATO-Ukrainian political accommodation is certainly an unwelcome development to say the least.

Have no doubts, soft power is very effective. But it can also backfire if managed poorly or for rather selfish ends. The United States uses International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans to poorer countries to prevent competition for the “big three” agricultural products grown in the United States; corn, wheat, and soy beans. Developing nations, such as in Latin America, are dictated terms of repayment which emphasize profitable agrarian exports rather than value-added products which may take more time, more investment, and ultimately would leave the developing country in a better place, financially for the long run. By emphasizing agrarian products, the United States is able to purchase relatively-cheap produce while selling relatively expensive products (everything from toasters to microwaves to automobiles)to the developing country which has little chance of producing similar items that could compete with American products. Unfortunately, Asian companies are piggy-backing upon this American strategic economic battleplan and are selling much cheaper, much better products which force out the less competitive American products. The result is a resentment of the manipulation of American politicians (who discourage development) and an embrace of Asian manufacturers as the anti-Americans; Japan’s, Korea’s, India’s, and China’s “soft power” thus extends further at the expense of America’s soft power.

Currently, European resentment, particularly in the Ukraine, is building and the attempt at exerting “soft power” to influence the Ukraine to remain at least luke-warm toward NATO advances may result in the Ukraine joining the alliance earlier than expected. I can not help but wonder what the result would have been if Gaz-prom had “forgiven,” or even put a moratorium on the halting of natural gas shipments until Spring. I am certain that, had Gaz-prom really wanted to, it could have waited a bit longer to resolve this dispute which, according to its own estimates had begun in the beginning of October, so as not to leave millions of Ukrainians fighting for survival in the brutal winters of Eastern Europe.

As far as the exercise fo soft power goes, Russia has severely mis-managed this one. It may result in more former Soviet-bloc nations joining NATO or the European Union, or other coalitions, which may result in the Russian government acting more belligerently - as it did in South Ossetia.

—————Resources————–

Nato Press Release , 3 Dec 2008.

“Accusations reignite Europe’s gas row ” CNN 13 Jan 2009

“Russia to restore gas flow ” CNN 12 Jan 2008

“EU: Russia gas supply should restart immediately ” CNN 12 Jan 2009

“Gas row sends shivers through freezing Europe ” CNN 7 Jan 2009

Philip Marshal Brown “Malevolent Neutrality” in The American Journal of International Law 30(1) (1936)

Michael Hinckley “Power, Debt, and the Environment” presented at Politics and Power conference, University of Cincinnati, 2004.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS