Soft Power Public Diplomacy: Joseph Nye and why China gets it but the Neo-Cons don't

'Rumsfeld said, “I just don’t understand what it (Soft Power) means.” And my reaction to that is, it’s part of the problem.' Joseph Nye

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts.html

In this talk given by Joseph Nye he weaves his arguments in favour of the deployment of more effective 'Soft Power' into the fabric of current global shifts. In particular the predictions surrounding the rise to power of China. He points out that the predictions are inherently linear when in fact it is oversimplistic to look at economic indicators and say 'China will overtake the US in economic terms' by a certain date. These trends have to be attended to by politicians and diplomats in their 'Smart Power' assessments of current and future outcomes. 'Smart Power' is a development of  'soft power'. It is said that when 'Donald Rumsfeld first heard the phrase ('Soft Power') he didn't know what it meant' (Joel Whitney 2008). Furthermore China need not be the threat to world stability that she is sometimes portrayed in recent times. The key to how she is seen lies in cooperation and discussion around the table at the higher levels. This must also be coupled with the understanding that China's gain need not mean our loss. The 'zero sum game' obsession that some people like to vocalise internationally is becoming less applicable- I think this would be disputed between those with weight on the international stage.  So Nye is saying  to use part of the oft quoted Ethelbert Talbot saying; “The important thing... is not so much winning as taking part.” Nye states that recent discussions about the waning of US power are part of  a periodic and ongoing discussion which has recurred with some regularity since 1958. He refers to the 'privatisation of war' almost casually as if this is a neo-liberal trend we will have to accept almost without question which I find contentious.

"We rarely speak of the soft power of attraction, of persuasion. Soft power is an analytical term, not a rallying cry, and perhaps that is why it has taken hold in academic and business discussions, and in other parts  of the world like Europe, China, and India, but not in the American political debate." (How soft is smart, Joel Whitney interviews Joseph Nye, October 2008)

In this way Nye points to 'Soft Power' being a tool or instrument of Public Diplomacy. The minimal use of coercion with 'carrots' and 'sticks' and the hidden powers of persuasion and attraction with the occasional political 'nudge' thrown in. The last is my addition to the lexicographical pantheon. (The current UK government are convinced that we can be behaviourally 'nudged' into doing the states bidding at home and abroad.) Nye is also stating in benign patrician tones that this has been the way forward for the US role in international affairs since the dark napalmed mornings of Vietnam and so far when Presidents have been aware of the term it has served the US better. Obama's soft power weapon from the outset was his ability to restore America's image internationally. However his success abroad in 'soft power' terms has been perceived by some at home in the US as a weakness by the gung-ho 'hard power' Neo-Con enthusiasts.

 "It struck me that there was something intangible—ideas, values—and it struck me that humans are moved by ideas and values, and it may not be tangible or hard, but it’s still a form of power, and that led me to the idea of soft power." (Nye to Whitney, 2008)

Non-Engagement in Diplomacy: The Magnificent Seven Outsiders

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTHW0ZwK7U

What do these countries, or former countries, have in common?

• USSR
• China
• Vietnam
• Libya
• Cuba
• North Korea
• Iran

They have all been excluded from diplomacy with the US at various times. They form an exclusive and notable group of exclusion. The distrust went back to Jefferson. In the early days the Americans just did not trust diplomacy.  But this proved to be a detrimental distrust. In fact they did not send diplomats abroad until the 1890’s[1]. In the 20th Century this was made remarkable by the US Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. America’s ‘ability to moralize has been a liability at times in diplomacy. This has been a liability which it has used to its own advantage. It has also been shown to have an unwillingness in recent times  to abide by international law.[2] Thus showing that the US wants the world in its own image. Imagine a world without diplomacy and international law? It is not an easy thing to do but we would have to go back many thousands of years to find it.

So let us look at the seven states that the US did not want to recognize in diplomatic ways.

• USSR

After the revolution the US would not recognise the regime. They opened an embassy in Moscow 1933

• China

Non-recognition became a weapon to isolate enemies and diminish their prestige. Nixon visited Beijing in 1972. Normalization started a with Carter in 1979. The Chinese economy has grown rapidly from this point.

• Vietnam

As it was communist the US would not have any diplomatic relations with them. Carter started normalization and then Clinton completed with the lifting of trade embargoes.

• Libya

In US eyes Libya was an adversarial state that would not agree to US conditions. Restoration of diplomatic ties started in 2008 after deals were struck over the Lockerbie Bombing..

• Cuba

Ties were broken off in 1961 this lead to an absence of diplomatic contact until 1977 when President Carter made diplomatic arrangements via the Swiss Embassy in Cuba and in Washington. Cuba is the only state that is subject to the 1917 US trading with the Enemy Act.

• North Korea

The US has never had normal relations with North Korea in diplomatic terms and never signed the ceasefire so is still technically at war. Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang in 1994. George W. Bush refused any contact preferring to refer to them as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

• Iran

Problems between Iran and the US started in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution and the US diplomatic hostages who were held for 444 days. Iran also became a part of George .W.Bush’s ‘Axis of evil’. In 2006 there seemed to be a diplomatic shift by the US. Negotiations were mooted. The nuclear ambitions of Iran and there geopolitical role have caused real policy problems for the US and Europe.

These examples illustrate that the US should engage not seperate or isolate. To reap benefits they need to engage.

---

[1] p216-p219, Constantinou, C.M. and Der Derian,J, (2010)

[2] Sands, P., (2005)- Lawless World-America and the Making and Breaking of Global rule, Penguin Group, London