SCIENCE OF ANSWER WRITING (SAW): TARGET 2024

Under the Guidance of M K YADAV

10b. End of the age of soft power?

Source: The Hindu
The 21st century was to be driven by the win-win use of soft power — but in the last few years global
leaders have rejected it in favour of a ‘might is right’ attitude

There are carrots, there are sticks, and there’s soft power. According to the most common definitions
of the term used after American political scientist Joseph Nye made it a foreign policy byword, soft
power is one of three ways in which a nation is able to effect a desired outcome in an international
context. One, through military might, threats and coercion; two, through the use of economic and
financial blandishments and sanctions. These two are together considered as a country’s hard power.

And then there is the use of soft power, an intangible mix of a country’s culture, connectivity,
governance and freedoms that influences others into aligning themselves with its goals. “When you can
get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks
and carrots to move them in your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many
values like democracy and human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive,” Mr. Nye
wrote in his treatise, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.

For the past few decades, especially after the late U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit to China and the
opening up of the world economy, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the
invention of the Internet and the fillip it gave globalisation, soft power appeared be the preferred option
for global powers. It was felt that in the 21st century countries were moving away from a path of
confrontation and focussing more keenly on ending global poverty and inequality.

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

A tougher world

More than two decades into the century, however, that resolve is already in some doubt, with the
perception that soft power’s efficacy is in decline. This is for a number of reasons, most notably the

Published by: www.theiashub.com I Contact: Delhi – 9560082909, Bengaluru – 9900540262, Bhopal/Indore– 9650708779, Chandigarh – 8800019591
theIAShub © 2022 | All Rights Reserved

@@#W7
 SCIENCE OF ANSWER WRITING (SAW): TARGET 2024
Under the Guidance of M K YADAV

rejection of soft power by global leaders, increase in global polarisation, rise of populism, militarisation
of diplomacy and lowering of the exemplary values big powers adhere to.

The biggest attrition in soft power diplomacy has come from the big global powers themselves. Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine, so much more brutal and adversarial than its operations in Crimea, where it
actually won a referendum before it annexed the Ukrainian territory in 2014, show that its desire to
‘reunite’ areas through a show of soft power has substantially given way to hard power domination.

Sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union in retaliation to Russia’s actions point to a growing
weaponisation of economic measures. The U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan lock stock and barrel,
in spite of the Taliban takeover, indicates an acknowledgement that any attempt at ‘winning hearts and
minds’ had failed. China’s complete shutdown on information in the weeks and months following the
outbreak of the COVID pandemic, coupled with its aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait and along
the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India, have shown a similar disregard.

The shift in India

Closer home, the Narendra Modi government has shown less regard for soft diplomacy over harder
means. In dealing with Pakistan, for example, the cancellation of talks and trade, the use of military
om

force across the Line of Control in 2016 and the airstrikes in 2019 against terrorist attacks, and the ‘take
l.c

it or lump it’ attitude over the Jammu and Kashmir dispute are the more visible signs of this. Less
ai

perceptible, but with more long-term effect, is the accompanying erosion of the soft power India had in
gm

Pakistan: a hard hand on visas, cancellation of all cultural exchanges and bans on collaborations in
@

Bollywood and other film centres. In dealing with China and its transgressions across the LoAC since
72

2020, the Indian military has kept up talks and trade has burgeoned, but the government has rejected
a1
hn

other bilateral engagements, including cultural ties.

ris

Amid polarisation
d uk

So what are some of the big reasons for the slide in soft power over the last few years?
an
an

One blow to soft power has come from the growing polarisation between world powers at multilateral
fora. For a decade now, the UN Security Council has been paralysed by the use of vetoes by the P-5

Published by: www.theiashub.com I Contact: Delhi – 9560082909, Bengaluru – 9900540262, Bhopal/Indore– 9650708779, Chandigarh – 8800019591
theIAShub © 2022 | All Rights Reserved

@@#=7
 SCIENCE OF ANSWER WRITING (SAW): TARGET 2024
Under the Guidance of M K YADAV

(permanent members), with the U.S., U.K. and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.
Post-2008, Russia’s annexation of Georgian provinces and then the Crimean annexation led to its
expulsion from the G-8 (now the G-7) grouping of the world’s richest countries.

China’s moves in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait have also led to it being frozen out of western
arrangements. The U.S.’s National Security Strategy 2017 and the National Defense Strategy 2018
spelled out clearly that it sees China and Russia as its biggest threats, setting the stage for more
brinkmanship, and a clear policy of ‘with us or with them’ emerging, with little space for dialogue or
discussions on other issues.

This can only yield a new version of the Cold War, with less and less space for a middle ground — and
a full cleavage will likely be seen at the G-20 summit in Indonesia this year, with members split over
whether to disinvite Russian President Vladimir Putin. As India assumes presidency of the G-20 in
December this year, it will also face some difficult choices in attempting to build any global consensus
post-Ukraine.

Rise of populism

The second big challenge to soft power diplomacy comes from the rise of populism and populist leaders
om

worldwide. According to Jan-Werner Muller ( What Is Populism?), who studied dozens of democracies
l.c

that have taken an authoritarian or extremist turn in recent years, the core of populist thinking appeals
ai

to an anti-pluralistic, anti-elite constituency that is inherently majoritarian. One of the common features
gm

of governments in the U.S. (under Donald Trump), Brazil, Hungary, India and others is that their foreign
@

policy is firmly focused on domestic political gains amongst this majoritarian audience, something that
72

would explain protectionist economic policies, a sharp uptick in hostilities with neighbours and rivals
a1
hn

and anti-immigration measures. In addition, populist regimes engender scepticism about

ris

‘internationalism’, the very antithesis to soft power, which depends on the deepening of globalisation
uk

and the use of an inclusive culture to work its influence.

d
an

In his critique of foreign policy in the Trump era, journalist Ronan Farrow ( War on Peace: The End of
an

Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence ) points to another phenomenon which chips away
at soft power diplomacy: the rise of militarised diplomacy and the introduction of security officials at

Published by: www.theiashub.com I Contact: Delhi – 9560082909, Bengaluru – 9900540262, Bhopal/Indore– 9650708779, Chandigarh – 8800019591
theIAShub © 2022 | All Rights Reserved

@@#W7
 SCIENCE OF ANSWER WRITING (SAW): TARGET 2024
Under the Guidance of M K YADAV

the negotiating table for regular bilateral engagements. “When civilians are not empowered to negotiate,
military to military dealings still flourish… Foreign Ministries are still [at the table]. But increasingly,
foreign militaries and militias have better seats,” Farrow writes, as he traces the change in American
diplomacy since 9/11 and the wars that followed, and which came to a head during the Trump years in
office.

The 2+2 example

The India-U.S. relationship has similarly changed. While earlier the “2+2” Strategic and Commercial
dialogue involved the Foreign and Commerce Ministers on both sides, this was changed to a Foreign
and Defence Ministers’ meeting post-2017. It is clear that defence ties with other countries are also
taking a more salient position, as India has established similar foreign-defence “2+2” arrangements
with Australia, Japan and Russia.

In addition, democracies like the U.S. and India are seeing more and more military leaders, retired
generals, etc. being preferred for a number of senior Cabinet posts. While there is no questioning that
defence and security are important components of any bilateral engagement, their inclusion at the table
for all talks will no doubt dilute other forms of diplomacy.

Might is right?
om
l.c

Finally, there is the decline in the example that powerful nations are setting for the rest of the world.
ai

This is particularly important as soft power depends for a large part on the ‘attractiveness’ of another
gm

country for the way it is governed. China and Russia are showing the ‘might is right’ way has dividends
@

in territorial accretions. Brutal regimes like the Myanmar Junta and the Afghan Taliban have learnt that
72
a1

in the absence of global leadership, they can continue to keep political prisoners in jail or girls out of
hn

school, respectively, without too much pushback.

ris
uk

Between 2017 and 2020, the U.S. walked out of several international understandings reached by
d

consensus: from the Paris climate accord, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-
an

Pacific Partnership trade deal, the Iran nuclear deal, and global organisations like UNESCO and the
an

UN Human Rights Council. U.S. President Joe Biden has reversed many of those decisions, promising

Published by: www.theiashub.com I Contact: Delhi – 9560082909, Bengaluru – 9900540262, Bhopal/Indore– 9650708779, Chandigarh – 8800019591
theIAShub © 2022 | All Rights Reserved

RJ2=S
 SCIENCE OF ANSWER WRITING (SAW): TARGET 2024
Under the Guidance of M K YADAV

to lead “not just by the example of our power but the power of our example”, but the challenge will be
whether that commitment will be sustainable in the long electoral term.

The Indian ‘example’ for its neighbours is also losing its sheen. For decades, South Asian countries
looked up to India as an enduring, pluralistic, inclusive democracy with strong institutional balancing,
a thriving opposition and a vibrant media. In the wake of the recent attacks on minorities, government
restrictions on media and NGOs, and the collapse of the opposition at the national stage, it is hard to
argue that that’s still the case. SAARC members, most of which have strong religious majorities and
leaders with authoritarian tendencies, may no longer wish to follow India’s example, or may learn the
wrong lessons from it.

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

========================================================================
om
l.c
ai
gm
@
72
a1
hn
ris
d uk
an
an

Published by: www.theiashub.com I Contact: Delhi – 9560082909, Bengaluru – 9900540262, Bhopal/Indore– 9650708779, Chandigarh – 8800019591
theIAShub © 2022 | All Rights Reserved

R@pW7