Power and Soft Power

Power has been a major concern, if not the greatest one in International Relations studies. Robert A. Dahl defined power as a relation between people when: A has the ability to get B to do what B otherwise would not do (Dahl, 1957). Likewise, we can assume that power among states is the ability of one state to get another state to do what the latter otherwise would not do. Indeed, every organized human society, call it kingdom, empire or state has been constantly struggling to achieve control 1) over resources, 2) over people and 3) over events (Hart, 1976).In order to accomplish these vital tasks, societies have been using forms of power such as military power, economic power and power over opinion (Carr, 1981). However, a new question arises from the above context. Which is the optimal way for a state to pursue control over resources, people and events? When territorial expansion is needed for wealth and resources, then military power is the appropriate one. It follows that in the age of economic interdependence, economic power is more proper to be used. But what happens nowadays? Although we live in a globalized world where economic transactions are more significant than ever and moreover, war for territory seems to be in decline, the undeniable feature of modern societies is the evolution in communications and information systems. News, data and information can be transmitted across the globe in less than a few seconds and thus, the one who holds information, holds also power since we can assume that not only he is one step ahead but he can also handle or manipulate the data at his advantage so as to secure control. Power through intangible means is not something new for International Relations Theories. As we mentioned above, Edward Carr had already noted it as a distinct form of power. Steven Lukes also refers to powers third dimension: the power to shape, influence or determine others beliefs and desires, thereby securing their compliance (Lukes, 2005, p. 486). His own view of that third dimension of power is what Joseph Nye first introduced in 1990 (Nye, 1990) and then in a series of publications, as Soft Power in an attempt not only to confirm that such power exists, but also to support soft powers increasing significance in contrast with the other two forms of power which he calls as hard power. Hard power uses tangible means like force and money to accomplish its goals also known as carrots and sticks. On the other hand Joseph Nye defines soft power as the ability to get others to want what you want through attraction rather than coercion or inducements (Nye, 1990). By the use of intangible assets such as attraction,

one can have the same outcomes in a way that is moral and acceptable by the international community. The ability to attract however is not the same as the ability to influence since the latter can be also relied in hard power and it is not equal to the ability to persuade although it is an important part of it (Nye, 2004). On the one hand, influence can be achieved by using economic or even military power. For instance, E.U countries are influencing the domestic policies in Greece by using their economic power. On the other hand, persuasion is a way to convince others about the rightness of a point but soft power implies something more than that; the fact that the others have already a default positive perception of your point which means that it is easier for them to comply. That leads Nye to describe soft power as co -optive power; a power that shapes the preferences of others at the very start of their creation by creating an ideal and positive image of the soft power user. Giulio M. Gallarotti also points out the increasing importance of using soft power instead of hard power. He asserts five reasons why soft power is a more suitable way for a country to secure its national interests (Gallarotti, 2011). However, Joseph Nye does not underestimate hard powers importance. In his article Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power he supports that not only hard power resources can produce soft power but also that by combining soft and hard power a country can get the optimal outcome with regard to its national interests (Nye, 2009). Joseph Nye also clarified the sources from where soft power derives from; its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policy (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority) (Nye, 2004, p. 11). Culture is the illustration of a countrys way of life, customs and core values and it can be appealing to others when it represents universal principles. On the other hand, both political values and foreign policies are the portrayal of a countrys government choices and actions. A governments policies can produce soft power but they can also decrease it if those policies are based in hypocrisy, arrogance, indifference from the opinions of others or based on a narrow approach to national interests (Nye, 2004, p. 14). Moreover, a single action that was intended to promote soft power can backfire and have the opposite effects in various parts of the world. It is up to the context of an action and the way others perceive it according to their own beliefs and values. That seems to be the case in the Chinese attempt to create their own international broadcasting network which will help them to project its own image rather than the image that the western media broadcast about China. Although a move like that may

produce attractiveness to some countries in the developing world, in the West it is perceived as an evidence of hypocrisy because of the censorship the Chinese government applies to the media in China. However, Nyes point of departure and ultimate goal was to alert the American policy makers to the declining American power and to propose new ways to prevent the downfall. Although most analysts agree with his perception of that kind of power and the sources where it stems from, we cant avoid the fact that his theory was based on the American reality. Therefore, in the next chapter we will focus on how the Chinese officials and scholars understand, interpret and ultimately use the concept of soft power to accomplish their goals.

The Chinese Interpretation of Soft Power

Joseph Nye defined Soft Power in 2004 in his book Soft Power The Means to Success in World Politics as the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments (Nye, 2004, p. x). In other words if one country can deliberately use its attractiveness and seduction to achieve its goals in the international field rather than traditional hard-power means, then that country uses its soft power. However, the terms attraction and ability are difficult to define and although Joseph Nye gave his explanation of the terms, others could define it differently since it is up to the final users background and needs the way to interpret them. Therefore, every country or even individuals such as scholars and politicians translate soft power under their own background and perspectives. The Chinese interpretation of soft power then is heavily related with the huge historical background of the country as well as with Chinas current rapid economic growth and development. More specifically, the Chinese understanding of soft power is far broader than Nyes definition. It includes, not only an external use of soft power but also a domestic one. As Hongying Wang and Yeh-Chung Lu argue It [soft power] goes beyond a countrys ability to influence other countries through its attractiveness to include, for example, the ability to generate compliance in a society by moral example and persuasion (Wang & Lu, 2008, p. 427). This perception of soft power derives directly from the Chinese culture and reflects not only a way to contemplate foreign policy but also a way to deal with domestic issues. The notion of soft power is no new to the Chinese culture. The ancient Chinese philosophies inculcated the Chinese culture with virtues such like morality, cooperation instead of conflict and good

governance not only between people but also between states (Ding, 2010). In other words, for the Chinese, soft power, as a form of power, can be found everywhere and they especially focus in society in order to invigorate Chinas comprehensive national power which they consider as an indispensable part of a great nation and power (Zhang, 2010) (Ding, 2010, p. 264). Thus, for the Chinese, soft power includes low politics as well as high politics; soft power is not only about how a country presents itself to others but also how a country is organized internally and projects its principles and values. A second reason that influenced the Chinese interpretation of soft power is its current status. An unprecedented growth rate for more than three decades is responsible for changes in every domain of modern China. From society and culture to technology and economy, China faces rapid modernization. Moreover, China is rising in the international system and claims a place among the worlds top great powers. That exact claim brought anxiety to the western world who sees China as a revisionist power who threatens the status quo and the neo-liberal order as realists would support (Breslin, 2011). This threat, also known as China Threat Theory led the Chinese leadership to interpret soft power as a means to counter the threat theory. The response from the Chinese side came in the form of Chinas peaceful rise concept that contradicts the threat theory and argues that Chinas rise happens at no ones expense and the other countries can only benefit from Chinas development (Bhattacharya, 2005). Under this context, soft power for the Chinese policy makers and intellectuals mean a win-win situation and not just a one side hunt for desirable outcomes. A further point that highlights the broadness of the meaning of soft power due to the swift development of China is the fact that Chinese policy makers include also financial assets in their interpretation of soft power. Joshua Kurlantzick observed that China and its neighbors enunciate a broader idea of soft power, the idea that soft power implies all elements outside of the security realm, including investment and aid (Kurlantzick, 2006, p. 1). Joseph Nye in one of his speeches about soft power and China in 2012 stated that sources of traditional hard power such as the military or the economy can be also sources of soft power (Nye, 2012). The rapid economic growth that China has been experiencing the last decades makes the country look attractive to others and enables the Chinese government to use its economic surplus to influence other countries by providing aid or investments. It follows then that the current status of Chinese economy made the meaning of soft power wider toward every direction.

Therefore, the Chinese concept of soft power under these particular characteristics and circumstances has taken a broader dimension. Hongying Wang and YehChung Lu comment that [the concept of soft power in China] peppers academic and policy discussions about world politics, Chinese foreign policy, domestic politics, and even corporate governance (Wang & Lu, 2008, p. 426). Soft power thus, is a form of power that derives from the ancient Chinese culture and revitalized by Chinas economic success, runs through every aspect of the countrys political activity; from the international environment to the very core of the Chinese society. The intimacy of traditional Chinese culture with the concept of soft power however, should not be misunderstood. For example, Confucius writings about moral influence (Laskai, 2013) may seem close to what Joseph Nye described as morality in foreign and domestic policies (Nye, 2004, pp. 13-14) but the context in which the ancient Chinese philosophers were writing was a very different one from nowadays. The difference between the two ages, is the existence of the modern nation-state since the peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rampant pursuit that followed for the national interest. Although the traditional Chinese values and principles are timeless and universal, modern foreign policy is dedicated in ensuring a nations survival by any means necessary which includes the change of the meaning and use of morality. In the ancient years, Kings or Emperors were going to war for their personal interest and glory. Their rule and decisions were not questioned. That is why the philosophers of that time were calling for morality; because it was absent. Nowadays, the leaders are questioned and they are liable for their actions and decisions. A way thus, to justify their choices is to invoke morality for the nations sake. Therefore, traditional Chinese morality is incompatible up to a point with soft power and the modern practice of foreign policy.

Sources of Chinese soft power

According to Joseph Nye soft power stems mostly from three sources; culture, political ideals and foreign policies (Nye, 2004). Most analysts, including the Chinese, accept Nyes conception and adhere his parameters (Mingjiang, 2008). A country then, which strives to increase its soft power should not only take care the above mentioned domains but in addition it should try to promote them externally. For the Chinese analysts and policy makers, these three sources of soft power are entailed in their huge and ancient culture, in the development model as the depiction of Chinas political ideals and in the peaceful development as the driving force behind Chinas foreign policy. Of course, some scholars have enriched Nyes conceptualization

regarding the sources of soft power. For instance, Xin Li and Verner Worm in their article Building Chinas Soft Power for a Peaceful Rise have added three more sources of soft power; economic development model, international image and economic temptation (Li & Verner, 2011). However, we will insist in Nyes three sources of soft power, since we consider on the one hand that the Chinese development model is more a sociopolitical and economic model than just the source of political values, and on the other hand we can argue that Chinas foreign policy encompasses Chinas international image through the practice of public diplomacy.

Culture as a source of Chinese soft power

As the worlds oldest continuous civilization (Huang & Ding, 2006, p. 26) China owns probably the biggest reserve of soft power than every other nation in the world. To borrow Davids Ricardo term, culture is Chinas comparative advantage (Ricardo, 2006) and therefore it makes perfect sense when Chinese scholars and policy makers consider culture as the core of Chinese soft power. Based on the influence of Confucian philosophy in East Asia, China can emerge as a cultural center not only in the region but also in the whole world (Cho & Jeong, 2008, p. 470). Furthermore, by studying the durability of the U.S soft power, some Chinese scholars reached the conclusion that the only way to prevent the penetration of their society by western values is to empower their own culture (Glaser & Murphy, 2009). From the above two points of view it is clear that for the Chinese, culture can be utilized in two different ways. The former considers soft power as an expansion tool that facilitates Chinas rise as a global power, while the latter treats soft power as a shield against foreign influence. However the Chinese culture is not only about tradition and history. There is a brand new and thriving popular culture and industry in China that the Chinese officials desire to promote all over the planet. The ambitions of the Chinese government are evident in the Five-Year Plan for Cultural Development that was issued in 2006 and targets to stipulate every aspect of the Chinese cultural life and then spread it across the world (Li & Verner, 2011). For that purpose the Chinese government undertook a series of measures such as the foundation and expansion of the Confucius Institutes and the opening of Chinese universities in foreign students while expecting in return that the world will become more familiar with the Chinese culture. Finally, the Chinese efforts to promote their culture as equal if not superior to those of the traditional great powers may be proved a very long lasting task. We should take notice, that the promotion

of culture is heavily dependent to the countrys continuous rapid development due to the funds that are required for such an ambitious program. This is where the problems of the Chinese interpretation of soft power and its sources start to rise. To begin with, China cannot expect any increase in its soft power by establishing more and more Confucius Institutes around the world or by funding a series of events that attract the attention of foreign publics. Soft power derives from the ideals a culture carries along and although we cant deny the value of the Chinese culture, an offensive expansion relied on Chinas economic wealth looks like more a show off of the countrys economic might rather than its soft power. Furthermore, as we have seen above, some Chinese analysts treat cultural soft power as a means to prevent external influence from other cultures. But if Chinas culture is closed to influence, how can anyone believe that the other cultures would welcome Chinas cultural promotion? That perspective contradicts not only Joseph Nyes version of soft power and its sources but most importantly the core of the Chinese interpretation which declares mutual benefits and profits.

Development Model as a source of Chinese soft power

Culture is not the only advantage China can use to boost its soft power. Regarding the second source of soft power China has to offer a different and unique so far model that includes more than its political values. A model that combines authoritarian rule, open markets, socialist values and rapid economic growth. The Chinese model of development was best described by Joshua Cooper Ramo as the Beijing Consensus in contrast with the so called Washington Consensus which is the symbol of the neo-liberal order ( Ramo, 2004). Ramo proposed that the Beijing Consensus illustrates effectiveness and practicality against the neo-liberal one size fits all policies for economic development, system-transition states and developing countries (Cho & Jeong, 2008, p. 462). In practice, the Chinese model of development seems to be appealing to a number of developing countries although each one of them endorses what is more suitable for its needs. For example, Russia finds it attractive because it legitimizes the restriction of democracy while South Asian countries are more interested in the economic growth and international trade that the model promises to enable (Gill & Huang, 2006). That fragmentation of the model however signifies that it may be not yet ready for exportation or that it needs governmental support on behalf of the Chinese side. Indeed, the hesitation of the Chinese

leadership to back up the Beijing consensus model rests on the intention not to confront directly the United States of America as the major representative of the Washington consensus model. Although a mixture of socialist and liberal set of values that maximizes the economic efficiency of a state is a rather attractive characteristic of the Chinese development system and therefore it creates soft power, in the Chinese case, it is the same system that prevents the further generation of soft power. That is to say, the restrictions in the use of internet, the deficit in the freedom of speech and human rights, the absence of ecological consciousness and of course the rule by one and only mighty party most likely counterbalance any Chinese effort to project its soft power. Nevertheless the Chinese model of development stands for an alternative to the predominant mainstream order which is supported by the West. Its success and durability disconnects economic growth from the democratic neo-liberal model and therefore provides for China the chance to influence the developing world.

Foreign policy as a source of soft power

The third source of soft power according to Joseph Nye is a states foreign policies. For the Chinese the use of soft power as the base of their foreign policy aims to facilitate Chinas rise as a global power and especially to counter those who were threatened by the Chinese rise as a major power not only regionally but also globally. The above aim is endorsed in the concept of Chinas peaceful development which has been in action since 2003 (Cho & Jeong, 2008, p. 467). According to Bate Gill and Yanzhong Huang the peaceful development line dictates on the one hand the need to build up Chinas regional and global power and influence, and on the other, reassure other countries about how it will use this rising power and influence (Gill & Huang, 2006, p. 23). Since then, the Chinese officials have sought to prove that they mean their words. Firstly, China has improved its relations with the neighboring countries by settling some of the long term territorial and border disputes (Ding, 2010). Furthermore, China has been more active in the international agenda setting by involving in a very responsible manner in international incidents such like the Asian financial crisis and the North Korean nuclear crisis (Wang & Lu, 2008, p. 440). Moreover, the Chinese government has started to issue white papers in an effort to make

notable its adherence to principles such as peacekeeping, responsibility and humanitarian assistance (Sun, 2011). In conclusion, Chinese foreign policy has turned from re-active to proactive during the last decades. Despite of the anxiety that the Chinese rise causes to the West, Chinas peacefully and constructively engagement in several places around the world by offering either financial or humanitarian aid, projects a vision for a harmonious world that targets to the improvement of her image internationally. However, Chinas attempts to appear as a benevolent power bump into her own practice of foreign policy with the neighboring countries. As a number of press reports indicates, China has acted rather aggressively and snootily than condescendingly in contrast with its declarations for world harmony (Jamandre, 2011) ( VOA News, 2012) (Cao & Ngoc , 2005). By bullying its neighbors the Chinese practice of foreign policy falls away from its statements and promises while at the same time decreases its soft power and moreover cancels the any attempts to counter the Threat Theory by using soft power.

The importance and pitfalls of soft power in China and the means to promote it
The growing significance of soft power in China is demonstrated by the extended utilization in every domain of political activity. Li Mingjiang confirmed that interest when he found that the number of papers regarding soft power had been continuously and dramatically increased from 2000 to 2008 (Mingjiang, 2008). That increased and growing interest is due to the belief on behalf of the Chinese that China lacks in soft power or in other words, as Yanzhong Huang and Sheng Ding successfully described it as the Dragons underbelly (Huang & Ding, 2006). What distinguishes a long lasting and successful great power is the possession of both soft power and hard power according to the Chinese point of view and for that reason China must employ a series of measures so as to increase its soft recourses. However, soft power and in particular the Chinese soft power is not limitless; cultural expansion for example may be received as propaganda if Chinese public diplomacy fails to merge it smoothly with local cultures. Moreover, the Chinese development model projects two faces; a model that provides rapid economic growth, but also a model that is based on authoritarian rule. The European public for example may be impressed by Chinas achievements in the

economic domain, but also feels disappointed by the lack of the rule of law in the Chinese political system. Finally, we already have mentioned that the Chinese statements of peaceful rise are not perceived thoughtlessly by Chinas neighboring countries and the West since China is also increasing its military and economic capabilities. A coordinated effort that will be charged with the duty to overcome the above challenges is possible only through a wellorganized practice and exercise of public diplomacy.