Shashi Tharoor: Why nations should pursue "soft" power

The only reason why there's even a discussion of soft power, especially in regard to India, is because of China. Soft power as they are peddling it is a deconstruction of imperialism. There are many facets to soft power but they only focus on one. Why? Because it's the one which requires the acceptance from a higher power in order to have it. And lets not kid ourselves that the Western embrace is really the only one that counts. Just like the West has all these superficial "world" lists they compile, i.e. most beautiful people, most powerful women... and they're mostly Westerners when they only make around 20% of the global population. So what that yoga is embraced by Westerners. What does it get India? Bragging rights? Then let's give it to India. Is that enough? You bet it isn't. It's like when I hear Indians declare they have better English language skills than China. Again, so? What they're really getting at is declaring because have better English language skills or yoga while China doesn't, they deserve more from this world than the Chinese. When English skills has been brought up versus China, it was in the context of complaining that why China gets more from the West than India. Where's the universal law that says those with better English language skills deserve more from the world?

When I was in high school a member of another minority out of nowhere had to tell me Asians were an inferior race because they didn't have professional athletes or popular musicians. Two professions that require the favor and acceptance by others. By the definition given that's soft power and Americans love their professional athletes and popular musicians more than what India says they have. But is that enough for those minorities? Racial tensions within minorities groups is all about complaining about who has it better and they never saw Asians as being deprived. So what does that soft power give them when they think Asians have it better? If they were content and satisfied, why do they complain about Asians who don't have valuable professional athletes and popular musicians?

Soft power's purpose as they're peddling it is designed to establish hierarchies where some deserve more than others. It's plain and simple racism deconstructed repackaged as something positive. The boundaries are defined by race and ethnicity alone. How does yoga give one an edge? How does having professional athletes and popular musicians give an edge? Shouldn't these things naturally pay off dividends? Yet they don't simply because they complain about someone else having it better than they do. How many professional athletes and popular musicians can one have? Too many and it dilutes and lessens its uniqueness which gives it its only value. It doesn't matter how many touchdowns one scores or how many home runs or slam dunks. You have to be accepted by others first in order to get an indirect pay off. Dependency on others for your success? Doesn't sound so pleasing in that kind of light. But that's what the soft power they're talking of is about.

China has plenty of soft power but it's the kind they don't want advertised. It's the soft power that doesn't require their acceptance. The fact is all this is about China. And because this is about China, they're never going to give what they say is of value. They want to see China perform tricks like a circus animal in order to get it. Why give value to something so worthless by pursuing it? That's the whole deception. All the things Tharoor points to as Indian soft power translate into what except for bragging rights again? Because people like yoga, India is getting what from it? I've already pointed to what China had through history that has been embraced by the "world." But they say China doesn't have soft power simply because they say it. And does anyone think they'll so easily give it to China if it pursued it under their terms now?

^^why most Indians being irritated or simply jealous is because China answers to itself

but they don't realize that

In4ser said:

I think you are misinterpreting my post. I do not think Japan is weak, but appearances often times can be more important in politics. Japan’s security arrangement with the USA and its “Self-Defense force" give it an appearance of weakness and lacking resolve and therefore lacking Hard Power wise. However, I do believe the JSMDF could annihilate PLAN.

That said I mean to say that Japan’s enormous soft power could not offset its lack of hard power compared to Russia or China. Neither China nor Russia are very popular or well liked by the West nor yet despite being the 3rd largest economy, Japan is strangely absent in political and increasingly in economic discussions.

To me “Soft Power” is like a Nation’s Charisma. It’s a good attribute to have as it makes easier to garner support and push through one’s own agenda. Yet, I believe self-interest always outweighs likability of a person or nation. Say you have a Co-Worker who’s funny, nice, and all around a great guy who everyone loves. Then you have a boss who everyone hates and is mean. They both ask you to do something, who do you listen to? The Boss of course, because he wields HARD POWER (the power to fire you). Hard power tends to make things in one's own self-interest and self-interest imo always wins.

Another example, USA had hard power (its largest export market and nuclear umbrella) and used it to coerce economically Japan to float its Yen and sign the Plaza Accords and move manufacturing plants to USA. For all the love and goodwill generated by Japan and its popular culture it couldn’t do a thing against that.

As for China. It's a long waays before it can properly wield soft power as does the USA. It needs to figure out who it is and what does its stand for in order to weave a narrative it can use for soft power. There is a lot of debating going on domestically in China, about where they are and where they are going and what does it mean to be Chinese. Most Chinese are largely detached from Ancient China and its traditions (especially from Cultural Revolution), and the Maoist/Communism identity is on the decline.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciated it and I'd agree with you in this case. It's good thing you clarify, because I can't agree more especially in regards to the whole "We Chinese are a people of a great civilization" concept.
I do need to point out something based on my understanding of Japan. When we talk about Japan, we must be careful because I think Japan and China are one of the most misunderstood nations on Earth. Japan especially because of what people perceives Japan without truly understanding what they're thinking. They always wanted to be a great power, and the Black Ships era and US Occupations had rendered them to see US as the mentor. This was the shift from who they considered as their big brother, China, previously. The Japanese nation is one of the most impressive cultures which I admire. They are a very systematic learner who will pay deep attention to learning and understanding what's there to be learned. With this heart and devotion to learn is how they become very good at what they do. Following that, they will do things their way and the result will be what we see today: Mitsubishi industries, etc. (Of course the same downside goes to the rigid styles) These you can see a mix of their own cultural components(stubbornness, dilligence, innovativeness) and the influence of Confucianism(modesty, respect for the system and seniority). Their cultural unity is also very very strong, which leads them to where they are.
While Japan may still be out of the international scenes for many things, this is also an injustice they saw and felt unfair about. Despite so, they are still a heavy power participant in many international conventions. With that said, it is important we don't disregard these. They had come a long way, and the lessons they had learned about the international stage makes CCP and modern China nothing more than an adolescence. Japan went thru the participation of aligning itself with the West from Imperialism(in order to be seen as one of them) to attempting to "lead Asia" at one point(a genuine concept which failed) to defeating a Western state (Russo-Japanese War) to militarism(going radical with their ideologies) to bandwagoning with the Blue today, which demonstrated that not only they know how to play the game on the international stage, but also learned it in a twisty road. With that said, any alliances we see with US we must know, may not be permanent. Provided Japan can stand on its own feet again, it will want to be recognized like Brazil or India. The Japanese are proud people(evidenced by their collectivist spirit and education methods), so they won't sit subordinate under anyone for too long as they will want to be determinant and recognition of themselves, and they see they possess the traits to be a great power. As for what they are going through right now, I often argue that they are just in a loss of their directions, in parts with the impotent government that's running their system.


As for soft power, one of the most direct influences of Chinese soft power that we see today would be Japan and Korea(cultural influences). Everything else we'd also understand. Finally, soft power will be important for the world to understand China, as well as Chinese to open their eyes to the world. Soft power can also be seen, for China, as a reminder to stay modest because if ego runs too high(ethnocentricism), soft power will dissipate. Furthermore, a successful China is one who demonstrates its soft power through culture, art, and its beauty while still retaining its might. This would be Tang, Han, Song, Ming, and even early Qing. In a sense today, China is attempting to relive the Tang period, although it will take a considerable time because the society itself has yet to recover its original identity after suiciding during the Cultural Revolution. Even CCP is attempting to do so, although with more fails(Confucius Prize) than successes(Beijing Olympics)

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

paintgun said:

x2

would Hello Kitty deter enemies from invading Japan, or would Hello Kitty be a good PR if Japan was as dirt poor as China
or would Ban Ki Moon prevent a North Korea attack (maybe? lol)

the girlfriend analogy was emphasizing the different nature of hard power and soft power, and how you can not run the show without each other (or arguably without hard power), you need money to make the evening fun and entertaining for the ladies

----------

before we delve further into discussion i think we need to define what is hard power and what is soft power, or at least our each understanding about it
Is soft power simply PR or hard power simply military might

Kurt mentioned how HUMINT as a softpower is crucial in the US Afghan (hard power) campaign
for me it is not softpower, the HUMINT is executed and is an effort by the military or it's service branches, therefore it is a hardpower

military force, economic might, diplomacy and political lobbies, these all are hardpowers
PR, socio-culture values, people, these are softpowers

Hard powers are direct and give you results dependent with scale and effort of the measures taken
Soft powers are perceived and although less result oriented, but it can penetrate through and propagate into layers that hard powers can not to serve your interest

Click to expand...

I wont really put HUMINT in anywhere, although I can see this as being a product of either powers. As for economic, I think this is extremely ambiguous, so maybe we should say coercive power(including economic sanctions) as a definition in replacement of putting economic with the hard power camp.

i'm not inclined to think that China is back to the Tang glory just yet, and yes the Cultural Revolution was pretty much a slit on the wrist, the wound still even persist today

on the regard of PR (a topic i discuss in a couple of times in CDF) or soft power in broader sense, China has a lot of homework to do

-------

and Japan had to join the Blue team, she had no choice, not even today

AssassinsMace said:

The only reason why there's even a discussion of soft power, especially in regard to India, is because of China. Soft power as they are peddling it is a deconstruction of imperialism. There are many facets to soft power but they only focus on one. Why? Because it's the one which requires the acceptance from a higher power in order to have it. And lets not kid ourselves that the Western embrace is really the only one that counts. Just like the West has all these superficial "world" lists they compile, i.e. most beautiful people, most powerful women... and they're mostly Westerners when they only make around 20% of the global population. So what that yoga is embraced by Westerners. What does it get India? Bragging rights? Then let's give it to India. Is that enough? You bet it isn't. It's like when I hear Indians declare they have better English language skills than China. Again, so? What they're really getting at is declaring because have better English language skills or yoga while China doesn't, they deserve more from this world than the Chinese. When English skills has been brought up versus China, it was in the context of complaining that why China gets more from the West than India. Where's the universal law that says those with better English language skills deserve more from the world?

When I was in high school a member of another minority out of nowhere had to tell me Asians were an inferior race because they didn't have professional athletes or popular musicians. Two professions that require the favor and acceptance of others. By the definition given that's soft power and Americans love their professional athletes and popular musicians more than what India says they have. But is that enough for those minorities? Racial tensions within minorities groups is all about complaining about who has it better and they never saw Asians as being deprived. So what does that soft power give them when they think Asians have it better? If they were content and satisfied, why do they complain about Asians who don't have valuable professional athletes and popular musicians?

Soft power's purpose as they're peddling it is designed to establish hierarchies where some deserve more than others. It's plain and simple racism deconstructed repackaged as something positive. The boundaries are defined by race and ethnicity alone. How does yoga give one an edge? How does having professional athletes and popular musicians give an edge? Shouldn't these things naturally pay off dividends? Yet they don't simply because they complain about someone else having it better than they do. How many professional athletes and popular musicians can one have? Too many and it dilutes and lessens its uniqueness which gives it its only value. It doesn't matter how many touchdowns one scores or how many home runs or slam dunks. You have to be accepted by others first in order to get an indirect pay off. Dependency on others for your success? Doesn't sound so pleasing in that kind of light. But that's what the soft power they're talking of is about.

China has plenty of soft power but it's the kind they don't want advertised. It's the soft power that doesn't require their acceptance. The fact is all this is about China. And because this is about China, they're never going to give what they say is of value. They want to see China perform tricks like a circus animal in order to get it. Why give value to something so worthless by pursuing it? That's the whole deception. All the things Tharoor points to as Indian soft power translate into what except for bragging rights again? Because people like yoga, India is getting what from it? I've already pointed to what China had through history that has been embraced by the "world." But they say China doesn't have soft power simply because they say it. And does anyone think they'll so easily give it to China if it pursued it under their terms now?

Click to expand...

Well I think you received this video differently, and also might have simplified the concept too much..but otherwise, I really really understand where you're getting at and I agree on it. As you're saying, soft power requires others to accept it first, so it's more of advertisement and also "selling your image to the higher ones", which in turn is a sense of racist hierarchy. With that said, yes I also very agree that it's very unfair. However simultaneously, I really do think for China to advertise/spread the Chinese culture is very good and important because China shant' be all about kungfu and chop suey(I still dunno wtf that shit is lol). Instead we as a culture and nation are very deep, and sharing our stories with the world is more about moving forward together and for us to learn each other's stories, than just the West. It's the coming of the Asian generation and increased interconnectedness, so there's a need for all of us to learn more and understand more of each other. Lessons we Chinese got from our history may perhaps serve much benefits for ways we'd never imagine.

Anyways...finally, my calls of Chinese soft power is also a call for us Chinese to learn to behave in more "mannered" form and demonstrate what values and cultures that were used to be in our histories when we were proud(manners, modesty, etiquettes, morals and ethics) instead of attempting to just brag about how strong our war gears are yet still being ill-mannered and spitting bigot. If we Chinese really wanted to be proud like we were back in Tang, it's time we act like the learned cultures we used to be instead of just talk. Reliving the past by mouth without reviving it by action is nothing but pretentious.

---------- Post added at 01:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 AM ----------

paintgun said:

i'm not inclined to think that China is back to the Tang glory just yet, and yes the Cultural Revolution was pretty much a slit on the wrist, the wound still even persist today

on the regard of PR (a topic i discuss in a couple of times in CDF) or soft power in broader sense, China has a lot of homework to do

-------

and Japan had to join the Blue team, she had no choice, not even today

Click to expand...

Oh we're FARRRRRRRRRRRR away from being the glory that Tang used to be. For these reasons, I feel there's a need to be more critical when seeing China these days. This is because it's one of the most important moments in history: if a nation/adolescence loses its conscious during growth, this can severely affect its future. Understanding ourselves and how we are, there's a greater need we are stricter on ourselves as there's no real margins for error. This is why when people asks me how far it takes China to be great, I'd tell them "60 years", assuming social reforms and progress to reviving the culture keeps going. I also feel there's a need for China to balance issues such as materialism, inequality, extincting corruption, re-instilling morals and ethics(perhaps even into schools) and manners and orderly behaviours, critical thinking, and gradually ease off restrictions on human rights and freedoms. Democratic reforms should be gradual and critical, restrictions on media and censorships should be eased off quicker and sooner.. despite all those, sadly I feel parents are also much to blame. Some of them spoil their kids without teaching them any sense of right and wrongs, which causes a lot of problems in China today.

Even then, China will still have to receive lessons from first worlds such as HK, Japan, SK, Canada, Singapore, Malay, Taiwan because issues that advanced democracies(although HK and Singapore aint technically, yet they still share those issues) may be things China will face very soon. HK is currently undergoing xenophobia and problems related to immigrations of mainland Chinese, which are problems found in many advanced democracies. HK will be a very good example(despite the controversies of how it came to be) of what Chinese people can achieve, and how China should attempt for the same. For this I'm referring to the anti-corruption system and quite a few things which renders HK a democracy just lacking direct election. Of course we see UK and US treating HK like a Blue, although again this is something else.

As for Japan joining the Blue, I think she also knew what benefits she'd receive.

airsuperiority said:

Well I think you received this video differently, and also might have simplified the concept too much..but otherwise, I really really understand where you're getting at and I agree on it. As you're saying, soft power requires others to accept it first, so it's more of advertisement and also "selling your image to the higher ones", which in turn is a sense of racist hierarchy. With that said, yes I also very agree that it's very unfair. However simultaneously, I really do think for China to advertise/spread the Chinese culture is very good and important because China shant' be all about kungfu and chop suey(I still dunno wtf that shit is lol). Instead we as a culture and nation are very deep, and sharing our stories with the world is more about moving forward together and for us to learn each other's stories, than just the West. It's the coming of the Asian generation and increased interconnectedness, so there's a need for all of us to learn more and understand more of each other. Lessons we Chinese got from our history may perhaps serve much benefits for ways we'd never imagine.

Anyways...finally, my calls of Chinese soft power is also a call for us Chinese to learn to behave in more "mannered" form and demonstrate what values and cultures that were used to be in our histories when we were proud(manners, modesty, etiquettes, morals and ethics) instead of attempting to just brag about how strong our war gears are yet still being ill-mannered and spitting bigot. If we Chinese really wanted to be proud like we were back in Tang, it's time we act like the learned cultures we used to be instead of just talk. Reliving the past by mouth without reviving it by action is nothing but pretentious.

Click to expand...

Like I said, soft power is only discussed because of China. It's like during Copenhagen when the West declared China a superpower so they can tell China its role on what it had to do in the world. The same exact role when they denied the honor of being called a superpower thinking withholding it was going to manipulate China into doing its will. Soft power is the exact same tactic. They're trying to manipulate China by thinking it's valuable and they need it. When anyone talks about soft power, it's always about China. Mexico has more soft power than India. It's not even talked about. Just like Chinese soft power which is greater and more signifcant than India's isn't talked about because it doesn't serve their agenda to mention it. So why is Indian soft power talked about? Because it's about China. They think they're going to manipulate China into its will through envy over India. So it's not really about China gaining power which the big giveaway is they don't want China to have any kind of power in the first place.

The mistake is this is falling into the trap that Indians have caught themselves into. They only measure themselves against China. They're aiming low. China's success is due to going up against the top dog of the world. Why do we want China to follow in India's footsteps when they themselves have shown that tactic doesn't work? Indian "soft power" is not the same animal as American soft power. Following India's example is a trap.

Let's take the example of how Tharoor points to how Indian restaurants in Great Britain employ more people than the British mining industry. You know that's spin because why not compare it to the general restaurant industry in Great Britian? You think they would allow China to be a major employer in their country in the first place? That would never happen because of politics. So pursuing "soft power" where they have the final say says you're not the one in power. The ones that get to decide your success is where the power lies not getting approval from them.

The problem with "soft power" is one of definition. Most of what we think of as "soft power" does not translate into *power* at all. How many Westerners who love HK action flicks and Jackie Chan would actually stand up for the Chinese side on issues like Tibet, Diaoyutai, and South China Sea? So what if more and more people are learning mandarin? Does that actually translate into China having more influence on the world stage? Or is that rather the other way around: China having more influence is causing more people to learn mandarin?

I can think of one very concrete example of soft power: the amount of influence that Israel wields over the US. Did Israel achieve that by promoting Judaism, Hebrew, or Jewish culture? No, they achieved it because many of the richest people in the US are Jewish and/or pro-Israel, thus creating the powerful Israel lobby.

So I think that if we are to discuss soft power, we need to first understand what soft power is, and what it *isn't*.

paintgun said:

x2

would Hello Kitty deter enemies from invading Japan, or would Hello Kitty be a good PR if Japan was as dirt poor as China
or would Ban Ki Moon prevent a North Korea attack (maybe? lol)

the girlfriend analogy was emphasizing the different nature of hard power and soft power, and how you can not run the show without each other (or arguably without hard power), you need money to make the evening fun and entertaining for the ladies

----------

before we delve further into discussion i think we need to define what is hard power and what is soft power, or at least our each understanding about it
Is soft power simply PR or hard power simply military might

Kurt mentioned how HUMINT as a softpower is crucial in the US Afghan (hard power) campaign
for me it is not softpower, the HUMINT is executed and is an effort by the military or it's service branches, therefore it is a hardpower

military force, economic might, diplomacy and political lobbies, these all are hardpowers
PR, socio-culture values, people, these are softpowers

Hard powers are direct and give you results dependent with scale and effort of the measures taken
Soft powers are perceived and although less result oriented, but it can penetrate through and propagate into layers that hard powers can not to serve your interest

Click to expand...

That's a misunderstanding. HUMINT is a result of soft power, but HUMINT is not soft power.

Soft power would be Pericles or Caesar giving you a speech in order to make you do something. So rhetoric is one capable tool for exercising soft power, but it's only one among very many tools for that purpose.



Soft power is for example religion, although Christianity and Islam were both often spread with hard power, they were also spread via soft power. This soft power phenomena is perhaps better known from Western Eurasian and New World history. In China the Yellow Turbans/Scarves would be the best known example of a group that created an outstanding soft power of popular support, they then tried to turn into an equal hard power (for all non-Chinese).
In essence, all revolutions need overwhelming soft power, military coups need hard power so to say.

Does this sufficiently explain my POV on soft power?

solarz said:

The problem with "soft power" is one of definition. Most of what we think of as "soft power" does not translate into *power* at all. How many Westerners who love HK action flicks and Jackie Chan would actually stand up for the Chinese side on issues like Tibet, Diaoyutai, and South China Sea? So what if more and more people are learning mandarin? Does that actually translate into China having more influence on the world stage? Or is that rather the other way around: China having more influence is causing more people to learn mandarin?

I can think of one very concrete example of soft power: the amount of influence that Israel wields over the US. Did Israel achieve that by promoting Judaism, Hebrew, or Jewish culture? No, they achieved it because many of the richest people in the US are Jewish and/or pro-Israel, thus creating the powerful Israel lobby.

So I think that if we are to discuss soft power, we need to first understand what soft power is, and what it *isn't*.

Click to expand...

HK action flicks and Jackie Chan only represents HK, which spreads more of HK culture and values. Furthermore, both HK action movies and Tibet have no direct correlations; HK is non-political by nature. Soft power is the demonstration of a nation's culture. Soft power tends to exert influences hard power can't, and attracts people to the culture. Someone mentioned charisma and that can be considered one of the best explanations in this forum so far. Finally, soft power was a very important component of Chinese history, as can be seen during Tang, the Classical ages, Song, Han, Ming, Qing. Even visiting the Forbidden Palace and the Great Wall is an attraction of cultural relics and values which defines as Chinese soft power. Soft power is meant to be attraction of what the nation is and to appeal to the world, and has no direct links to other political agendas. It's time we get that sorted out.

Kurt said:

Soft power is for example religion, although Christianity and Islam were both often spread with hard power, they were also spread via soft power. This soft power phenomena is perhaps better known from Western Eurasian and New World history. In China the Yellow Turbans/Scarves would be the best known example of a group that created an outstanding soft power of popular support, they then tried to turn into an equal hard power

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(for all non-Chinese).
In essence, all revolutions need overwhelming soft power, military coups need hard power so to say.

Does this sufficiently explain my POV on soft power?

Click to expand...

Is religion really a soft power? Remember that power means influence. What nation has gained influence by exporting its religion? Italy? Iran and Saudi Arabia share the same religion, but they hate each other's guts.

Does the Dalai Lama have influence? Or is he only a convenient pawn for already existing anti-Chinese powers?

As for popular rebellions like the "Yellow Turbans", it does not even apply to the topic at hand. We are discussing soft power in the context of international relations, not domestic affairs.