djon
05-06-2005, 07:51 PM
Soft power can crack hard cases
Simon Tisdall
Friday May 6, 2005
The Guardian
Syria's decision last week to restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad after a break of 23 years was portrayed by its foreign minister, Farouk al-Sharaa, as a brotherly gesture that would enhance Iraq's security and stability.
But altruism alone seems an implausible reason for Syria's about-face. As with its accelerated troop withdrawal from Lebanon, Damascus was primarily responding to international pressure orchestrated by the Bush administration.
President Bashar al-Assad may have mixed feelings about helping the US secure Iraq's borders and impede Islamist insurgents after an invasion that he fiercely opposed.
It is unlikely that the Beirut street protests occasioned by the assassination of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri could by themselves have forced his hand.
The leaving of Lebanon has potentially profound (and unwelcome) domestic implications, as the Ba'ath party congress expected during the next month may demonstrate.
But the alternatives for Mr Assad were all worse: increasing ostracism, tightening financial and trade sanctions, UN censure - and ultimately, the tacit threat of externally enforced regime change.
In a limited sense, the Syrian shift was a success for what Joseph Nye, a former Clinton administration official, has dubbed "soft power". This means the evolution of foreign policy strategies which in their broader applications appeal to others' self-interest, persuade rather than coerce, and subvert and convert rather than confront and defeat.
"Soft power means that others want what the United States wants," said Dr Nye, now a Harvard professor. "It means there is less need to use carrots and sticks."
Soft power emphasised common aspirations such as democratic and individual rights, shared cultural values, and enlightened policy-making.
"It means we say to people, 'We are going to help you achieve your goals'.
"It's not just a question of whose army wins but of whose story wins," Dr Nye said at Chatham House in London this week.
Soft power theory - as opposed to "hard power", broadly meaning coercive military force - is all the rage among governments scarred by the Iraq convulsions. In a way, it is a statement of the flaming obvious. But it suits pre-existing European predilections for non-violent solutions. The EU's eastward enlargement is now portrayed as a soft power paradigm, predicated on attraction not attrition.
In other forms, soft power tactics involving externally supplied popular organisational, financial and information tools have been used by the US in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine to facilitate peaceful democratic transformations where hard power options were not available.
Full Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1477773,00.html)
Simon Tisdall
Friday May 6, 2005
The Guardian
Syria's decision last week to restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad after a break of 23 years was portrayed by its foreign minister, Farouk al-Sharaa, as a brotherly gesture that would enhance Iraq's security and stability.
But altruism alone seems an implausible reason for Syria's about-face. As with its accelerated troop withdrawal from Lebanon, Damascus was primarily responding to international pressure orchestrated by the Bush administration.
President Bashar al-Assad may have mixed feelings about helping the US secure Iraq's borders and impede Islamist insurgents after an invasion that he fiercely opposed.
It is unlikely that the Beirut street protests occasioned by the assassination of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri could by themselves have forced his hand.
The leaving of Lebanon has potentially profound (and unwelcome) domestic implications, as the Ba'ath party congress expected during the next month may demonstrate.
But the alternatives for Mr Assad were all worse: increasing ostracism, tightening financial and trade sanctions, UN censure - and ultimately, the tacit threat of externally enforced regime change.
In a limited sense, the Syrian shift was a success for what Joseph Nye, a former Clinton administration official, has dubbed "soft power". This means the evolution of foreign policy strategies which in their broader applications appeal to others' self-interest, persuade rather than coerce, and subvert and convert rather than confront and defeat.
"Soft power means that others want what the United States wants," said Dr Nye, now a Harvard professor. "It means there is less need to use carrots and sticks."
Soft power emphasised common aspirations such as democratic and individual rights, shared cultural values, and enlightened policy-making.
"It means we say to people, 'We are going to help you achieve your goals'.
"It's not just a question of whose army wins but of whose story wins," Dr Nye said at Chatham House in London this week.
Soft power theory - as opposed to "hard power", broadly meaning coercive military force - is all the rage among governments scarred by the Iraq convulsions. In a way, it is a statement of the flaming obvious. But it suits pre-existing European predilections for non-violent solutions. The EU's eastward enlargement is now portrayed as a soft power paradigm, predicated on attraction not attrition.
In other forms, soft power tactics involving externally supplied popular organisational, financial and information tools have been used by the US in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine to facilitate peaceful democratic transformations where hard power options were not available.
Full Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1477773,00.html)