One of the enduring debates in history, political science, and international relations is whether great men or the forces of history have more influence on the course events. The debate transcends ideological lines and partisans for each theory are easy to find. Christopher Layne, in his article The Unbearable Lightness of Soft Power sees states and their antagonistic interests, as defined by “hard” interests such as economics, as the foundation of the international system. So he has no patience for those who take a Thucydidian view in which nations think and act like humans: “[t]he argument that states can be attracted ad seduced by polices of another state the same way lovers are seduced by their partners is not compelling.”[1]
Layne has some well-deserved criticism for the broad interpretation of soft-power that become en vogue recently. However, a reasonable person could see a middle ground between the notion that soft-power is the new currency of international relations and Layne’s claim that “[s]oft power is just a polite way of describing the ideological expansionism inherent in US liberal internationalism.
There are cases of current international issues that prove soft power exists, if not in the sense that Nye conceives it, then at least as a latent force that builds up the cachet of certain actors. Remember, to Nye, soft power is measured in getting other’s to support your agenda through means other than “hard” ones. A classic case in the spirit of Nye’s definition would be Israeli settlers’ persuasion of American evangelicals. Christian Zionists have no more or less of a stake in the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than other Americans in terms of economics or other tangible goods. Yet, evangelicals are key supporters of the settler movement and help give it cover in Washington. In the past, demonstrating causality between evangelical support for Israel and the U.S. government’s support for it would have been hard. However, now with the Obama administration putting more pressure on Israel, that causal link is more apparent.
On the other side of the conflict, those Muslim-majority states who side the most with the Palestinians in public build up their reservoir of soft power. Turkey would be a prime example of that phenomenon, between the flotilla affair and Erdogan’s quarrel with Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in 2010. What outcomes Turkey has been able to generate with more support from the Muslim world is not clear yet. However, that latent power may become apparent in a number of possible scenarios in the region.
In short, Layne’s critique of soft power is flawed because he bases it on a flawed view of international relations. In his world, all human emotions and passions are gone, and states make perfectly logical and calculating decisions based on empirical factors. If only our world could be like that.
A Model Decision-Maker
Source: thruthdig.com
[1] Layne, 53
Hmmm... I'm going to climb onto my soapbox for a moment and point out that great women have been known to shape history as well. But, feminist snarking aside, you've raised some interesting points here.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your characterization of Layne's soft power criticism. I think he's making a realistic argument that states are ultimately sovereign and, to some extent, institutionalized in a way that overpowers basic personal preferences. He's not suggesting that international relations are free from the influence of human emotions, more that human emotions are less likely to sway states toward a certain action without a compelling realistic justification.
This is something I go back and forth on, but I do think there's a case to be made for the dominance of the state. What fascinates me is the overlap of ideas and power--that point where human interest becomes state interest. And I think that's an area where soft power has a more diverse influence than Layne is willing to concede in this piece.