In times of global uncertainty, the ideas market becomes flooded with new paradigms to explain the seemingly unexplainable. Bestsellers lists are filled with innumerable tomes promising to help decision makers understand everything from the rise of China to the Arab Spring and the information revolution. To develop a successful foreign policy these days, the argument goes; you need to know your ‘BRICS’ from your ‘BASIC’.*
Such lively debate about the state of the world (and Britain’s place in it) is vital for effective policymaking, but it is just as important that as Labour builds its future foreign policy in opposition, we realize that ideas put forward by the commentariat are mere tools which should be considered with a critical eye before making their way into policy documents.
Consider the wholesale adoption of ‘soft power’ by policymakers in the US and UK. This is the idea that states should seek to attract and influence others without resorting to economic or military coercion and instead use cultural and other benign means to win allies. The idea has been around for over twenty years, but it has recently become extremely popular in Western policy circles.
There a number of reasons for the concept’s popularity. It is broad, far-reaching and fits well with politicians’ desire to speak in grand themes. It is also a somewhat cuddly concept of power that contrasts positively with the nastier military version deployed with such vigour by the Bush administration. It is also, importantly, relatively cheap to exert. Whatever you think about the BBC World Service, it costs less to broadcast international news to far-off lands than it does to design and build an aircraft carrier.
Soft power is particularly alluring for UK policymakers because of Britain’s cultural heritage and benevolent national character. It has featured heavily in discussions of the hugely successful Olympic and Paralympic games. Before and during London 2012 much was made of the soft power ‘bump’ Britain would receive depending on how we conducted ourselves this summer.
It is true that our ceremonies were a triumph and that we were feverishly supportive of athletes from all countries – Olympians and Paralympians alike. We also opened up our capital to the world with a grace and charm that displayed the finer parts of the British character on the grandest stage possible.
The problem comes, though, when policymakers try to harness that power and direct it towards a specific policy goal. How can the successful Olympics be used to achieve agreement on climate change? How can it make our country more prosperous, or increase our security? It is almost impossible to say. There is an assumption that soft power helps, but the causal chain is difficult to prove.
Soft power is fickle, too. Our Olympic goodwill dividend is already being eroded by the coalition’s aggressive anti-immigration policy. The Americans’ recent experience in Libya also shows how quickly soft power can dissipate. The US, along with NATO allies, did more than most others to help the rebels overcome Gadhafi’s regime, but that did not stop the tragic murder of the US Ambassador and two other consular staff in a Benghazi attack. The soft power capital the US had built up in North Africa over previous months through supportive action and development aid was destroyed in an instant by one filmmaker’s desire to make an offensive anti-Islam polemic.
When faced with concepts like soft power, then, the architects of Labour’s future foreign policy must be careful to recognize their limitations. Such ideas are powerful and compelling, and there are many circumstances where they can help decide the correct approach to take. But they are no replacement for a coherent, strategic foreign policy approach that identifies the full suite of options available to UK.
As global complexity increases, foreign policy ideas will continue to proliferate and the intellectual space will become ever-more crowded. Thinkers have a vital role to play in fostering a healthy debate, but Labour’s next generation need to maintain a critical perspective and remain focused on their core aim: to forge a foreign policy to serve the interests of a progressive, safe and prosperous Britain.
—————————————————————————————
*BRICS are the largest emerging powers: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BASIC is a term for the bloc that emerged when Brazil, South Africa, India and China agreed a common position at the Copenhagen Climate summit in 2009.
—————————————————————————————
Greg Falconer is a foreign policy expert and Progress contributor. He tweets at @gregfalconer
—————————————————————————————
Photo: Andy Houghton