In the new century, a multi-polar world is developing
with swift economic globalization, scientific and technological improvement, and
intensifying international competition. As soft power is an important component
the related competition plays a rising role in the evolution of international
relations. Culture as a kind of soft power has even more significant impact on
international relations. It is now ordinary for most countries to focus on the
power of culture in the international competition.
Comprehensive national power includes hard power,
soft power, and their influence on international relations. In this soft power
is an important component. The American scholar, Joseph Nye, first developed the
concept of “soft power”, summarized as a directing, attracting and imitating
force, in a word, a co-optive power. This is the ability of a country to attract
other countries by ideas, values and ideology: the ability of a country to let
other countries think what it thinks. This power is closely related to such
formless powers as culture, ideology and social systems. A country’s cultural
universality and its ability to determine norms, rules and regimes that regulate
international behaviors are key resources for a country’s power.1
Though intangible, it can be estimated from a nation’s cohesiveness, cultural
popularity in the globe, and role in international institutions. Another
American scholar, Ray Cline, as early as the 1970s2 proposed
“strategic goals” and “national will” as important components of
national power. Strategic goals reflect a country’s fundamental national
interests. A nation’s strategy defines its strategic goals in the specific
international environment. The will to implement the national strategy derives
from the degree of confidence and support from the people who can be mobilized
for national defense and foreign policy. People’s confidence and support come
from such factors as national cohesiveness, political leadership, the efficacy
of government, and a people’s concern over national strategy and national
interests. As complex and intangible national strategy and national will cannot
be judged by static and tangible standards.
The Institute of Comprehensive Studies in Japan, in
compiling Japan’s Comprehensive National
Power, suggests three major factors for calculating a country’s
comprehensive national power, i.e., capacity for international contributions,
survival ability, and coercive capability. The international contribution
capacity includes a positive attitude toward being engaged in international
affairs and contributing to international society. Survival ability concerns
national will and friendly alliances. Coercive capability emphasizes a
country’s capability in managing its foreign relations. While developing these
ideas, Japan’s Comprehensive National
Power also pays much attention to soft power. Without a strong national
spirit a nation cannot effectively deal with potential international crises.
Without a strong culture with global appeal, a nation cannot have a say in
international activities.3
Many international scholars have touched upon the
issue of soft power in their writings. Robert Thompson from England sees will as
a kind of national power. In Grand
Strategy, John M. Collins from the Unite States lists the following as
elements of national power: political forces with impacts in both domestic and
international arenas, the people’s character, ethics and education; and any
other prominent factors. American scholar Joseph Frankel wrote in his International
Relations that national power is the ability to affect the psychology and
behavior of others. His distinctive stress on the psychological factor joins it
to society and international strategic status as parts of national power.
Another German American scholar, Hans Morgenthau, in his Politics
among Nations, holds that nationality, national ethics, diplomatic quality,
and attributes of government make up national power. Nicholas Spykman, from the
United States, also considers such soft power as national homogeneity, social
comprehensiveness, political stability, and national ethics to be an important
part of national power.
Huang Shuofeng, a well-known Chinese scholar, in his On
Comprehensive National Power, sees comprehensive national power as a
nation’s whole power and international influence including both the material
and mental power a nation has for survival and development. Mental power can
also be called soft power; it comprises such soft elements as psychology and
intelligence which give tangible shape to the role of hard power. Soft power is
composed of political, cultural and educational, diplomatic and synergic powers.
Political power includes the political system, strategic goals, social stability
and national cohesiveness, as well as its national system of leadership,
organization and policy-making. Cultural and educational power includes the
quality of labor, the development of human resources, the educational investment
and system, its universality and the quality of teachers; quality of cultural
workers; broadcasting, television and films; the publication of books,
periodicals, journals and their influence on the international stage. Diplomatic
power includes foreign relations, policy and activity, and the ability to
contribute to the international community. Synergic power refers mainly to the
capability of macro control and synergic development.4
In sum, soft power, as a kind of mental power, is an
important part of comprehensive national power. Soft elements of mental power
are all in the category of culture, whose core is values. As to the content of
culture, most explanations are similar to that of soft power. E. B. Taylor, a
British anthropologist, has defined culture as a complex entity including
knowledge, belief, art, morality, law, custom, and any ability or habit people
can draw from society. Two American anthropologists hold that culture is a
historically created system for survival, including both evident and recessive
forms, with tendencies shared by a whole community or a certain part of it in a
certain period. A German scholar points out that culture is a form of life based
upon mental discipline or the capability of thought.
Others believe the fundamental attribute of culture
is a human being’s creativity. What has been created by humankind, whether
material or mental and their products, all come under the category of culture.5
In short, in a broad sense, culture is the sum of material and spiritual wealth
created in the history of human society. In a more narrow sense, culture is the
social ideology and related systems and institutions, including ideas, thoughts
and related systems in politics, law, morality, art, religion, and science.
From whichever angle, culture is not a static entity,
but a dynamic process. As soft power, culture is relative to politics, the
economy and the military. We shall mainly explore its role in international
relations from the angle of human nature and ideology.
Traditional. A country’s soft power as the deepest source of
cultural power comes into reality through a long historical evolution. A
people’s mode of thinking, ideology, cultural traditions, ethnic customs,
social system, economic regime, style of life, etc. are the cumulative results
of the evolution of forms of social production. In this process, every element
of soft power is always influenced by the cultural tradition, and the
development of every culture has its own distinct trajectory. Soft power
develops in this circulated, contradictory, but progressive movement with its
own specific tradition.
Timely. Soft power is intangible, but not a mirage. Its
formation, development and change in strength is related to the background of
the times and with domestic and international society. Only soft power which
represents the mainstream of the times develops constantly. Especially in modern
society, soft power has close relations with scientific and technological
progress, the information society and the knowledge economy. Soft power
increases with the endless invention of various new tools and means in
international society. The rise in information technology makes mass media a
very dynamic and influential means. As advanced mass media enter international
society, its impact on international relations expands dramatically and becomes
an important hallmark of a nation’s power.
Pervasive. Soft power itself has a strong capability to spread
and compete. With the rising tide of the information revolution and the
development of the internet culture, soft power reaches beyond the limits of
geographical boundaries, national ethnicity, and time and space. It powers the
progress of society and impacts extraordinarily on the lifestyle and behavior
standards of human beings. In international society, when a variety of soft
powers interact with one another, competition and rivalry become inevitable,
thus leading to disputes and conflicts. However, soft powers also attract and
promote each other, usually coming to collective identity after interaction,
mutual adjustment, learning, and imitation.
Changeable. Soft power is not a static entity but a dynamic
process. It is a great changing system, in which the formation and transition of
power depends on the contradictory movement of its various components. Unlike
nationality, national strategies and ethics, diplomatic, cultural and
educational power, and the quality of government require a shorter time period
to be formulated and developed and hence are more changeable. As all these have
something to do with human influence, they have greater uncertainty and mobility
and are much easier to adjust and transform.
Inter-dependent. Soft and hard powers are interdependent and
every country should develop both in constructing its comprehensive national
power. While increasing material power, a country should improve its spiritual
power. One without the other would not be effective. If the development of soft
power is overlooked or ignored, it is difficult for hard power to maintain its
sustained development. Yet, while soft power needs substantial media, many
physical products carry rich cultural contents, express broad cultural
information, and in practice play a mental role. Thus, soft and hard powers
correlate with, improve and confine each other in strong complementarity. Soft
power is needed to make and implement national strategy and mobilize and unify
national will. Thus, a strong national leadership is indispensable to stimulate
the people’s enthusiasm and use their zeal to create and increase its
comprehensive national power in great forward leaps. The interdependence and
complementarity of soft and hard powers increase geometrically in a so-called
physical-mental relationship.
Soft power plays an especially important role in the
development and enhancement of comprehensive national power. “Intensified
competition over comprehensive national power in today’s world involves
economic power, scientific and technological power, defensive power, and
cultural power as well.”6 Culture as a kind of soft power has been
a significant part of comprehensive national power. It has been a strategic
option for many countries to strengthen their international influence and
competitiveness through cultural development. In the competition of
comprehensive national powers, a nation’s hard power cannot be improved
without the development of its soft power. However, many always emphasize the
rivalry over hard power, while overlooking the competition of soft power focused
on cultural power. According to Cline’s “function of national power,” the
“strategic goal” and “national will” are two major components of soft
power. Such soft powers as strategy and will determine the effectiveness of
national material power. In international society, national strategy and its
implementation aim at a nation’s survival, development and international
influence. These reflect national interests as discussed above. The degree of
national cohesiveness, leadership and governmental efficacy and people’s
concern over national strategy and interests all belong to factors of will.
Obviously, both the making and implementation of national strategy and the
mobilization and guidance of national will are closely related to the level of
governmental leadership. No mater how many people a country has, it cannot
constitute a strong national power without united will. Strategy and will are
evidently relevant to the shape of a nation’s internal power. If national
leaders can design correct strategy, mobilize a whole population, and unify the
national will, they can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of inherent or
potential hard power. This is the reactive role of soft power that Cline
proposed in his function of national power.
Soft power is the first choice in handling
international relations. Joseph Nye analyzed the role of soft power in his Bound
to Lead. Economic power, he wrote, like other forms of power, cannot be
gauged simply by tangible resources, for the other side of power must be
considered. To make another country change may be a directive or even
dictatorial application of power, the major means of which includes attraction
(“carrot”) or threat (“stick”). On the other hand, there is another way
to apply power indirectly. In international politics, a country can achieve its
expectations because other countries would take it as an example or accept a
system conducive to such results. In this sense, it is equally important in
international politics to give directions, to establish the environment, and to
stimulate reforms in other countries. Nye called this power co-optive: if a
country’s ideology and culture are attractive, others would like to imitate
and follow. At present, the United States has stronger traditional hard power
than any other country. It also has resources of soft power in ideology and
institution that can assure its leadership in the newly interdependent
countries.7
From this strategic perspective, Nye pointed out that
the United States should enhance the co-optive power of its culture and the
attraction of its lifestyle in order to become preponderant not only in hard
power, but also in soft power. This will establish its ideological domination
throughout the entire world. To do this, the key is whether the United States
has the political leadership and strategic perspective to translate those soft
power resources into real power in this period of transition in international
politics.8 Soft power plays a strong reactive role in international
politics. Its positive impact can help a country make feasible national
strategy, guide national enthusiasm, shape united will and strong cultural
power. Thereby it can promote the development of comprehensive national power,
improve the country’s international status, and increase its international
contribution and influence. On the contrary, if the national strategy is
infeasible, blind or dangerous, the soft power would misguide people and play a
negative role, leading to loss of national enthusiasm, a frustrated national
will, and reduction in hard national power. The damage would be incalculable.
The international status and competitiveness of such a country would decrease
dramatically to zero. Any country, in drawing up its national strategy, must pay
attention to creating better surroundings; to making its development model,
values, lifestyle and corresponding systems attractive, appealing and inspiring;
and to incorporating both tangible and intangible power in order to assure the
achievement of national interests. Therefore, soft power is always the first
option or tool for countries to deal with various affairs in contemporary
international relations.
Due to the increasing influence of soft power in
international relations, major powers in the world stress the enhancement of
their soft powers. As early as the 1980s, former Japanese Prime Minister
Nakasone proposed a strategic plan to “create a culturally developed
country.” French President Chirac suggested making a cultural Europe and
establishing a European cultural community. Russian President Putin began to
carry out his “cultural expansion” strategy as acting president. In
September 1992, former U.S. President Bush highlighted in his “Agenda for
American Revival,” “Our political and economic connections are supplemented
by the attractiveness of American culture in the world. This is a new kind of
soft power we can use.” In late November 2000, the outgoing President Clinton
held a seminar on American culture and foreign relations aimed at drawing up an
American cultural foreign strategy for the 21st century. In the
national security strategy report, Clinton clearly set “encouraging the
development of foreign democracy” as one of three pillars of the US security
strategy and foreign policy. It stated, “expanding the great family of
democratic and free market countries is in all the strategic interests of the
United States.”
In the face of aggressive cultural expansion of
US-led Western countries, developing countries feel challenged. President Jiang
Zemin pointed out recently, “It is vital for most developing countries to
maintain and upgrade the excellent traditions of their national cultures, carry
forward their national ethics, absorb good the cultural achievements of others,
and keep cultural development abreast of the times.”9
CURRENT
COMPETITION OVER SOFT POWER
In today’s international society, all peoples are
striving for peace and development. The so-called East-West issue and
South-North issue have profound cultural backgrounds. In the final analysis,
such hot problems as terrorism, national separatism and religious extremism are
all cultural problems. Hence, competition over comprehensive national power,
focusing on cultural power, has important impact on the evolution of
international relations.
The US-led Western developed countries take advantage
of their great political, economic, military, scientific and technological
superiority to pursue hegemony and power politics. They try to make Western
civilization the model of other countries, to spread the Western values of
freedom and democracy, and to translate Western values into universal
civilization. This strategy of the developed Western countries meets a counter
reaction from developing countries resulting in the outstanding contradiction
between developed and developing countries. The U.S.-led West is the principal
of this contradiction. With its great superiority the United States always plays
a major role in the development of this contradiction. In the Cold War, the
competition over soft power was manifested in the antagonism and struggle
between two different social systems, values and ideologies. After the Cold War,
this antagonism and struggle did not come to an end, but increased. The root
causes are follows.
First, the tendency of multi-polarization of the
world develops in a zigzag manner. Due to the variety in world cultures, the
comparative advantage of a culture would stimulate it to challenge other
cultures and to react to the challenge of heterogeneous cultures. Hence,
conflict and fusion among different cultures happen constantly. In the evolving
process of contradictory movement the negative aspects of cultures are graduallyd discarded while the positive are identified and
shared by various cultures.
Second, the rapid development of world economic
globalization and marketization drives cultural commercialization and cultural
industrial development. Cultural power is not only real social productivity, but
also potential social productivity. This is indispensable to economic growth and
social development because the cultural power has great economic functions. With
economic development and social progress, and especially the arrival of the
knowledge economy, many physical products have profound cultural contents and
present rich cultural information. These products have both physical and mental
consequences.
Third, the rapid development of science and
technology is bringing to international society a bright future described by
such terms as digitalization, informatization, and knowledge economy. The new
era provides broad space for different civilizations to communicate and thus
increase their contradictions, frictions, conflicts, and integration. In the
contemporary world, power is being transferred from the one who has capital to
the one who has information. Not only capital, but also information is a path to
success.10
Fourth, while developing countries concentrate on
economic growth, they pay attention to maintaining and upgrading their excellent
cultural tradition. On the one hand, they learn modernization from the
achievements of Western civilization, in particular, to enhance productivity via
market mechanisms, to create democratic systems via electoral mechanism and to
realize universal human rights via the rule of law. On the other, they reject
the negative factors of Western civilization which are unsuitable to their
national situations, upgrade their national cultural identity to the level of
sovereignty, and confront the infiltration of Western culture via awareness of
cultural sovereignty.
Fifth, after the Cold War, Western countries paid
more attention to using cultural power to acquire their national interests and
serve their strategic goals; they invested in cultural enterprises aimed at
boosting the attractiveness of their cultures. They highlighted the economic
value of culture and established huge cultural enterprises to occupy the
cultural market, which seriously impeded the cultural enterprises in developing
countries. The cultural contents in Western lifestyles are subtly but surely
having impact upon the developing countries and seriously damaging their
cultures.
Competition over comprehensive national power
focusing on cultural power may continue for a very long time into the new
century. Although developing countries are in a disadvantageous position in the
competition of soft power, “the power of the weaker” is not negligible. This
is also a source of intangible power. The ability of a strong country may be
contained because of a weak one that has better ability to organize and
concentrate.11 Therefore, cultural advantage and disadvantage are
paired. In modern international society, because of increasingly overlapping
interests, different cultures show their merits and learn mutually, even while
conflicting with each other. Nevertheless, in the present era, the conflicts
between different cultures are limited, partial, and unlikely to lead to
full-scale global conflicts.
First, intervention in the internal affairs of other
countries in the name of human rights. Currently international society
increasingly values the development of human rights. Since the foundation of
United Nations over half a century ago, the records of human rights in every
country have made great progress. But, due to differences in the concrete
situations of different countries, there are diverse understandings on such
issues as human rights and sovereignty, and on individual rights and collective
rights between developing and Western developed countries. US-led Western
countries believe that the most important part of the universal values in
Western civilization is about human rights and see the spreading of Western
civilization as a major means to pursue their national interests. They regard
“human rights diplomacy” as a “sophisticated weapon” and “the most
important advantage of free and democratic countries in the fight for
influence.”12 They have made “human rights diplomacy” their
national policy, supplemented by recent “new interventionism,” and have
carried out “humanitarian intervention” as a new international relations
idea.
There are three basic aspects of their theory. First,
human rights are superior to sovereignty. Second, the whole world should be
democratized. Third, the spread of democracy should not be limited by national
boundaries. On the other hand, developing countries conduct their human rights
undertakings according to their own national conditions and see the rights to
subsistence and development as their first objectives. They oppose interference
in their internal affairs by Western countries in the name of human rights, and
thus object to Western ideas on human rights which are believed to impinge on
their sovereignty. The U.S.-led Western countries always blame other
countries’ human rights records at meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission.
Without exception, those blamed are developing countries. A major issue in
contemporary international relations is the struggle on human rights issues
between developing and western developed countries; in essence this is the
struggle over intervention versus counter-intervention and “human rights”
versus national sovereignty. Sometimes this kind of struggle becomes
complicated, is intensified, and even escalates from soft power conflict to such
hard power conflicts economic blockades and the use of force. There are a number
of such examples in international relations, the most typical of which was the
invasion of the U.S.-led NATO into Yugoslavia in 1999.
Second, the pursuit of hegemony by international
institutions. In the evolution of contemporary international relations,
international organizations play a great role. But the United States and other
Western countries take advantage of their strong national power to inflict their
will on international organizations in order to convey Western values and serve
their interests. Nye observed that the U.S. has stronger assimilating power than
many other countries in the international system. Some international economic
institutions such as the IMF insist on the principle of free market, which is
compatible with American ideology and society. The reason why this kind of
institution has succeeded is that, to a great extent, the Unites States uses
them to achieve its goals and those of its allies.
In the process of globalization, many significant
international institutions are established in terms of Western civilization and
controlled by Western countries. The U.S. has successfully established a
framework for the institutionalization of capitalism. International institutions
under the auspices of the United States influence not only how other countries
seek their interests, but also how they look at their own behaviors and their
definition of their national interests.13 The U.S. uses the World
Trade Organization to impose rigorous requisites that are in its interests upon
those potential member states. By the same token, it uses its special status in
the World Bank and the IMF to make them serve its hegemonic ambition.
Professor Samuel Huntington admitted in his The
Clash of Civilizations that “the West is in effect using international
institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways
that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests, and promote
Western political and economic values”. It tries its best to “induce other
peoples to adopt ideas concerning democracy and human rights”.14 It
should be noted that a few Western countries have often interrupted U.N. human
rights initiatives. They set their values and human rights standards as
universal principles, making the U.N. play its role in a way that is in their
own interests. The so-called U.N.-led humanitarian interventions are often
assumed by some Western countries that make them excuses for their pursuit of
power politics, interfering with others’ internal affairs, and impinging on
other countries’ sovereignty. The Somali case is a typical example.
Third, using the market economy for cultural
infiltration. In the current background of world economic globalization it has
been very difficult to inflict Western civilization on other peoples by means of
force. Thus, Western countries begin to use the force of market economy to
spread their ideas and values of freedom and democracy. The usual cultural
strategy many Western countries employ is advertising their products and
cultivating admiration, yearning and pursuit for their cultures in developing
countries with further identification and acceptance of Western lifestyles and
values. In today’s Western society, the market economy is very developed,
every mental product has been commercialized in the market, and cultural power
and commodity power are intimately intermixed. The U.S.-led West pays more
attention to the production and export of cultural commodities, making them the
basic channel of people exchange, communication of ideas, and value sharing. In
the process of the globalization of modern market economy, Western countries and
the United States in particular increase their investment in cultural industries
and the export of cultural products. High technologies have made Western
cultural products more stimulating, attractive and competitive.
Western governments give their ideological
enterprises such as film, television, broadcast, CD, fax and internet very
strong support and always provide favorable conditions for their efforts to open
overseas markets. According to statistics, the U.S. occupies 75 percent of the
world market in film and television. Satellite transmission has made it
difficult to prevent the spread of Western culture. Protecting intellectual
property rights has been employed as an excuse by Western countries to blame
many developing countries. The underlying objective is in fact the unchecked
spread of Western civilization. 72 of the 400 richest U.S. enterprises are
cultural ones and the U.S. audiovisual industry is the second largest export
industry, second only to aerospace. In Britain, the average growth rate of the
cultural industry is twice that of economic growth. In Japan, the production of
entertainment is second only to that of automobiles.15 Just as
“market is another battle field”, the seriousness and intensity of
international competition over soft power in the context of the market economy
are unprecedented.
Fourth, competing for human resources and maintaining
competitive advantage. Spiritual values and mental energies created by culture
are major parts of comprehensive national power. In the new century, it is
unavoidable that various cultures interact throughout the world; competition
over comprehensive national power, focusing on cultural power, intensifies. The
results of the competition over soft power depend upon the improvement of
national quality and the employment of human resources; these, in turn, are
determined by culture since both material and spiritual wealth are created by
human beings.
The knowledge economy highlights the importance of
human capital. People’s wisdom and will embody soft power. Because of its
advanced properties and special influence, culture drives the development of
economy and politics and lays the theoretical foundation for strengthening
comprehensive national power. Because of its rich spiritual resources and
inspiring power, culture, creates a people, making people cohere and manifesting
the strength of comprehensive national power via the formation of excellent
human resources and national cohesiveness. Because of its mental products and
developing cultural industry, culture also propels the improvement of social
productivity and embodies the physical aspects of comprehensive national power.
Therefore, the development of, and contending for, excellent human resources has
become the focus of cultural power competition. The United States and other
Western countries emphasize competition for better human resources, in their
search for a better position to control the world human resource market. Every
year the U.S. accepts many students from developing countries, assimilates them
to Western civilization, employs most of them to work, and even sees those
graduates who return to their countries as conduits of Western civilization. The
famous U.S. international strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in his Grand
Chessboard, American culture is uniquely adaptive to economic growth. It
attracts and assimilates at a fast pace human resources from oversea, thus
promoting the increase of national power.16 It is estimated that the
developing countries lost in human resources about 2,000,000 during the period
from the 1960s through the 1990s. The direct economic loss of this is about
US$100-200 billion; the indirect loss is incalculable.17
Fifth, striving for better media position and
intensifying cultural expansion. The network of news production and distribution
in the U.S.-led Western countries covers the whole world and impacts greatly and
profoundly on developing countries. They take advantage of their strong economic
power and advanced science and technology to invest a huge amount of money in
cultural enterprises, to form a giant “cultural troop”, to establish their
own media empire, and thus aggressively to disseminate the Western civilization
aggressively. In the United States, mass media is called “another
government”. Some people see the newspaper as the “bible of democracy”.
The U.S. media highlight this process and spread information, often pursuing
dramatic effect through deliberate exaggeration. The U.S. television industry is
called “the throne of the electronic king”. Whoever takes the throne can use
it to serve his/her own interests.
In contemporary international society, U.S.-led
Western developed countries monopolize the Internet technology. At present there
are 13 top-domain-name servers serving the netizens all over the world, 10 of
which belong to the U.S. Someone allege that the Internet is the “democracy
wall in the air”. The U.S. uses the Internet to serve American cultural
strategy. American popular music, fashion and lifestyle spread to the world in
the course of the U.S. media empire’s expansion. Today’s U.S. mass media
have become huge private enterprises, and especially the mainstream media are in
the hands of major interest groups. They advocate American democracy and serve
the U.S. interests deliberately in the name of free speech and free press. The
U.S. mass media are a “huge prism,” which conveys to the audience
“images” after a careful filtration and process, and therefore reflecting
their values.
As Nye said, American culture is a kind of soft power
resource that does not need much investment, but has considerable value.
American mass culture contained in products and communications is very
attractive. Its ethnic openness and political power for promoting the American
values of democracy and human rights have international implications.18
Since the Western media provide a variety of information including both
progressive, healthy, and beneficial contents and reactionary, prejudiced, and
blue substance, most non-Western countries suffer serious challenges.
Sixth, making use of religious and ethnic problems to
push expansion strategy. Culture is a complex entity containing ethnic and
religious factors. Differences in ethnic habits and religious beliefs always
lead to contradictions and conflicts. They existed in the Cold War period, but
they were hidden by the major contradiction of bipolar competition for hegemony.
With the end of the Cold War, hidden problems emerge and the influence of ethnic
and religious factors on international relations increases.
Most hot issues in contemporary international society
have something to do with ethnicity and religion. This kind of contradiction and
conflict occurs not only between different ethnic and religious communities, but
also within the same ethnic and religious group for reasons of ethnicity and
creed. The ethnic and religious conflicts in the Balkans, Central Asia, South
Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and the Caucasus have been the hot focus
of the world. It should be noted that these conflicts are mostly domestic, but
lead to international intervention.
Most international intervention are led and
controlled by the U.S. and joined by Western countries. The degree and mode of
intervention depend on their strategic needs. The U.S.-led Western countries
took different standards and procedures when they intervened with the Kosovo
crisis of Yugoslavia, Kurd problems in Turkey, and the Chechen in Russia. The
war of U.S.-led NATO against Yugoslavia brought heavy misery to local people and
harmed relationships among major powers. Obviously this kind of international
intervention cannot resolve ethnic and religious contradictions and conflicts;
it is useless for improving relationships among major powers.
Under particular conditions, fair international
intervention can help solve domestic conflicts based on ethnic and religious
factors. However, it will have contrary effects if international intervention is
carried out without respect to the will of direct parties or without necessary
discussion and resolution in the U.N. Security Council. History has shown us
that ethnic and religious problems are complex and sensitive their “settlement
cannot rely on foreign force intervention, which can only intensify the problem
and leave long-term hidden troubles.”19
In the evolution of international relations,
intangible soft power is an engine that drives the relations among nations or
groups of nations. Soft power comes from such side factors as ideologies, social
systems, organization mechanisms, lifestyles, development models, cultural
traditions, values, ethnic characteristics, religious beliefs, information
resources, interdependence, mutual trust, etc. In this sense, soft power can be
called cultural power. In today’s international society, competition over
comprehensive national power focusing on cultural power has been an important
phenomenon in the development of international relations.
The impacts of cultural power on international
relations are as follow.
Cognitive Filter. Culture plays a great role in the
decision-making processes of leaders and nations. Leaders observe issues and
make decisions through the prism of distinct cultural perceptions. In this way,
culture serves as an important barrier to international relations, understanding
and results of negotiations because various parties are bound to look at any
given decision or dispute in starkly different terms. Leaders, peoples or
countries are affected by their cultural differences which reflect their values,
outlooks, interests, habits, hopes and fears. Failure to appreciate these
differences will lead to misinterpretations, and erroneous judgments. Obviously,
cultural systems are closely related to international relations.
“Navigating Compass” in Decision-making.
Alastair Iain Johnston wrote in 1995 that different states have different
predominant strategic preferences rooted in the early or formative experiences
of the state. They are influenced to some degree by the philosophical,
political, cultural, and cognitive characteristics of the state and its elite.
Cultural concepts strongly influence the way in which national leaders view
policy problems, and often determine the solutions they choose to deal with
them, both individually and collectively. Therefore, cultures are critical for
these leaders to cope with various issues in international relations. In this
sense, culture is also a “navigational compass” of international relations.
Architect of International Social Trust.
Francis Fukuyama focuses on the sociability of culture or social trust in his
book Trust: Social Virtue and Creation of Prosperity. A nation’s
welfare and competitiveness, he argues, are conditioned by a single, pervasive
cultural characteristic. This is social trust at work as a precondition for
success in the global economy. Some countries have a higher level of social
trust while others have lower levels of social trust. This is bound to influence
the degree of cooperation in international relations. Societies with a high
degree of generalized social trust and a resulting strong propensity for
spontaneous sociability, generate large, complex organizations capable of global
reach, in other words, multinational cooperation. Culture determines the degree
of social trust and influences the nature of cooperative institutions. Culture
serves as the dominant blueprint for social, economic, and military structure
and institutions, thus exercising a strong influence on the behavior and
prospects of the world community.
The Driving Power of International Integration.
Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1934 that there is a powerful unifying and homogenizing
trend in the processes of the rise and fall of civilizations. In 1948 he went on
expounding the uniformity which these separate civilizations display in their
cultural character and social structure. This has been produced by four thousand
years of parallel development, which culminated in the industrial age. In 1946,
in his The Meeting of East and West,
the philosopher F.S.C. Northrop argued that East and West can meet, not only
because they are saying the same thing, but because they are expressing
different yet complementary things. Both are required for an adequate and true
conception of the human self and its universe. He predicted the rise of a new
system of thought, which is the unique achievement of the union of East and
West. In 1983, Ernest Gellner summarized some of the features of industrialized
society and held that the result of industrialization is a global continuum of a
basically homogenous industrial culture. These are the major points of the
cultural convergence thesis.
One critique of this thesis relates to time frames.
Thousands of different social structures were possible. And yet the basic
features of all advanced economies are relatively uniform: all possess common
institutions like central banks, ministries of finance, technology research
centers, schools at a host of levels, organizational systems such as the
military and tens of thousands of other parallel structures. Especially the
tremendous influence of information technology on the society is astounding. The
homogeneity and complementarity of world cultures produce a great irresistible
driving power in international relations.
A Gene for Conflict in International Relations.
Ten years ago, Samuel Huntington proposed his notion of a “clash of
civilizations.” He wrote that in the post-Cold War world the great divisions
among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. The
principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of
different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the battle line of
the future.
The major reasons are: the differences among cultures
will cause war; as the world becomes smaller and interaction between peoples of
different civilizations increases, this intensifies civilizational consciousness
and awareness of differences between civilizations; modernization and social
change separates people from long-standing local identities, with the result
that religion has moved in to fill the gap; the growth of civilizational
consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West; cultural characteristics
and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved
than political and economic ones; successful economic regionalism reinforces
civilization-consciousness. Many agree with Huntington that cultural differences
will lead to conflicts because the resources of conflict have to do with the
cultural gene.
But the clash of civilizations must not be
exaggerated or overstated as an absolute thesis. As Akira Iriye wrote 20 years
ago, a nation is a cultural system and international relations are interactions
among cultural systems. The role of culture as soft power in international
relations can be summarized in two aspects, facilitating convergence and causing
conflict. Both the positive and the negative effects of culture on international
relations are displayed in this contradictory process of convergence and
conflict.
In his culture studies, Toynbee explored the
uniformity of various civilizations. His hypothesis was that though in the early
21st century people would believe the great event of the twentieth
century was the impact of Western civilization upon all the other living
societies of the world of that day, a thousand years later Western civilization
may have been transformed, almost out of all recognition, by a counter-radiation
of influence from the rest of the world. By the fourth millennium, the
distinctions, which loom large today between the Western and other civilizations
will have come to seem unimportant. What will stand out will be a single, great
experience, common to humankind. This social change and homogenization is the
result of the congruence of cultures.
Many other scholars support this idea of cultural
convergence. Benjamin Barber held that the onrush of economic, technological,
and ecological forces demands integration and uniformity. Vaclav Havel wrote
that Western civilization, in the history of the human race, will span the
entire globe and firmly bind together all human societies, submitting them to a
common global destiny. The result, Havel said, is an amalgamation of cultures.
Fouad Ajami wrote in the same spirit that the things and ways that the West took
to the rest have become the ways of the world, and all these have been
internationalized in the most remote places. Ernest Gellner held that the
industrialized mode of production uniquely determines the culture of society:
the same technology canalizes people into the same type of activity and the same
kind of hierarchy. The result would be a global continuum of a basically
homogeneous industrial culture. David Hitchcock concluded that although
differences over values do exist between the East and the West, they are being
exaggerated. In fact the common threads developing between both sides across the
Pacific are far more significant than the differing values each holds dear.
Hitchcock pointed out that some of the synthesis between the East and the West
for which Toynbee searched is already under way.20
The power produced in the process of cultural
integration reinforces the interdependence among nations, among major powers in
particular. After World War II, the world movement of contradiction was
transformed into bi-polar confrontation for a long period, with competition for
hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union as the principal
contradiction of the world. As people’s attention was attracted to competition
over military powers, little attention was given to cultural factors.
Nonetheless, the U.S. put forward the strategy of
peaceful evolution, using cultural power to conduct its strategy in a
deliberately planned way. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the dramatic
transformation of Eastern Europe made the US-led Western world very happy. They
held that the power of democratic ideas won the Cold War. So the United States,
as “the strongest democracy in the world,” should “bear the responsibility
of leadership and helping protect all free countries in the globe” and
“spread and reinforce democratic values throughout the world.” After the end
of the Cold War, international relations readjusted in a complicated movement of
contradictions. Multi-polarization of the world developed in a tortuous way:
major power relations were driven by economic globalization and common points of
national interests, the interdependence of economies, and common points in
political relations among nations were increased.
All these resulted in a major transformation of
international relations. In recent years, the United States, Japan, Russia,
China and European Union have readjusted their strategies one after another
aiming at bilateral or multilateral constructive and cooperative relations,
friendly and cooperative relations, or strategic partnerships. All have taken
proactive steps to enhance political, economic, military and cultural
communication. Regular presidential exchange visits and hotlines are conducive
to mutual understanding, reduction of misunderstanding, problem solving and
strengthening cooperation. In the readjusted course of major power relations,
not only are there ample variables in political, economic and military fields,
but also the cultural factor is an undeniable vector. Even the variables in
political, economic and military fields have cultural roots. After review of the
major elements of intangible power such as national cohesiveness, cultural
universality, and the role of international institutions, Nye observed that the
problem facing the United States is “how much the United States can control
the political environment and let other countries act according to the American
will”. This is true also of other big countries.
International contact is also a source of soft power.
International contact can improve assimilation, raise the degree of economic
interdependence, and refine political consultation regimes. Disputing parties
among great powers, through contradiction, struggle, and even fierce conflict,
always come to compromise after dialogue and consultation via diplomatic
channels. This constitutes a process from cultural misunderstanding to
collective identity. Culture, as a soft power, is the major root cause of the
evolving model of contemporary international relations. Though the transition of
international configuration and the adjustment of major power relations are
indeed adjustments of interest relations, the distribution of interests is
closely related to value orientations – which are the core of culture. In this
sense, the integration of different cultures facilitates the interdependence of
major powers, increases the probability of pursuing common interests and
consensus, and then replaces the rule of zero-sum game with that of plus-sum
game. Looking at the transition of international relations in the post-Cold War
period, we can say that the use of soft power has been the major means when
various countries deal with international issues and seek national interests.
The interdependence of soft powers does not mean that
everything is harmonious. Cultural differences necessarily lead to conflicts in
international relations. As world cultures vary and each has its merits and
demerits, conflicts are inevitable when cultures intersect. The above-discussed
cultural integration is the positive side. But there is also another, negative
side. Cultural difference is one of the reasons for conflict. The United States,
Japan, Russia, China and the European Union all play major roles in the
transition of the world configuration. Each has its own respective value
orientation when it makes foreign strategies. Hence divergence, contradiction,
struggle and even conflict may occur when their culture differences extend to
international relations.
Culture as an intangible power restricts the division
and integration between countries and international organizations or
institutions. There are consensus and differences on human rights, for example,
among countries. These contradictions reflect the conflict among different
cultural systems, which is also manifested in relations among nations or groups
of nations. From this contradiction and conflict we can foresee the diverse
strategies by various countries.
The creation and implementation of national strategy
reflects a people’s will and its national leaders’ personal role but the
national leaders’ ideas and decision-making criteria are shaped by long-term
cultural evolution. Confrontations and conflicts between countries reflect their
cultural discrepancies.
But when we explore the role of culture in
international relations, we must not exaggerate the possibility of conflict
deriving from cultural differences. Although this is difficult to avoid from the
perspective of the contradictory movements of cultural interaction, the
continuity of conflict is limited. Culture is a sort of shapeless soft power
which has to play its role in international relations via such tangible media as
politics, economy and the military. Public opinion campaigns in politics, famous
brand competition in economy, and the psychological battle in the military all
belong to the competition and contest of cultural powers. With the globalization
of the world economy, national interests increasingly overlap and international
interdependence expands. In the process of globalization, the cultural conflicts
during interactions will be definitely limited and reduced. The increase of
common interests will encourage mutual learning and mutual integration among
different cultures. As the degree of integration of various cultures grows, the
intensity of cultural conflict will shrink accordingly.
It should be noted here that there are cultural
differences even among countries that share the same culture tradition which
also can result in contradictions and conflicts. For example, the Western
culture has many branches in its evolution. Despite the same fundamental value
orientation, they have different views on various issues in different historical
processes. They take different attitudes and measures when dealing with
different issues in international relations based upon different objects,
different times, different occasions, and different interests. Even in the
current European Union that has realized a unified currency, its member nations
do not attenuate their various cultural characters. Therefore, in the Western
world, the contradictory movement of cultural differences will affect their
mutual relations as well as the process of conflict and readjustment.
Soft power is an important part of comprehensive
national power. Though there is not yet agreement on its definition, in general
it can also be called mental power. The concept of soft power is in contrast
with hard power, just as mental power is contrasted to physical power and
culture to politics, economy and the military. Soft power is formless, deriving
from such soft factors as spirit (including psychology) and intelligence, all of
which belong to the category of culture.
The competition over comprehensive national power in
today’s world is very intensive. Soft power pivoted on cultural power has both
positive and negative effects on the development of comprehensive national power
and its implications on the evolution of international relations are increasing.
Many contemporary international issues have profound cultural root causes.
Countries around the world are paying more attention to employing soft power to
serve their national interests. In today’s international politics, the
resources of soft power are becoming more important. The cultural building is
strategically vital to a country’s development of national power, the growth
of its hard power and its international contributions and influence. With regard
to developing countries, it is crucial for their future and fate to realize the
simultaneous development of their culture.
Soft power pivoted on cultural power is playing and
will continue to play a great and lasting role in the transition of
international relations and world configuration. Cultural communication
reinforces interdependence among nations, raises the possibility of seeking
common interests, and helps the win-win plus-sum game to replace the zero-sum
game in the process of cultural integration. The cohesiveness of homogeneous or
quasi-homogeneous cultures is shaping a strong tendency of regionalization,
which will be definitely conducive to the development of world
multi-polarization.
Cultural heterogeneity could also spark transnational
contradictions or conflicts. The complicated transformation of present day
international relations, particularly the transition of major power relations,
represents the contradictions and conflicts that exist in the course of cultural
interactions.
However, we cannot exaggerate without limit the
possibility of such contradictions or conflicts. Due to the pressures of the
times, countries can always find a way to reach a compromise via dialogue and
consultation when they handle international problems. The deep root of the
current new model of international relations’ evolution is just culture, a
soft power.
In sum, “Our world is rich and colorful. The
diversity of civilizations is the basic feature of human society and also the
driving force behind the progress of human civilization.” In the competition
for strong comprehensive national power, “respect should be given to the
history, culture, social system and mode of development of each individual
country. The diversity of the world is a reality that should be recognized.
Different civilizations and social systems should enjoy long-term coexistence
and draw upon and benefit from each other in the process of competition and
comparison; they should achieve common development while seeking common ground
and shelving differences.”21 This is the plus-sum game in the
competition of culture as a soft power. If every country abides by this aim, the
positive effects of soft power competition on international relations will be
given full play, thereby promoting the positive development of international
relations.
1.
Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead, Chinese
version, translated by He Xiaodong et al (Military Translation Press, 1992), pp.
25-26, 145.
2.
Ray Cline, the former Vice Director of CIA and Information Director of State
Department in the United States. His “function of national power” is: Pp=(C+E+M)X(S+W),
Pp-national power, C-critical entities, E-economic ability, M-military ability,
S-strategic intention, W-will to implement national strategy.
3.
Hua Jian et al, The Competition for Soft
Power: Trends of Cultural Competition in the Context of Globalization
(Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press and China Higher Education Press,
2001), p. 5.
4.
Huang Suofeng, Comprehensive National
Power Studies (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press, 1992), pp. 102,
164-165.
5.
Gan Chunsong, Modernization and Cultural
Option (Jiangxi People Press, 1998), pp. 2-4.
6.
Jiang Zeming, Speeches on different conferences, see Wenhui
Daily, December 20, 2001.
7.
Nye, pp. 25-26.
8.
Ibid., p. 215.
9.
Jiang Zeming.
10.
Nye, p. 162.
11.
Ibid., p. 163.
12.
Zhang Hongyi ed, American Human Rights and
Human Right Diplomacy (People Press, 1993), p. 282.
13.
Nye, pp. 158-159.
14.
Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign
Affairs, Summer 1993.
15.
Chen Kemin et al, Thinking Oriented to New
Century (Shanghai People Press, 2001), pp. 256-257.
16.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard,
Chinese version (Shanghai People Press, 1998), p. 11.
17.
Chen Kemin et al, Thinking Oriented to New
Century (Shanghai People Press, 2001), p. 104.
18.
Nye, pp. 160-161.
19.
Jiang Zeming’s speech in meeting with Finland’s President Ahtisaari, EU
special envoy, Xinhua Daily Telegraph,
June 9, 1999.
20.
On the above discussion, cf. Michael Marzarr, Culture and International
Relations, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1996.
21.
Jiang Zeming’s speech at the grand gathering marking the 80th
anniversary of the foundation of CPC, China
Daily, July 2, 2001.