Connect with us


The concept of soft power and the nuclear issue



New world order means promoting Western – or rather US – values and ideologies, as well as political and economic models, since Western Europe is considered by Robert Kagan as the daughter of the lusty and fleshy Venus, as the kept woman of the United States, the scions of the belligerent and strong Mars (Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003).

All this tries to establish international rules and mechanisms based solely on US interests and profits to promote global capitalism.

It is a practice that takes no account of China, Russia and Islam, as if not only do they not exist, but also as elements that annoy as ‘backward’, ‘uncivilised’, ‘anti-democratic’, etc., forgetting – just to give an example – that the greatest ally of the feudal and obscurantist petromonarchies of the Middle East is precisely the White House.

Therefore international cooperation and the construction of a new world order is sought, based on allied relations with the courtesan Western Europe, the trained Japan, the conformed Australia and other countries and regions. This means expanding the political functions of the ‘G8’, as well as jointly assuming responsibilities and exercising rights and maintaining control and dominance over international, regional and scenario affairs.

This process means preventing and curbing the rise of “competitors” that challenge the US global leadership and stopping the emergence of “challengers”, even of regional political orders; defining the  “rogue States” as such and then repressing them; regulating the “countries in transition”; preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on one side only; developing and deploying new military technology to launch pre-emptive strikes against other countries that do not align.

Hence we have the hegemonic influence of knowledge for the establishment of a new world order. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States used it in planning and action to destabilise in order to intervene with specific and targeted initiatives.

The hegemony of knowledge is at the heart of US economic power. Strong economic power is not only a firm foundation for building an international economic order, but also the foundation of US hegemony in this early 21st century.

In the information revolution, the United States has vigorously developed knowledge-intensive industries and gained supremacy in contemporary world. The new economy enables the United States to sweep away the worries and defeats of the past – those that for some observers indicate a ‘relative economic decline’. Today, the United States is able to preach and promote its economic models and values around the world and implement the strategy of preparing and advancing the new international economic order as well.

The development of high technocracy, in turn, monopolizes the basic high technologies of third countries that depend on the United States. It also widens the digital divide with other countries in the world, achieving high value-added knowledge, which achieves the best benefits for US economy and enables the United States to continuously gain huge advantages in global markets, inserting itself as a wedge in the world economy.

China’s advancement has strengthened the belief in maximising US economic power in order to dominate the planet. It has increased its hegemonic consciousness and created the necessary technical and IT prerequisites to maintain and develop supremacy in the international economic order that the White House has achieved since the end of World War II.

The hegemony of knowledge is the cornerstone of US soft power, which is an important means and way of establishing a kind of hypnopaedia teaching system, as in Brave New World, a dystopian novel written by Aldous Huxley in 1932.

It was in the 1990s – with the Internet and the development of the IT revolution – that the need for the United States to establish a new world order began to appear and attract increasing attention in the theory and practice of international relations.

In 1996, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and William A. Owens published in “Foreign Affairs” (Vol. 75, issue No. 2, March-April, pp. 20-36) the article America’s Information Edge that starts with the following words: “Knowledge, more than ever before, is power. The one country that can best lead the information revolution will be more powerful than any other. For the foreseeable future, that country is the United States”. They said as much a quarter of a century ago, and nobody remembers it.

With the development of information technology, US power has gradually penetrated the political, economic, cultural and social spheres. In the 21st century, information technology is becoming the most important source of power. Currently information is at the heart of international relations. As the core of soft power, information power will increasingly influence the transformation of foreign affairs. In the age of knowledge economy, whoever can lead the information revolution and possess its advantages will be able to overcome the others and occupy a dominant position in the future world structure.

Soft power is the most important change in the functioning of US hegemony in the era of knowledge economy and becomes an indispensable process for the transformation of information management itself into a new world order under unipolar US domination.

The US soft power has quickly expanded across the globe with the help of the Internet, and of other forms and means of  information production such as mass & social media, mobile platforms and international commercial, scientific, technological and cultural exchanges obtained without ‘traditional contacts’.

Information about ideologies, ways of thinking and acting, induced needs, science, culture, literature, cinema, economic models and political systems imitating the USA’s (including some local parties that clumsily caricature and mimic the US models between primaries and ‘conventions’) flood the virtual city – i.e. the global village – in the form of text, audiovisuals, radio, podcasts, etc.

The attraction and influence generated by the flow of asymmetric information intensifies US power and influence and promotes the implementation of its world order strategy, as an irreplaceable role in the project of building a single world governance in the future.

But this is not enough. The United States is also committed to establishing a national missile defence system policy in order to maintain primacy over and above cosmetic intentions.

In the essay Sderzhivanie vo vtorom yadernom veke [Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age], Institute of International Security, Moscow, 2001, Russian experts Andrej Kokošin, Vasilij Veselov, and Aleksej Liss stated: “In essence, the motivation for establishing a national missile defence system is not only military. This system is not just about finding a way out of the nuclear standoff, nor is it just about defending against hypothetical North Korean missile attacks. What is most wanted is the extraordinary position of the United States in the strategic landscape of the 21st century.” These technological advances in nuclear power would ensure a super-dominant position in order to avoid the emergence of a multipolar world. Similarly, the United States strives to curb the UN role in world affairs and claims to have the right to use force unilaterally to prevent a process for creating a multipolar international order. Two years after the Russian monograph, a Hollywood film starring Bruce Willis, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, was released, in which the Russian fears proved to be well founded.

Indeed, a multipolar world is ideal for the international community. On the contrary, in a unipolar world, conflict and violence are inevitable. During the Cold War, due to their mutual fears and restraint, the two superpowers moderated significantly and greatly mitigated many of the negative effects of their policies, avoiding them: there was a strategic balance.

In a unipolar world, inequalities between countries can only lead to confrontation and war. Some countries will try to get rid of the US yoke, as well as establish another pole in the world, and seek another centre of power.

Many analysts of international problems say that – regardless of whether other countries want this or not – the current trend could develop towards a US-centric situation. In the future, however, many countries will surely emerge to compete for the planet’s last resources located in the central part of Eurasia. In the future, our world risks conflict and a return to barbaric eras.

As far as the militarisation of space is concerned, if the United States wants to use its unparalleled economic and technological resources to establish its own advantages, other countries will not be able to compete with it in any way. Therefore the United States will have a monopoly position not only in missile defence, but also in strategic offensive space weapons against certain regions of the earth, as well as in anti-satellite space systems. This will fundamentally disrupt the current global political and military balance and only provide further encouragement to those eager to take unilateral action at home.

The second possibility is that other industrial and technologically advanced countries shall develop and deploy their own space weapons to break the US space monopoly. Therefore the arms race will enter the space field, with irreversible consequences.

How can we thus strengthen international security in the 21st century, or will the United States itself simply guarantee it? And against whom: aliens?

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading


International Relations Amid the Pandemic



We could rest assured that COVID-19 will be defeated, sooner rather than later. The excessive angst and fear we currently feel will gradually subside, while our science will find effective antidotes so that people could look back on the pandemic years as a ghastly dream.

At the same time, it is also clear that a post-pandemic world will be quite different to the world we knew before. The argument that the world needs a massive shake-up to move to the next stage of its development has been quite popular ever since the end of the Cold War. Some prophesied that this would come as a result of a profound economic crisis, while others argued that a large-scale war may well be on the cards. As often happens, though, what turned the world on its head came as if out of nowhere. Within a short span of just a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic shed a light on all the many contradictions and setbacks of our age. It went on to outline the trajectory for economic prosperity, scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements going forward, opening up new opportunities for self-realization and fulfilment. The question pertinent today is: Who will be able to best exploit the new reality and take advantage of the opportunities that are opening up? And how?

COVID-19 has also left its mark on the current architecture of international relations.

At the turn of the century, it was mired in crisis. The end of the Cold War towards the late 20th century effectively signaled the beginning of the transition from the bipolar world order established in the wake of the Second World War to a model that had yet to be created. A bitter struggle would unfold as to what the new world order had to be, with the issue still unsettled today. A number of states, as well as non-state actors, willing to take advantage of this uncertainty in global affairs and redistribute the spheres of influence in the world is what it ultimately boils down to. In a sense, such a scenario should have come as no surprise since the contradictions between the profound changes encompassing the public domain and the rigid model of international relations established in the mid-20th century by the powers victorious in the Second World War had continued to grow in recent decades.

The COVID-19 pandemic has proved to be a stern and unprecedented test of strength that has revealed the limits of the current architecture of international relations. Previous crises—be they financial turmoil, struggle against terrorism, regional conflicts or something else—were, in fact, temporary and rather limited in their implications, however severe they were. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected each and every country in the world, regardless of their political regimes and social conventions, economic prosperity and military might. The pandemic has exposed the fragility of the modern world as well as the growing risks and challenges; and if ignored, they could plunge the world into a descending spiral of self-destruction.

The pandemic continues, which means we are yet to draw a final conclusion on its consequences for the system of international relations. That being said, a number of tentative conclusions are already taking shape.

Point 1. Globalization, despite its obvious side effects, has already changed the face of our world, irreversibly making it truly interdependent. This has been said before; however, the opponents of globalization have tried—and continue to try—to downplay its consequences for modern society. As it happens, they would like to think of globalization as little more than an episode in international life. Although it has been going on for quite some time now, it is nevertheless incapable of changing the familiar landscape of the world. The pandemic has lifted the curtain on what the modern world truly looks like. Here, state borders are nothing more than an administrative and bureaucratic construct as they are powerless to prevent active communication among people, whether spiritual, scientific, informational or of any other kind. Likewise, official borders are not an obstacle to the modern security threats proliferating among states. The waves of COVID-19 have wreaked havoc on all countries. No nation has been able to escape this fate. The same will also happen time and again with other challenges unless we recognize this obvious reality to start thinking about how states should act amid the new circumstances.

Point 2. The international system withstood the initial onslaught in spite of the incessant fearmongers prophesying its impending collapse. Following a rather brief period of confusion and helplessness, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, G20 and other global and regional organizations got their act together (albeit some better than others), taking urgent action to contain the pandemic. This proves that the system of international relations that was constructed after the Second World War still functions, although it is far from perfect or devoid of shortcomings.

In a similar vein, the fight against the pandemic has demonstrated that many international structures are increasingly out of step with the modern reality, proving incapable of mobilizing quickly enough to make a difference in our ever-changing world. This, once again, pushes to the fore the issue of a reformed United Nations system (and other international institutions), while the issue is progressively getting even more urgent. Moving forward, the international community will likely have to face challenges no less dangerous than the current pandemic. We have to be prepared for this.

Point 3. As the role of international institutions in global affairs weakens, centrifugal tendencies gain momentum, with countries—for the most part, global leaders—starting to put their national interests first. The global information war surrounding various anti-COVID-19 vaccines is a prime example of this. Not only has it seriously upset successes in the fight against the pandemic, but it has also added a new dimension to mutual distrust and rivalry. The world has effectively fallen back to the “rules” of the Cold War era, when countries with different socio-political systems were desperate to prove their superiority, with little regard for common interests such as security and development.

Pursuing such a policy today is fraught with grave consequences for every nation, since new security threats care little for borders. The recent events in Afghanistan should serve as a lesson for us all, showing that any serious regional crisis, even in a most remote corner of the world, will inevitably have global implications. Therefore, we are all facing a stark choice: either unite against these new challenges or become hostage to the various extremists and adventurers.

Point 4. Some political leaders have been quick to use the challenges of the pandemic as a pretext to strengthen the role of the state at the expense of fundamental democratic principles and binding international obligations. This may be justified or even necessitated at a time of the most acute phases of a severe crisis, when all available resources need to be mobilized to repel the threat.

However, one gets the impression that some politicians are increasingly in the groove for these extended powers and would very much like to hold onto them, using the likelihood of new crises as a justification. This line of thinking could prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to a new model of international relations to be established in accordance with the modern reality, where states would be expected to pool their efforts in the interests of global security and development.

Point 5. As always happens in times of profound crises, the international community is looking to major powers and their leadership for guidance. The future course of history in all realms of life, naturally including international relations, will hinge on what these countries choose to do, deciding whether solidarity prevails over national egoism. President Putin’s initiative to hold a meeting of the heads of state of the permanent UN Security Council members could be a good starting point to foster understanding and seek new ways of moving forward. We cannot keep putting off a frank and thorough conversation about the future world order, as the costs of new delays could be too grave for everyone to handle.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading


Relevance of the Soft Power in Modern World



In modern days, the relevance of Soft Power has increased manifolds. At times, the COIVD-19 has hooked the whole human race; this concept has further come into the limelight. The term, Soft Power was coined by the American Scientist Joseph Nye. Soft Power is the ability of a country to get what it wants through attraction rather than coercion. By tapping the tool of Soft Power, a country can earn respect and elevate its global position. Hard Power cannot be exercised exceeding a territory, and if any country follows this suit, its image is tarnished globally. However, it is Soft Power that can boost the perception and create a niche of a nation. Soft Power is regarded as the essential factor of the overall strength of a country. It can increase the adhesion and the determination of the people in a realm to shape the foreign relations of any nation. Nye held that the Soft Power arsenal would include culture, political values, and foreign policy.

After the Cold War, many nations pumped billions of dollars into Soft Power initiatives, and the US mastered this concept. The US has sailed on the waters of Soft Power by harnessing the tool of media, politics, and economic aid. The US boasts globally recognized brands and companies, Hollywood, and its quest for democratic evangelization. Through movies, the US has disseminated its culture worldwide. American movies are viewed by a massive audience worldwide. The promotion of the US culture through films is a phenomenon (culture imperialism) where the US subtly wants to dominate the world by spreading its culture. Through Hollywood films, the US has an aspiration to influence the world by using Soft Power tools. Hollywood is considered as the pioneer of fashion, and people across the globe imitate and adopt things from Hollywood to their daily life. Such cultural export lure foreign nations to fantasize about the US as a pillar of Soft Power. Educational exchange programs, earthquake relief in Japan and Haiti, famine relief in Africa stand as the best example of the US initiatives of Soft Power. Now, the American political and cultural appeal is so extensive that the majority of international institutions reflect US interests. The US, however, witnessed a drop from 1st place to 6th on the Global Soft Power Index. This wane can be attributed to the attack on the US Capitol Hill sparked by former US President Donald Trump. In addition, his dubious decisions also hold responsibilities that curtailed the US soft power image, that is, particularly the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Beijing is leaving no stone unturned to ace this area. China, rich in culture and traditional philosophy, boasts abundant sources of Soft Power. China is contemplating and exploring an innovative strategy in its rise in international politics. There have been notable elements in the Chinese diplomatic practice, including softer rhetoric, promotion of its culture abroad, economic diplomacy, and image building. Beijing, amid an ongoing pandemic, has extended vaccine help to 80 countries. Such initiative taken by China has elevated its worth globally during difficult times of the pandemic. According to the Global Soft Power index 2021, China stands in the 8th slot. China is an old civilization with a rich culture. China has stressed culture as a crucial source of Soft Power. In a bid to enhance its cultural dominance, Beijing has built many Confucius Institutes overseas. However, this has not been whole-heartedly embraced by the Chinese neighbors due to territorial disputes on the South China Sea. Moreover, International Order, dominated by the West, is wary of Beijing. China’s authoritarian political system is not welcomed in Western democracies. Therefore, China finds it hard to generate Soft Power in democracies. In recent times, Beijing has witnessed tremendous extension in its economy; thus, it focuses on harnessing economic tools to advance its Soft Power. Consequently, Beijing has driven its focus on geoeconomics to accelerate its Soft Power.

Unfortunately, Pakistan, in this sphere, finds itself in a very infirm position -securing 63rd position in the Global Soft Power Index. In comparison with Pakistan, India boasts a lot of Soft Power by achieving the 36th position in the Global Soft Power Index. Its movies, yoga, and classical and popular dance and music have uplifted the Indian soft image. In the promotion of the Indian Soft Power Image, Bollywood plays a leading role and it stretches beyond India. Bollywood has been projected as a great Soft Power tool for India. Bollywood stars are admired globally. For instance, Shahrukh Khan, known as Baadshah of Bollywood, has a fan following across the world. Through its Cinema, India has attracted the attention of the world. Indian movies have recognition in the world and helped India earn billions of dollars. However, the Modi government has curtailed the freedom of Bollywood. Filmmakers claim that their movies are victim of censorship. Moreover, the anti-Muslim narrative has triggered in India, which has tarnished the Indian image of secular country and eventually splashing the Indian Soft image. Protests of farmers, revocation of article 370 in Kashmir, and the controversial Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) have degraded the Indian Soft Power.

Pakistan is not in the tier of the countries acing the Soft Power notion. In Pakistan, expressions of Soft Power, like spiritualism, tourism, cinema, literature, cricket, and handicrafts, are untapped. Pakistan is on the list of those countries having immense tourism potential and its culture is its strength. Unfortunately, no concrete steps are taken to promote the Pakistani culture and tourism. The Pakistani movies are stuck in advancing Pakistan’s narrative worldwide due to lack of the interest of successive governments in this sphere. In addition, these movies lack suitable content, that’s why people prefer watching Bollywood or Hollywood movies. It is the job of the government to harness the expressions of Soft Power. Through movies and soap operas, we can disseminate our culture, push our narrative, and promote our tourism. Government-sponsored campaigns on electronic media can help greatly in this sphere. Apart from the role of government, this necessitates the involvement of all stakeholders, including artists, entrepreneurs, academics, policymakers, and civil society.

Continue Reading


Planetary Drought of Leadership



The Tokyo Olympic Games, just concluded, were a spectacular success and grateful thanks are owed to our Japanese hosts to make this event so, at a time when we were in the middle of a global pandemic. There were many doubts expressed beforehand by many people over the Games going ahead during the pandemic, but the precautionary measures put in place were well handled and not obtrusive. 

For anyone who had the opportunity to watch the Games via TV they must have been struck by the wonderful sportsmanship and friendship shown by the competitors of all nations taking part, whatever race and ethnicity. It prompted me to think and ask why the countries of the world cannot exercise some of the same degree of friendship when dealing with one another rather than push forward with agendas that are antagonistic. The world holds a number of dysfunctional states as well as oppressive dictatorships where the resident population is subjected to mental as well as physical torture. Belarus is a typical example, where the leader of the country stole the election to give himself yet another term, and quashes any dissent, with some paying the ultimate price. He has the arrogance to divert a commercial flight so that he can arrest someone who opposes him and then beats him up, before parading him in front of the cameras to say an apology, which everyone can see was forced out of him. 

The Middle East is a complex problem and has been for centuries, the home of some of the oldest civilisations and the divergent monotheistic religions, which add a complicating factor. It surprisingly has been relatively quiet for the last period. Until the next flare up.

Myanmar has also been quiet, or so it seems. The military patrols across the country, particularly in states that offer some resistance and tough guerrilla opposition. The military behave badly, continuing the practice of killing, rape and pillage if not total destruction of small communities which cannot offer any resistance. Corruption is thriving. The military government have ‘promised’ fresh elections next February, 6 months hence, but it is most unlikely that these will be ‘fair and free’. The troubled conditions will continue. It will be an issue of continuing concern for ASEAN and more widely. A recent visit for a documentary had to be carried out illegally in case the military had discovered that the local people had been welcoming and helpful. The repercussions would have been appalling.

The latest situation that has arisen is the Afghanistan blitz takeover by the Taliban, a medieval group promoting the fundamental sharia doctrine, which is out of date and treats women as ‘non-persons’. They have also harboured terrorists, one group pulling off the infamous 2001, 9/11 strike on the NY Twin Towers, which awakened the US to take strong retaliatory action in Afghanistan, and forcing the Taliban out for 20 years. Their 5-year, 1996-2001, rule of Afghanistan was brought to a close after the NY happening, when the US with Allied forces took charge and ousted them. 

But now the Taliban are back following a direct meeting with the then president Trump in 2017, no Afghan government present, and they saw him coming! Shades of North Korea. He said he would withdraw completely without proper assurances, leaving the country’s development less than half finished. President Joseph Biden completed the task of withdrawal, somewhat hasty, upsetting nearly all Americans in the process. The British were caught flat-footed and there is considerable anger expressed by MPs, not least because they realise that they no longer have the ability to resolve such issues themselves. They feel embarrassed and rightly so.

As one of the Afghan luminaries and most quoted intellectuals, prof. Djawed Sangdel, reminds us: “Afghanistan is a graveyard of empires. Even Alexander the Macedonian realised – 2,300 years ago – ‘it is easy to enter the country, but lethal when exiting it’. This especially if you do not respect domestic realities.” Indeed, the situation on the ground is chaotic.

The leader, Ashraf Ghani, of the weak ‘legal’ government has fled, not without rumours about bags full of cash, and that is one reason that the country has not progressed as well as it should, endemic corruption. Women, quite rightly, are fearful, as to what lies in store, as the Taliban’s record on treatment of them is brutal. They have promised to give emancipation within sharia law – which in their case was the combination of twisted and oversimplified Islamic teachings with the tribal nomadic pre-Islamic culture of the central Asian hights.

Looking at the country as a whole, one worries about its future; the Taliban have no track record of governing a country, particularly not one as complex as Afghanistan. They would have to greatly modify their approach to life, separate religion from state (affairs). However, there are credible doubts; once more the Northern Alliance will get together and the country will lapse into civil war. Will the Chinese see an opportunity and risk what others have failed to do? My heart goes out to the people of Afghanistan.

In reviewing the past few decades, it would seem that western led democracies, when they have engaged with a country, which is in trouble, have only entered it without full humanitarian understanding of the problems and not sought a proper sustainable solution. Inevitably it takes longer than one thinks, and there are not strong enough safeguards put in to avoid financial losses to development projects, sometimes major.

The UN has a major part to play, but one must ask if today’s remit is fit for purpose, or should they be reviewed, and the countries that make up the UN should look at and ask themselves if they are fair in what they give and expect, not just monetarily.

Continue Reading