Nepal Needs To Focus On Soft Power

Yuba Nath Lamsal:-- George Orwell, in his famous book “Animal Farm,” says, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” A similar case may be found in the world of geopolitics. In principle, all countries in the world, of course, have equal status and rights in the comity of nations. But that may not always be true when it comes to the realm of realism. In the realist world of today, power plays a pivotal role in international relations. The foreign policy goal of any country is to defend and enlarge its national interest. Interests guide foreign policy and diplomacy. Countries apply different strategies, tactics and tools to defend and enlarge their interests depending upon the situation and nature of events. Power determines the course of action in dealing with the situation in defence of national interests.Like domestic politics, international politics is also a struggle for power. German political scientist Hans Morgenthau says in his classical realism that international politics is motivated by the lust of power and states, like individuals, act to acquire, preserve, and project power, viewing their national interest strictly through this lens. Levers of power Power is the ability to influence other actors in the decision-making. A number of factors determine a country’s power. The levers of power are economic size and quality, military strength, natural resources, social and cultural values, geographical position, behaviour and power of the neighbours and finally diplomatic ability. When a country gains power, it seeks more power and finally, it turns into a hegemon as the nature of power is always hegemonic. The more one gets power the more hegemonic it tends to become. Lord Action, 19th century’s famous British politician and writer, who is known as a strong advocate of individual liberty, has rightly said “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Like individuals, states also tend to be hegemonic in international decision-making and try to establish their agendas using all means available. Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman are famous for their distinct geopolitical premises. Alfred Thayer Mahan advocated sea power theory, which states that control of seas or maritime trade routes determine the country’s power in international politics. Mahan, a US Navy officer himself, accorded more priority to strengthening naval power. Unlike Mahan, British geographer Halford Mackinder was the champion of heartland power theory. Mackinder says Eurasia is the world’s heartland because of its abundant natural resources and important chokepoints it has. According to Mackinder, as Eurasia is a strategically vital and resource-rich region, having control over the Eurasian heartland would help control over the rest of the world. He focuses on both land force as well as naval power. However, American professor of international relations Nicholas Spykman came up with the rim land power theory. Spykman is of the view that rim lands are the buffer zones between the seas and heartlands and thus rim lands, more importantly, determine power position in the 20th century. This explains why Asia has always been the pivot of big powers’ rivalry throughout history. Throughout history, the world’s powers have always scrambled to gain control over Asia because this has been the heartland of the world. These three geopolitical theories belonged to the 20th century’s premises. Since then the world has gone through tremendous changes in the geopolitical, security and power dynamics. The advancement in the science and technology has brought about a paradigm shift in strategic thinking and power dynamics in the world. The 19th and 20th century’s power dynamic and strategic thinking may no longer be valid and functional in the present 21st century. In the present era of technological revolution, airpower, nuclear weapons, and cyber power determine the power dynamics and those who prove superiority in air, nuclear and cyber power may have the upper hand and superiority in the global power politics. In the literature of international power theory, Harvard University Professor Joseph Nye has added a new terminology—soft power. Nye is a liberal realist who is of the view that countries have both hard and soft powers. Hard power denotes coercive methods like applying military means or economic /trade/technological sanctions to bring the adversaries to terms. In the present interdependent and interconnected world, a country’s power is not judged by hard power or military and economic strength alone. Several other factors determine a country’s power, including soft power. Soft power is the peaceful and persuasive method of influencing and winning over others. The tools of soft power are social and political values, diplomacy and economic attractions, trade, technology, sports, historical legacy, media and civil society etc. In many cases, soft power can be more effective and attractive than military might or other coercive measures in the sphere of international relations, as it avoids confrontation and conflict rather ensures a win-win approach. The other connotation in the geopolitical power theory is smart power. The smart power is the strategic integration of both hard power and soft power. In it, states apply both methods depending upon the need and context to achieve the desired objective in international power politics and bilateral relations. In our context, Nepal is neither a sea power nor a rimland country. Ours is a landlocked country positioned between the two physically big countries, India and China. Instead, Nepal is a part of the greater Eurasian heartland. In other words, Nepal is a heartland country. Nepal is a small country compared to its two giant neighbours in physical size, population, economy and technological prowess. But Nepal is not a small country in the global context. Nepal is the 93rd largest country in the world or more than 100 countries are smaller than Nepal in physical size. In this sense, Nepal is a mid-sized country. However, despite being mid-sized, Nepal does not possess and also cannot afford to go into hard power. Soft power is the best means available and affordable for Nepal to protect its national interest, make its presence and role visible in global stage and take maximum benefits for its security and development. (The author is a former chief editor of this daily and a former ambassador. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)