The limits of soft power

Sand

Its been in the news recently, that Iran has basically called the EU troikas bluff in the negotiations, rejected an EU proposal for compromise and restarted work on its nuclear program which is blatantly aimed at creating nuclear weapons. Iran has participated in the talks, but has never entertained any deal that would require them to only have a purely civillian nuclear program ( nuclear power for their national grid is their cover story). As such it was no surprise they rejected a South African offer of providing their civillian reactors with fuel, from which the South Africans would retrieve the waste and return it to South Africa, thus allowing for civillian power without providing the raw materials for a weapons programme.

Evidently the Iranians have realised the Troika are paper tigers, and the US is far too busy in Iraq. Theyve made a gamble, and it appears to be paying off. The Troika went to the IAEA hoping to refer the matter to the UN security council, where the possiblity of sanctions was at least theoretically possible ( in reality the Chinese would veto any such move, and probably the Russians as well). The Troika failed and only managed to get a mild scolding for the Iranians . Evidently the nations on the panel are unwilling to set precedents that might prove troublesome if they themselves desire to create nuclear weapons.

As such the Troika have been utterly out-maneuvered and beaten hands down by the Iranians who simply dared to ask "or else what?" Bush recently attempted to rescue the Troika by providing a veiled threat that might make diplomacy seem the better option to the Iranians, however Schroeder whose famous for winning elections on anti-american tirades and little else and clearly attempting to rescue his wretched political career with more of the same, leaped to reassure the Iranians that there would be no consequences of note should they tell the Troika to go **** themselves. Its embarrassing all round, with the Troika having attached such importance to stopping the nuclear weapons potential of the Iranian programme, now shown up for being toothless - especially with Schroder talking about negotiation from a position of strenth when the Troika have no more cards to play. What strenth?

Are we seeing an example of the limits of soft power? Are we seeing that diplomacy from a position of relative weakness can only carry you so far? With economic sanctions not possible given Irans patronage, and even the concept of military options disowned what other way forward is there for the Troika? Another round of negotiations so Iran can play for more time to complete its program? Diplomacy is only successful where it provides a better option for both sides than conflict. Outside trade negotiations, where the EU negotiates as a whole and thus a superpower, does the EU - let alone its individual members - have any real role to play in international politics when nations such as Iran can cheerfully give it the fingers without concern? The Iranians mighnt have been the first to recognise the emperor is wearing no clothes, but I doubt they will be the last.

dathi1

Fair play to the Persians. IAEA or not they have to ready themselves for a peaceful deterrent against the type of Zionist led calmity that befell Iraq. I suppose its better to have some sembalance of an Islamic democracy than a US led horror apocolypse.

rsynnott

dathi1 wrote:

Fair play to the Persians. IAEA or not they have to ready themselves for a peaceful deterrent against the type of Zionist led calmity that befell Iraq. I suppose its better to have some sembalance of an Islamic democracy than a US led horror apocolypse.

Iran is nothing like a democracy, and doesn't even claim to be. That said, it's unlikely US invasion would improve things there.

Ah, "Zionist lead". We're deep into tinfoil hat territory here, apparently. Do you actually have any evidence of this? Why would Zionists want to intefere with Iran?

There is a lot of danger in such a politically unstable country getting the atom bomb. It's bad enough that India, Pakistan and Israel have it.

gurramok

Well, when Israel attained nukes without a whim from said inspectors, it put a regional imbalance in the region.
Are there any checks to make sure Israel's nuclear weapons are soley for peaceful purposes (as a deterrent)?...err no.
Its hardly surprising if neighbouring countries wish to build nuclear weapons, after all american allies in the likes of Pakistan\India were allowed and we don't see targetted for disarming?

mr_angry

Sand wrote:

...restarted work on its nuclear program which is blatantly aimed at creating nuclear weapons...

Call me picky, but enriching uranium can indeed be used for civilian nuclear power supply, as they Iranians are claiming. Do I believe them? Thats a tricky question, and I'd probably answer "no", but the evidence certainly doesn't suggest it is "blatant".

dathi1 wrote:

Fair play to the Persians. IAEA or not they have to ready themselves for a peaceful deterrent against the type of Zionist led calmity that befell Iraq. I suppose its better to have some sembalance of an Islamic democracy than a US led horror apocolypse.

On the contrary, I would say a nuclear war centring on Iran would be significantly worse than a "US led horror apocolypse". Make no mistake - Iran's leaders are doing nothing constructive for their population by this move. As stated by Sand, this is nothing more than a gamble for political gain whilst they feel the US is bogged down in Iraq.

I would not be so quick to jump to the defence of the Iranians just because they are standing up to the US. Forgive the woefully exaggerated comparison, but would you have sided with Hitler becuase he was the only one standing up to the Brits? Its a dangerous thing to side with madmen purely because they satisfy your underdog spirit.

gurramok wrote:

Well, when Israel attained nukes without a whim from said inspectors, it put a regional imbalance in the region.
Are there any checks to make sure Israel's nuclear weapons are soley for peaceful purposes (as a deterrent)?...err no.
Its hardly surprising if neighbouring countries wish to build nuclear weapons, after all american allies in the likes of Pakistan\India were allowed and we don't see targetted for disarming?

You're probably correct. But do 2 wrongs suddenly make a right? Do you believe that this move by the Iranians will restore balance and universal peace to the region? Unfortunately, I think quite the opposite, and therefore I wont be rushing to congratulate them any time soon.

rsynnott

gurramok wrote:

Are there any checks to make sure Israel's nuclear weapons are soley for peaceful purposes (as a deterrent)?...err no.

No, of course not; Israel half admits that they exist still. That said, if you think Israel is worse than IRAN, of all places, you're delusional.

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to believe that they are interested in civilian power as WELL as weapons. With rising fuel prices, everyone should be considering it at this point.

DadaKopf

Are we seeing an example of the limits of soft power?

Maybe, maybe not.

It seems to me Iran is itself using its soft power to get itself a better deal out of the EU's and US's good cop/bad cop routine.

Anyway, theorists who distinguish between hard and soft power usually prioritise the validity, even necessity, of force in politics against the fayness of negotiation and commercial sticks and carrots. So it's not really a distinction, just a crap attempt by realists to adapt their unrealistic and dangerous theories to contemporary conditions and particular political dogmas.

Or, it's another way for American conservatives to attack, IMHO, Europe's more enlightened approach derived from historical experience of two World Wars, continued peace since through economic interdependence and better academic research.

I'd say, simply, that all sides in the Iran issue are trying to get the best deal and this 'breakdown' is the product of tough negotiation, not the collapse of the effectiveness of 'soft power'.

Each side is using the mix of advandages (military, economic, technological, and knowledge) they have to get what they want and in this day and age, military power is usually counterproductive to commercial power. The only difficulty, or asymmetry, is Iran's unequal integration into global commerce.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. There isn't any war yet, so diplomacy by non-aggressive means seems fairly productive to me. The rational response by America (like Europe's) should be to realise that a safer situation would be to incorporate Iran into the global economy, making it too costly for them to wage war on anyone and tacitly make them an agent of the West.

I think this game is being played out but it's going to take time. I don't see Iran doing anything to scuttle their chances of this.

Wheely

Well i had something to say, but I couldnt put it any better than Dadakopf.......so I wont!!!! Well said Dada!

Sparks

Mind you, the idea that this is a failure of EU policy is an interestingly restricted one, given that the motivation for Iran to take such risks in seeking nuclear weapons basicly comes down to US policy (Iraq; no nukes, invaded. DPRK; claims to have nukes, not invaded. What would you do if listed along with these two in an "Axis of Evil"?).

It may be one of their motivations Sparks.
That said theres a big difference between the state of Iraq immediately pre invasion and that of Iran now.
Add that to the mess that Iraq is in currently,the increasing unpopularity of the US presence there from Americans themselves and the obvious stretched nature of the U.S war machine...I doubt the Iranians are too worried about a U.S possible attack in lets say the next 20 yrs or so.
I'd credit them with the ability to have that analysis.

gurramok

rsynnott wrote:

No, of course not; Israel half admits that they exist still. That said, if you think Israel is worse than IRAN, of all places, you're delusional.

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to believe that they are interested in civilian power as WELL as weapons. With rising fuel prices, everyone should be considering it at this point.

Delusional?..If Israel can wipe out their neighbours with nukes in any nuke conflict, do you honesly think they won't aim them towards Europe?

I know that the West is bottom of their list if it ever came to it but Israel does have a habit of having extreme Jewish govts just like Iran has extreme Islamic govts.
As said, Iran has alot of bonuses up its sleeve like the oil, USA cant attack Iran without causing a world recession due to Iran stopping the oil plus they are bogged down in Iraq unless the american public gets overwhelmingly behind a quick invasion and win a war which is like a bit of fantasy in reality

If Iran attains nukes, I bet you that they won't be picked on by the West but treated as equals in the power stakes like that other country called North Korea

rsynnott

gurramok wrote:

Delusional?..If Israel can wipe out their neighbours with nukes in any nuke conflict, do you honesly think they won't aim them towards Europe?

What? Where did this come from? Why would Israel want to nuke Europe? Don't be silly.

gurramok wrote:

I know that the West is bottom of their list if it ever came to it but Israel does have a habit of having extreme Jewish govts just like Iran has extreme Islamic govts.

Does Israel execute people based on Biblical and Torah law? No.

gurramok wrote:

If Iran attains nukes, I bet you that they won't be picked on by the West but treated as equals in the power stakes like that other country called North Korea

Iran is one of the worst examples of a fundamentalist state, and as such is extremely dangerous. The recent rise in fundamentalism in places like Iraq and the US is worrying.

dathi1

Iran is nothing like a democracy, and doesn't even claim to be. That said, it's unlikely US invasion would improve things there.

I'm sure you read the word "sembalance" its there in black and white. Lets say the recent Iranian elections where probably more democratic than the sham civil war elections in Iraq..no?

Ah, "Zionist lead". We're deep into tinfoil hat territory here, apparently. Do you actually have any evidence of this? Why would Zionists want to intefere with Iran?

Well the bush admin is well renowned for its support of the Zionist cause with PNAC etc...no? Or is PNAC a non pro Zionist set up? Speaking of Tin Foil hats would you be referring to WMD or 45 mins to obliteration?

rsynnott

dathi1 wrote:

Speaking of Tin Foil hats would you be referring to WMD or 45 mins to obliteration?

I was referring to the fear of Zionism, tbh. What do you think the Zionists are doing, precisely?

Sand

Well, when Israel attained nukes without a whim from said inspectors, it put a regional imbalance in the region.

If anything Id argue that it helped to stabilise the region and draw a line under a series of wars between Israel and its neighbours. The situation that was stabilised was undesirable however.

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to believe that they are interested in civilian power as WELL as weapons. With rising fuel prices, everyone should be considering it at this point.

Agreed, nuclear power is certainly what they want as well imo. Lets face it, nuclear power is black and white TV technology. Its 60 odd years old, so if a nation wants to achieve it, it certainly can. Even Ireland could develop nukes or at least the ability to construct them quickly.

Attempts to stop proliferation are a little late imo. That particular horse has already bolted. With the international pressure the Troika have brought to bear all they have succeeded in doing is turning it into a matter of national pride for the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons - and of course expending their own credibility on something they cant actually stop.

Or, it's another way for American conservatives to attack, IMHO, Europe's more enlightened approach derived from historical experience of two World Wars, continued peace since through economic interdependence and better academic research.

Well, some might argue that the EUs style of international politics is based on an enlightened "transcendence" into some post-conflict era of human thought. Others might point to the fact that when you have not got a military option worthy of the name you dont tend to go around using it.

Back when European nations were powerful militarily we got colonialism, whereas the then weak US appealed to international laws of trade, decried British pressganging of their citizens etc etc. They too covered their weakness by imagining themselves morally and intellectually far superiour to the Old World. These morals didnt apply to their treatment of Native American tribes where the military option was extremely viable. Now the power positions are reversed, and so are the theories on power - unsurprisingly. Give a European nation similar -or greater - military might to the US and well see if enlightened Europe does much better exercising restraint in using it.

I'd say, simply, that all sides in the Iran issue are trying to get the best deal and this 'breakdown' is the product of tough negotiation, not the collapse of the effectiveness of 'soft power'.

Iran doesnt need to get a better deal out of the EU - Russia is assisting it with its nuclear programme, and China is a willing patron. What can the EU offer it that makes the security and international prestige offered by nuclear weapons less desirable? I think Iran has basically just decided to play its hand and demonstrate that the EU troika are very much the junior partners in these discussions. Iran may well return to negotiate, but only to play for time.

The rational response by America (like Europe's) should be to realise that a safer situation would be to incorporate Iran into the global economy, making it too costly for them to wage war on anyone and tacitly make them an agent of the West.

Theocracies arent noted for valuing trade over theology, especially when blessed/cursed with oil that distorts the normal requirement of a successful democractic economy - tolerable rule of law, free-ish trade, education and so on. Oil money only requires an export market and a army/police force to protect the regime.

fly_agaric

rsynnott wrote:

What? Where did this come from? Why would Israel want to nuke Europe? Don't be silly.

There is the centuries of persecution and pogroms Jews have experienced at the hand of Europeans. Then there is the holocaust!
If Israel were faced with total defeat in a conventional war with its Arab neighbours I wouldn't be surprised if they had a few nukes to spare for Europe's big cities.

"Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother. Our armed forces. are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
- Moshe Dyan

Victor

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, "Zionist lead" [calmity that befell Iraq.]. We're deep into tinfoil hat territory here, apparently. Do you actually have any evidence of this? Why would Zionists want to intefere with Iran?

Defensive depth. Israeli poilicy for the last 50-odd years has been about defensive depth (the ability to always keep it's enemies at arms reach away), first it was the consolidation of Israel's borders, then holding territory from its neighbours, not its about ballistics missiles and WMD.

rsynnott wrote:

No, of course not; Israel half admits that they exist still.

Something along the lines of "strategic ambiguity".

DadaKopf

Back when European nations were powerful militarily we got colonialism, whereas the then weak US appealed to international laws of trade, decried British pressganging of their citizens etc etc. They too covered their weakness by imagining themselves morally and intellectually far superiour to the Old World. These morals didnt apply to their treatment of Native American tribes where the military option was extremely viable. Now the power positions are reversed, and so are the theories on power - unsurprisingly. Give a European nation similar -or greater - military might to the US and well see if enlightened Europe does much better exercising restraint in using it.

Interesting analysis. In a way, I'm inclined to agree with you, but my point still stands: the whole mode of thinking about this - hard versus soft power (i.e. neorealism, a simplistic discourse of the powerful, like you say) - is wrong. Different forms of power depend on a great mix of things involving not just the spheres I mentioned above, but also weird things people tend to forget like time, stages of development etc.

Neorealist international relations makes two main mistakes: (1) it still concentrates on state-to-state relations, and only marginally economic and cultural forms; and (2) sees international relations primarly as a zero-sum-game. This is a mistake about the way the world works. Not simply, as you say, normatively, but actually.

And in fairness, during the era of colonialism, alternative theories of power did exist. Not just Wilsonian idealism, but Marxism.

OK, I'll shut up now. But I don't see this as an example of the limits of soft power because that view depends on a crap theory.

rsynnott

fly_agaric wrote:

There is the centuries of persecution and pogroms Jews have experienced at the hand of Europeans. Then there is the holocaust!
If Israel were faced with total defeat in a conventional war with its Arab neighbours I wouldn't be surprised if they had a few nukes to spare for Europe's big cities.

There are a number of other more heavily armed nuclear nations with historical issues with Europe. And you realise that many Jewish people live quite happily in Europe, nowadays, right? Honestly, do you think they're all crazy? They're people too. This is, worryingly, exactly the sort of alarmist nonsense that lead to the holocaust.

fly_agaric wrote:

"Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother. Our armed forces. are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
- Moshe Dyan

Everyone has mad-men. Ireland doesn't let the IRA's Rolf Harris impersonator speak for it, and Israel doesn't let local crazy people speak for it.

gurramok

rsynnott wrote:

What? Where did this come from? Why would Israel want to nuke Europe? Don't be silly.

Does Israel execute people based on Biblical and Torah law? No.

Iran is one of the worst examples of a fundamentalist state, and as such is extremely dangerous. The recent rise in fundamentalism in places like Iraq and the US is worrying.

Point being, any country which is prone to religious extremeism with possession of nukes can be prone to use them to exert their own influence.

Israel is prone to fanaticalism just as much as Iran, my point being that there are NO checks in place to keep an eye on what Israel is producing just like North Korea with their fanatical atheist regime and Pakistan with their Islamic extremist minority.

Sand wrote:

If anything Id argue that it helped to stabilise the region and draw a line under a series of wars between Israel and its neighbours. The situation that was stabilised was undesirable however.

Thats one way of putting it. It'll stop any Arab aggressors from conquering the place.
But it hardly helpful to its non-aggressive neighbours that the country next door which is culturally hostile and ethnically different to you has nukes and can use them to barter a higher unfair position in any negotiations. ie..blackmail
Hence it gives inspiration to the likes of Iran to counter-balance with its own nukes just in case Israel/USA/any country decides to attack it and make them think twice!
Agree with 82.77% of the rest of your post

rsynnott

No-one is likely to start a nuclear war in the Middle East, and Israel is unlikely to use its non-declared weapons to threaten its neighbors. They simply discourage invasion.

fly_agaric

rsynnott wrote:

There are a number of other more heavily armed nuclear nations with historical issues with Europe.

Russia??

rsynnott wrote:

And you realise that many Jewish people live quite happily in Europe, nowadays, right? Honestly, do you think they're all crazy?

It's really nothing to do with the jews still in Europe. It's the very religious ones living in Israel I'm concerned about. Some of them are as crazy as the mullahs in Iran.

rsynnott wrote:

They're people too. This is, worryingly, exactly the sort of alarmist nonsense that lead to the holocaust.

Yes, it is alarmist - but it's not nonsense.

My suggestion that Israel may be tempted in extremis to wreak some vengance on Europe was not intended to imply anything about jews in general - either in Israel or Europe.

I don't see how it relates to the negative propaganda about jews that laid the groundwork for the holocaust. If anything, the current worries about moslems in Europe would be more comparable.

rsynnott wrote:

Everyone has mad-men. Ireland doesn't let the IRA's Rolf Harris impersonator speak for it, and Israel doesn't let local crazy people speak for it.

Moshe Dayan is (well, was) one of Israel's founding heros AFAIK - hardly a crazyman.
A potted biography:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Dayan.html

rsynnott

fly_agaric wrote:

Russia??

I was thinking more China, plus India and Pakistan.

fly_agaric wrote:

It's really nothing to do with the jews still in Europe. It's the very religious ones living in Israel I'm concerned about. Some of them are as crazy as the mullahs in Iran.

Obviously, there are fundamentalists in every religion, and fundamentalists are never a good thing (that's unfair about the Iranian mullah, btw; some of them are quite moderate). Most Israelis, however, are not fundamentalist; in fact, many of them are quite secular, for historical reasons.

fly_agaric wrote:

My suggestion that Israel may be tempted in extremis to wreak some vengance on Europe was not intended to imply anything about jews in general - either in Israel or Europe.

If Ireland started building nukes, would the obvious assumption be that it meant to nuke the UK? Don't be silly.

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't see how it relates to the negative propaganda about jews that laid the groundwork for the holocaust. If anything, the current worries about moslems in Europe would be more comparable.

There, too, the trend was to spread propaganda about a Zionist conspiracy, and the great threat the Jews posed to "Aryans".

fly_agaric wrote:

Moshe Dayan is (well, was) one of Israel's founding heros AFAIK - hardly a crazyman.
A potted biography:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Dayan.html

Many of Ireland's founding heroes were a little off the wall, too. It takes a very different person to found a country than it takes to maintain it.

Sand

the whole mode of thinking about this - hard versus soft power (i.e. neorealism, a simplistic discourse of the powerful, like you say) - is wrong. Different forms of power depend on a great mix of things involving not just the spheres I mentioned above, but also weird things people tend to forget like time, stages of development etc.

The essential difference is that the US has (or had - Iraq means theyre tied up hence Iran and North Korea getting braver) a big stick in the shape of miltary power it can project to almost any portion of the globe rapidly. This does not prevent the US from exercising or enjoying any of the more "subtle" forms of power - and given the dominance and export of American culture that so threatens the French its not a slouch in the arena of soft power either - but the underlying threat always exists that its better to accept the US deal whilst theyre all smiles and sunshine, because they have the option to hurt you otherwise.

Also the hard power means the US is a far more favourable patron than pacifists...Japan, Taiwan and South Koreas security is guaranteed by the US, much as Europes was/is. That gives it influence that cant be rivalled when push comes to shove. The EU is only now getting ratty about the US because the security threat has vanished.

The Troika dont have this option, nor are their diplomatic overtures supported by any viable implied threat. Iran knows there is no threat to it by telling them to get lost. Successful diplomacy, soft power, is dependant on convincing the other side that the deal youre offering now is better than the consequence of them rejecting it. There is no consequence to rejecting the Troikas offers.

As I said before the EUs attack on the concept of military force isnt some bold new thinking - its an age old strategy of the weak to try and contain the strong by making their strenth unacceptable or immoral, to prevent the US (in this case) exercising an option where it is far and away ahead of the EU. France and Britain certainly didnt have problems with trying to maintain their colonial empires after the war with force(Indo-China, Algeria, Kenya), until they recognised their military weakness meant such a strategy was doomed. Hence, the supposed miraculous transcendence to a higher form of human thought.