Sunday Times 2
Between the worlds of Kautilya and Nye
View(s):By Dr. Sarala Fernando
Everyone is talking of soft power today and referring to the work of Joseph Nye. In a nutshell, soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction rather than by hard power (i.e.military force).
Nye sets the frame in the changing global power equation which has witnessed the rise – or return – of India and China, as well as the communication revolution which has diffused power to many new stake holders. He suggests there is a need to avoid the “Thucydides Trap” referring, inter alia, to the fear mongering which is said to have triggered unending war between Athens and Sparta in classical times. In the application of soft power, Nye offers as basic principles, the need for credibility in strategic communications and the seeking out of win-win solutions to achieve the ultimate goal of “smart power”.
An artistic impression of Kautilya. Pic courtesy Hindu. Right: Joseph Nye
Our soldiers, who in the course of the operations against the LTTE had faced the very heart of darkness, would find it more easy to associate with the views of Kautilya, written in the 4thcentury BC, notably the Arthashastra which sets out the art of combining military power and diplomatic persuasion in the pursuit of national self-interest. As the Minister to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, Kautilya had to deal with real life situations, at a time when military power and economic power were the two recognised main pillars of national security. Then, the guiding values were of pragmatism and realism and Kautilya considered any means were acceptable to secure the kingdom; thus assassinations, spies and secret agents, duplicity in negotiations are freely discussed as necessary tools.
Clearly Kautilya’s world is different to the world of today where such means are considered as covert operations and rarely discussed in public. Nevertheless these secret operations are coming to light as ethical choice weighs in on strategic thinking, for example as in the legal debate in the US over the limits on use of torture and practice of rendition.
These developments can be ascribed in part to the rise of the United Nations after the catastrophic events of World War 11. From its founding, the UN placed emphasis on disarmament and the promotion of human rights. Thus, the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly called for the elimination of all forms of WMD and the subsequent adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out standards which have influenced constitution-making around the world.
A huge body of international law and humanitarian law has come into existence which has a direct bearing on the conduct of war and on shaping public opinion. Hence, we are drawn to the example of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, whose place in history is defined not by his territorial conquests over virtually all of India but by his vision of upholding the Buddhist teachings as a cultural foundation for political unity and good governance.
One problem though has not changed since the time of Kautilya, how to respond to the rise of zealots such as Osama Bin Laden and Prabhakaran who can inspire countless followers to rally to their cause, killing and maiming thousands, destroying public infrastructure, food and water supply, and even UNESCO World Heritage treasures.
Military leaders who have faced the forces of terror remain convinced that there is no other recourse than that of hard power. They would say it is foolish to believe that we can shape the preference of such zealots through “attraction” and achieve security goals through soft power instruments such as diplomacy, strategic communications, exchange partnerships and humanitarian assistance.
So should we re-assess the value of Kautilya’s work as a counterpoint to the growing influence of soft power? Already some parts of his work are recognisable within IR theory. For example, the five prong model of options for a ruler to achieve his strategic objectives — collusion, cooperation, alliance, acquisition or destruction – has influenced modern balance of power theory and strategies now called bandwagoning and balancing, cooperation with security blocs, neutrality etc. However we know less about Kautilya’s view of human nature, what are the driving forces that throughout time create fanatical leaders who can rally their followers to the path of untold destruction?
Equally important, what are the lessons we could draw from Kautilya on how hard power should be balanced with soft power to counter emerging threats? Is there a proportionate measure to be applied or timing to be identified such as a “tipping point” in the crisis? When a threat is imminent or an attack takes place, a common response is to react with more controls and monitoring – banning the burqa or online magazines for example. As a multi-religious country, a good starting point for Sri Lanka’s security planners would be to organise early warning consultations with religious and other civic leaders whose support would be required to both educate those who may be prey to violent extremism as well as to provide prior intelligence on terror attacks.
However, as Sri Lanka’s involvement in UN peace keeping operations increases, the military will have to come to terms with the world Nye represents. Public opposition to war is growing around the world as witnessed for example by falling voluntary recruitment in the military and public demands for the relocation of funds from defence to social spending. This trend is illustrated in the resort to growing civil-military cooperation and the induction of robots and drones.
In the past, opposition to foreign interventions usually came from the affected (mostly developing) countries. However, influential voices in the West are now questioning their leaders on taking their countries into foreign wars, viz the Chilcot and UK parliamentary reports on Iraq and Libya. These reports, partly inspired by confrontational politics, were also commissioned due to the pressure of families who had lost their husbands, sons and daughters in these foreign wars. Such rising public opinion will surely impact on the new thinking at the UN suggesting that its peace keeping operations should become more “robust”. Already there are signs of friction on this issue between human rights advocates on the one hand and the countries sending troops, mainly developing countries, on the other hand, who naturally would not want to place their personnel in harm’s way or to carry the blame for bureaucratic indecision.
Ironically, with the democratisation of the internet and reducing of the cost of information, communications and computers and enhanced distribution through internet cafes and networks highlighted by Nye, the “dark side” of Soft Power, notably the propagandising of violent extremism, is emerging as a major security threat today. The technological divide is also deepening between countries; those more advanced have moved on to forge cyber security partnerships for protection of critical infrastructure and combating of cyber crime. Major attitudinal changes have occurred since the World Information Summit in Tunis in 2005 where countries imposing firewalls on the internet came in for much criticism.
Today, 10 years on, firewalls, monitoring of on-line behaviour, electronic eaves dropping and counter measures has become standard practice in countering security threats. The constituency to maintain the integrity of the internet without significant loss of privacy or degradation of individual rights has already lost ground to the demands of national security.
As troop levels are drawn down and civil-military cooperation is increasing around the world from the US to China, how will the Sri Lanka military strategise to meet the new challenges between the two worlds of Kautilya and Nye?
(The author is a retired Sri Lanka Foreign Service Ambassador)