Capturing Power Shift in East Asia: Toward an Analytical Framework for Understanding “Soft Power”

Abstract

Mainstream International Relations (IR) theory has problems fully accounting for the regional dynamics of East Asia. This article explores whether the pursuit of soft power-a concept that has been given a prominent position in research on East Asian IR-can provide one piece of the puzzle for understanding East Asia's regional dynamics. This article proposes an analytical framework for analyzing soft power that problematizes the rigid soft power/hard power binary. The framework proposes a way to understand soft power and the hard-soft spectrum of behavior that allows for the inclusion of economic power while still drawing a line between hard and soft power, where not all economic power is soft, but nor is it all hard. It is argued that to keep the concept of soft power relevant in the East Asian context economic power needs to be included. The line is drawn between economic coercion and economic inducement, arguing that when induced there is still a certain level of freedom as one can choose whether the payments or bribes offered are good enough for it to be worthwhile to change one's preference and behavior. Coercion, in contrast, utilizes a different dynamic where the point is to force someone to do something they are unwilling to do.

British soft power in Asia: a (post-)imperial project?

“…63 For Mikael Weissman, for instance, economic power needs to be taken into account in analyses of both power relations and the expression of soft power in East Asia, given China's ambitions and actual policies. 64 This is also in line with theoretical analyses of diplomacy which consider the overlap between state and non-state actors, and between the practice of diplomacy and the theory (and history) of international relations as a discipline. 65 Soft power should not, in any case, be idealised as invariably a force of good.…”

The Impact of Geopolitical Influence on Regional Cooperation and Integration in East Asia

“…Some studies argue that the rise of acceptance towards China from the region was because China managed to top the US and Japan in initiating a regional infrastructure development strategy, which was marked by the adoption of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, followed by the establishment of the Silk Road fund in 2014 and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2015 to support the operation of the BRI (de Graaff and van Apeldoorn, 2018; Weissmann, 2020; Yuan, 2018; Zhao, 2019). Those events contribute to the superior involvement of China in infrastructure projects throughout East Asia.…”

“…Other studies believe China's national rejuvenation significantly changes its policy and approach towards the global international order. The old Deng Xiaoping ethos of “hiding strength and awaiting opportunities” was replaced by new ones such as “The Chinese Dream” in 2012 and “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” in 2017, as China's thoughts turned to a manifestation of a new form of international relations with a focus on community-shared humanity, a harmonious world, and peaceful development (Callahan, 2013; Nordin, 2016; Nordin and Weissmann, 2018; Shin, 2018; Weissmann, 2020).…”

“…As a result, China had either negotiated or signed various economic partnerships and free trade agreements with ASEAN, South Korea, and Australia by 2014. In the physical aspect, the BRI and the establishment of the AIIB served as the follow-up actions and became crucial policy tools for China's policy on the geopolitics of Asia, including East Asia (Han, 2017; Li, 2020; Ross, 2019; Weissmann, 2020; Yuan, 2018). Contrary to that, the US under the Obama administration experienced worsening relations with its allies; for example, related to the US position on the 2014 Thailand military coup, the US role in the Malaysia 1MDB scandal in 2015, the position of the US towards the Philippines’ aggressive anti-drug policy in 2016 (Tan, 2020).…”