THE POWER OF NON-POWER? CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACT OF SOFT POWER IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA.

Power. What do you think of when hearing the term power? Take a few seconds.

You might associate power with strength and authority. You might think of a country such as China, Russia, the United States, Israel. In this case, your line of thought would accord with the assessment of the World Population Review, which ranked these countries in a worldwide comparison to being among the top 10 most powerful nations of our world. Interestingly, this list of powerful countries agrees almost entirely with a ranking of global nuclear powers.

Power can be organised into two categories - hard and soft power. Indeed, nuclear power is part of the former category, defined as "tactics employ[ing] means of military force or other coercive strategies to achieve the desired outcome".Alternatively, soft power is an approach of non-violence, mirrored in diplomacy and influence.

However, is the strength of soft power considerable in today’s world?

Presumably, the most prominent example would be the European Union (EU). To say it plainly - "there is no EU army. The issue of defence remains mostly in the hands of the member states. The Treaty of Lisbon states clearly that the aggregated capacity of member state forces is intended outside the union for the strengthening of international security and emphasises a "common Union defence policy" (Article 42(2) TEU). In 2017, some measures of European cooperational defence had been ratified, nonetheless, in the words of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen "the European Union will never be a military alliance [...]. NATO will always be [our] collective defence". The military alliance NATO is explicitly named in the treaty, as "certain Member States, [...] see their common defence realised in the NATO" and therefore"be [it] compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework". So, left without an army and trapped in a defence alliance which President Emmanuel Macron famously referred to in 2019 with the following words: “We are experiencing the brain death of NATO”, what are the EU’s possibilities to power? Is the union powerless? Or does soft power provide enough leverage to sustain in the international spectacle of power?

Firstly, and contrary to the widespread assumption, the EU’s lack of hard power is contestable. When focussing on nuclear power, only France and the UK have estimated nuclear inventories of 290 deployed and stockpiled warheads, 195 respectively. These levels are comparatively low to the US’ or Russia’s. According to the BBC, the US accounts for 70% of the NATO’s spending of defence, but Germany, France and the UK paid around 47% of the NATO’s civilian and military budget in 2019. Furthermore, Europe is the world’s largest arms exporter and maintains security partnerships around the world. The assumption of the EU’s lack of hard power is hence contestable.

In 2019, the EU was the second-largest economy in the world. Undeniably, the more dependent a country is to trade, the less incontestable it is. The EU is less dependent on trade than China, but more than the US. Scholars argue that the effectiveness of economic power could be seen as a function of per capita income as the state’s capacity is dependent on its extractive abilities. China outnumbers the EU when considering aggregated income by far. Shifting the view to a more leveling measure such as the GDP per capita (here in thousand dollars), the world bank assessed it to be around 65 in the US, in the EU 35, in China 10 and Russia 12.

Furthermore and contrary to the common belief, the accumulated foreign direct investment outflow of EU member states exceeds these of all other countries. In 2020, the EU accounted for 55.2% of the Official Development Assistance aid, aiming at the promotion of "economic development and welfare of developing countries".

Economic dominance equips the union with a good deal of soft power. Beyond, the EU fundamentally shaped international organisations such as the UN, WTO, or ICC.

It created an extensive network of agreements with neighboring countries and influenced multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO, or ICC.

Let’s shift the perspective to the remaining category: culture. This aspect is historically conditioned but remains of high significance. The world’s most spoken languages are Mandarine, Spanish, English and Hindi. The world’s most popular learned second languages are English, French, Russian and Spanish. 1.2 billion people practice English. Theses languages connect and draw lines back to their historical origin in "western" countries. Beyond this, QS world University ranking 2020 reveals that 33 of the worlds best Universities are located in Europe, comparing to one in Russia and 32 in North America. Agreed, QS is based in the UK, but Russian international University rankings are for example, mostly coherent with the QS ranking or had been created in cooperation with QS. European Universities attract a global audience which can be seen the approximately 200,000 international students or 34% of the Russel Group's stu- dent body.

These considerations are beyond the scope of mere politics, but they shape thinking attitudes and lives.

Interrelated with the concept of soft power is the idea of cultural diplomacy. The Institute of Cultural Diplomacy defines it as "a course of actions, which are based on and utilise the exchange of [..] aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond." The EU engages in joint cultural events, such as film festivals, the creation of European Culture Houses, Culture and Creativity Programmes, the Erasmus + programme and bilateral support, such as the strengthening of Tunisia’s Cultural Sector. Highly interesting is the European enlargement. Since the union’s foundation in 1993, the six founding countries enlarged the union, comprising 27 member states by today. The union’s entering is bound to the adoption of democratic and legal reforms. Research shows that the choice of potential new members follows, on the one hand, the logic of consequentiality regarding interest-exchange as well as benefit-maximisation. On the other hand, member states engage in "a continuous process of arguing about the courses of action which best matched the EU’s principles", among other things the promotion of security, democracy and peace. The EU’s cultural heritage is highly influential when it comes to the union’s actions regarding its international reputation. The EU’s enlargement can be seen as a process of state crafting utilising identity building.

This concept transfers into the broader international context: captured in the European Security Strategy 2003, the EU has a vested interested in the "well" governing of neighbouring countries. A study conducted in Africa reveals that the EU is largely perceived as a supportive actor fostering the "African efforts to spread peace and security". But in the trade sector, the EU’s actions are seen as protective and paternalistic. It uses coercive instruments to achieve their economic interests. The EU’s economic power entails the possibility of imposing conditionality to agreements of trade and bilateral agreements concerning a potential EU membership as seen in Morocco. Intervention in the Egyptian showed the prioritisation of security and stability over democratic or human rights. Some scholars compare the EU’s foreign policy to "an option between credible civilian power and soft imperialism. With

increasing actorness and coherence (a stronger identity) there is a risk that soft imperialism takes over and that the dialogue becomes a monologue." Literature concerning the soft imperialism and imposed cultural alignment of current or new member states appear sporadically. However, such considerations should be made as the optimum of the democratisation is contested. The EU’s exercise of soft power in the sense of identity spreading is thus of ambivalent nature. There is no traditionally formed supreme culture. Human rights are of utmost importance, but cultural diplomacy should be defined by cultural interaction, a two-way street of communication, listening and learning. Ultimately, the question of the EU’s powerfulness shall be returned to you. Do you consider the EU to be a powerful union?

Does soft power prove substantial when comparing it to hard power?