iscover
Hard power looks to be back on the menu as nations long dependent on US strength are reeling from seismic global shifts, with former MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger warning allies like Australia and the UK must “adapt or die” in the face of renewed “hard power” centric great power competition.
In the world of international relations, the distinction between “hard power” and “soft power” is fundamental to understanding the interactions and relationships between nations of all sizes and relative power levels.
Hard power leverages the tangible elements of a nation’s resources, military and economic power and the capacity and will of a nation, to wield the two either in unison or individually, being the two-most visible metrics by which hard power is measured and quantified.
Soft power, by contrast, is far more subtle in its nature, leveraging the less tangible elements of a nation’s resources, like culture, political and ideological values and diplomacy to achieve a nation’s objectives on the international stage in a far less “brutish” manner.
By contrast, since the end of the Second World War and the ensuing creation of the “rules based” global order, we saw a shift away from the historic norm, dominated by warring empires all too eager to assert their military prowess and dominate the globe, or their small part of it.
The creation of multilateral organisations like the United Nations, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court all serve as linchpin organs of the “rules based” order and a means of levelling the playing field between nations and negating (at least in part) the need for nations to resort to conflict.
In doing so, the creation and formalisation of this international order over the last 85 years has established a historic aberration, removed from the lessons of history, driven in large part by the emergence of the United States as the global hegemon in the years following the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union.
This environment allowed nations of all sizes to outsource much of their “hard power” to the United States, believing in the “End of History” narrative that gained traction particularly across the Western World and opened the door for waves of economic, political and diplomatic liberalisation as great power competition and the conflict between nation states was expected to become relegated to the pages of history.
However, we know that narrative now to be little more than wishful thinking with the re-emergence of Russia as a credible threat to Western Europe, coupled with the rise of potential superpowers in the People’s Republic of China, India and other rising great powers as part of the BRICS grouping of parallel multilateral organisations begin to increasingly flex their military, economic and political muscles on the global stage.
Recognising the trend back towards the historic norm of “hard power” centric international relations, the former chief of the United Kingdom’s foreign intelligence service, MI6, Sir Alex Younger, has recently issued a particularly pointed and timely warning to both America’s European and Indo-Pacific allies, including Australia – “adapt or die” to this new era of great power competition.
It’s hard power, stupid
In recent weeks, the disruptive US President Donald Trump has thrown a cat among the pigeons as he has set about negotiating a diplomatic solution to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, much to the shock and horror of many across the Western alliance network, with European leaders, in particular, seemingly caught off guard.
The willingness of the United States to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis has been met by many across the Western World’s national security and policymaking communities with varying degrees of disdain, disbelief and rancour as they grapple with the reality that even America will be required to pick its battles in this new world.
This has only been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s scathing attacks on Europe and its expectations of the continent’s own funding commitments to collective security and the ongoing shortfalls dating in many cases back to and, in many cases, even beyond the Obama administration.
While former US president Barack Obama referred to Europe as “free riders”, it is President Trump’s abrupt, transactional nature which has resulted in significant scorn from the Western alliance network as they have scrambled to respond to America’s seeming commitment to withdrawing from long agreed upon guarantees to focus its attention on American issues and to a lesser extent, China.
This emerged as a catalyst for Younger’s interview with BBC Newsnight, in which he explained the implications of America’s “abandonment” of the post-Second World War international order, saying, “I think we are in a new era of international relations where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions, they’re going to be determined by strong men and deals.”
Drawing direct historical comparison, Younger added, “I think of the Yalta Treaty in 1945 where three strong men as they were then, on behalf of the big countries, the strong countries, decided the fate of the small countries, I think that’s Donald Trump’s mindset, it’s certainly Putin’s mindset, it’s Xi Jin Ping’s mindset, it’s not Europe’s mindset, that is the world we’re going into for a whole set of reasons and I don’t think we’re going back to the one we had before.”
It is the early stages of this emerging new world order driven by a growing cadre of formerly colonial assets and developing nations that is perhaps the most confronting to the former great powers of Europe, in particular, who are rapidly coming to terms with their own declining position of prominence in a multipolar world.
Meanwhile, for “middle powers” like Australia, if we can still be considered such (or if such a moniker was ever an accurate accounting of our power and position within the global order), the collapse of the post-Second World War order and the re-emergence of an international environment where “might makes right” is particularly disconcerting.
Younger detailed the implications of this shift in global power dynamics and its impact on the world’s smaller powers, saying, “We are seeing deals, we are seeing conversations about spheres of influence and I think the only people that have woken up to this reality is us [Europe] and there is an entry ticket to this conversation, it appears, and sadly, it’s not our soft power or our values, it’s hard power and it leaves the category challenge to us in Europe, how do we develop that to get ourselves a seat in this conversation.”
In the Australian context, this leaves a significant question about how the nation not only sees itself, but also the position it seeks to hold in this new world order and what it must do in order to achieve its national interests in a world dominated by “deals” because as it stands, our managed decline just doesn’t cut it.
Adapt or die – A massive wake-up call
Younger painted a picture for the current and future British governments and how they position themselves in this new world, both in conjunction with and independent of Europe’s collective response with an important message for Australia’s own leaders, saying, “We need to organise to effect to demonstrate that we’re prepared to play a role, to take control of our own environment, recognise that we have to develop hard power and that has got to happen quickly.”
Now it goes without saying that developing true “hard power” in any sustainable capacity, particularly the full spectrum of “hard power” required by the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia can’t happen “quickly” as Younger seems to believe, particularly in terms of developing real quantifiable military and economic power require a significant shift in the respective nation’s policy-making community and their approach to pursuing their own national interests.
But for whatever reason, Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia seem firmly committed to carrying out some form of ritual, national seppuku when all around us, rising competitors continue to grow from strength to strength.
Importantly for Younger, Australia, like the United Kingdom and Europe more broadly, is going to be required to accept that the US administration’s approach to international relations is a “massive wake-up call” and that in order to survive and thrive, we need to “adapt or die” in the face of this new and highly competitive era of multipolarity and great power competition, both in Europe and closer to home for Australia.
Final thoughts
Despite the rhetoric and lofty ambition highlighted by both sides of the political debate, this all paints a fairly gloomy picture for the average Australian, for despite our divine endowment of raw resources and potential, we seem committed to not achieving our own unique national potential.
Declining economic opportunity, coupled with the rapidly deteriorating global and regional balance of power and the increased politicisation of every aspect of contemporary life, only serves to exacerbate the very reality of disconnection, apathy and helplessness felt by many Australians.
Meanwhile, contemporary Australia has been far removed from the harsh realities of conflict, with many generations never enduring the reality of rationing for food, energy, medical supplies or luxury goods, and even fewer within modern Australia understanding the sociopolitical and economic impact such rationing would have on the now world-leading Australian standard of living.
Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia. Shifting the public discussion away from the default Australian position of “it is all a little too difficult, so let’s not bother” will provide unprecedented economic, diplomatic, political and strategic opportunities for the nation.
However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?
Expanding and enhancing the opportunities available to Australians while building critical economic resilience, and as a result, deterrence to economic coercion, should be the core focus of the government because only when our economy is strong can we ensure that we can deter aggression towards the nation or our interests.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at
