Soft Power and the UK's Influence - Evidence Volume 2 - Parliament

331 Pages·2014·1.99 MB·English

SOFT POWER AND THE UK’S INFLUENCE COMMITTEE
Oral and written evidence – Volume 2
Contents
Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence ................................................................................ 617
Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Jay of Ewelme, Sir Antony Acland – Oral evidence (QQ 292-
309) ........................................................................................................................................................... 621
H.E. Mr Keiichi Hayashi, Ambassador of Japan, H.E. Mr Roberto Jaguaribe, Ambassador of
Brazil, H.E. Mr Kim Traavik, Ambassador of Norway and Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the
Federal Republic of Germany and – Oral evidence (QQ 187-199) ........................................... 622
Henry Jackson Society – Written evidence ..................................................................................... 623
Humanitarian Intervention Centre (HIC) – Written evidence.................................................... 628
ICAEW – Written evidence ................................................................................................................ 634
Independent Schools Council – Written evidence ......................................................................... 638
Ingenious Media – Written evidence ................................................................................................. 642
Institute of Export – Written evidence............................................................................................. 649
Institute of Export, National Asian Business Association and Leicestershire Business
Association and Commonwealth Business Council – Oral evidence (QQ 93-115) ............... 650
International Alert, Transparency International UK, Ian Birrell, Columnist and Foreign
Correspondent and Jonathan Glennie, Overseas Development Institute – Oral evidence
(QQ 126-151) ......................................................................................................................................... 651
International Alert – Supplementary written evidence ................................................................. 652
International Alert – Further supplementary written evidence .................................................. 655
Dr Daniel Arthur, International Policy Dynamics – Written evidence...................................... 661
H.E. Mr Roberto Jaguaribe, Ambassador of Brazil, H.E. Mr Kim Traavik, Ambassador of
Norway, Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany and H.E. Mr Keiichi
Hayashi, Ambassador of Japan – Oral evidence (QQ 187-199) .................................................. 665
Lord Jay of Ewelme, Sir Antony Acland and Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Oral evidence (QQ
292-309) ................................................................................................................................................... 666
Professor Mary Kaldor, London School of Economics (LSE) – Written evidence .................. 667
Professor John Krige, Georgia Institute of Technology – Written evidence ........................... 669
Levant Education Consulting – Written evidence .......................................................................... 671
London First, Professor Colin Riordan, Cardiff University, Tourism Alliance and UKinbound,
– Oral evidence (QQ 246-259) .......................................................................................................... 675
The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH – Oral evidence (QQ 343-357) ........................................ 690
Sir Peter Marshall – Written evidence .............................................................................................. 704
Jonathan McClory – Written evidence ............................................................................................. 709
Jonathan McClory, Agnès Poirier and Professor Simon Anholt – Oral evidence (QQ 200-
217) ........................................................................................................................................................... 718
John Micklethwait, The Economist, Lord Williams of Baglan, Chatham House and Professor
Michael Cox, London School of Economics (LSE) – Oral evidence (QQ 23-41).................... 719
Lord Moynihan, former Chairman, British Olympic Association, Premier League and England
and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – Oral evidence (QQ 274-291) .............................................. 720
National Asian Business Association – Written evidence ............................................................ 721
National Asian Business Association and Leicestershire Business Association,
Commonwealth Business Council and Institute of Export – Oral evidence (QQ 93-115) .. 726
National Museum Directors’ Council – Written evidence .......................................................... 727
Dr Robin Niblett, Chatham House – Written evidence ............................................................... 736
Richard Norton-Taylor (The Guardian) – Written evidence ...................................................... 742
Professor Joseph S. Nye, Harvard Kennedy University – Oral evidence (QQ 176-186) ...... 747
Open Europe, Centre for European Reform and European Policy Reform – Oral evidence
(QQ 165-175) ......................................................................................................................................... 761
PACT – Written evidence ................................................................................................................... 762
Dr James Pamment, University of Texas – Written evidence ..................................................... 767
Penspen Group Ltd, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Shell and ARM – Oral evidence (QQ
218-235) ................................................................................................................................................... 771
Baroness Prashar, Government (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and H.E. Mr Carlos dos
Santos, High Commissioner for the Republic of Mozambique – Oral evidence (QQ 152-164)
.................................................................................................................................................................... 772
Premier League, England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Lord Moynihan, former
Chairman, British Olympic Association – Oral evidence (QQ 274-291) .................................. 773
Agnès Poirier, Professor Simon Anholt and Jonathan McClory – Oral evidence (QQ 200-
217) ........................................................................................................................................................... 774
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Shell, ARM and Penspen Group Ltd – Oral evidence (QQ
218-235) ................................................................................................................................................... 775
Raleigh International – Written evidence ......................................................................................... 776
Professor Gary D. Rawnsley, Aberystwyth University – Written evidence............................. 778
Research Councils UK – Written evidence ..................................................................................... 784
Professor Colin Riordan, Cardiff University, Tourism Alliance and UKinbound and London
First – Oral evidence (QQ 246-259) ................................................................................................. 794
Professor Caroline Rooney, University of Kent – Written evidence ........................................ 795
Professor Laura J. Roselle, Elon University, USA – Written evidence ...................................... 797
Dr Christina Rowley, University of Bristol – Written evidence ................................................. 801
The Royal Commonwealth Society – Written evidence .............................................................. 807
The Royal Society – Written evidence ............................................................................................. 812
H.E. Mr Carlos dos Santos, High Commissioner for the Republic of Mozambique, Baroness
Prashar and Government (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) – Oral evidence (QQ 152-
164) ........................................................................................................................................................... 822
Professor Philip Seib, University of Southern California – Written evidence .......................... 823
615
Shell, ARM, Penspen Group Ltd and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) – Oral evidence (QQ
218-235) ................................................................................................................................................... 826
Emile Simpson – Written evidence .................................................................................................... 827
Giles Scott Smith – Written evidence ............................................................................................... 834
Tara D. Sonenshine – Oral evidence (QQ 358-367) ..................................................................... 838
Lord Soley of Hammersmith – Written evidence .......................................................................... 852
Professor Annabelle Sreberny, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) – Written
evidence .................................................................................................................................................... 857
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP – Written evidence ..................................................................................... 859
H.E. Mr Kim Traavik, Ambassador of Norway, Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Germany, H.E. Mr Keiichi Hayashi, Ambassador of Japan and H.E. Mr Roberto
Jaguaribe, Ambassador of Brazil – Oral evidence (QQ 187-199) ............................................... 863
Transparency International UK, Ian Birrell, Columnist and Foreign Correspondent, Jonathan
Glennie, Overseas Development Institute and International Alert – Oral evidence (QQ 126-
151) ........................................................................................................................................................... 864
Tourism Alliance and UKinbound, London First and Professor Colin Riordan, Cardiff
University, – Oral evidence (QQ 246-259) ..................................................................................... 865
UK China Visa Alliance (UKCVA) – Written evidence................................................................. 866
UK China Visa Alliance (UKCVA) – Supplementary written evidence ..................................... 876
UK Sport – Written evidence ............................................................................................................. 878
UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) – Oral evidence (QQ 116-125) ........................................... 883
UK Trade Facilitation – Written evidence ....................................................................................... 894
University of Edinburgh – Written evidence ................................................................................... 899
Universities UK and the UK Higher Education International Unit – Written evidence ........ 903
Dr Peter van Ham, Netherlands Institute of International Relations – Written evidence ... 910
VICTUS – Written evidence ............................................................................................................... 914
VisitBritain – Written evidence .......................................................................................................... 920
Walpole British Luxury – Written evidence .................................................................................... 932
Welsh Government – Written evidence .......................................................................................... 936
Lord Williams of Baglan, Chatham House, Professor Michael Cox, London School of
Economics (LSE) and John Micklethwait, The Economist – Oral evidence (QQ 23-41) ....... 938
Derek Wyatt – Written evidence ...................................................................................................... 939
Professor Matthias Zachmann, The University of Edinburgh – Written evidence .................. 940

616
Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence

Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence

This evidence is being submitted in a purely personal capacity, drawing principally on the
author’s experience in the Diplomatic Service (1959-1995); as a member of the UN
Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2003-4); and as a
member of the House’s EU Select Committee and several of its sub-committees since 2001.

Introduction

1. The decision by the House in May 2013 to set up a Select Committee on Soft Power
and the UK’s influence was a welcome one. Although soft power and the international
influence it brings with it cannot be calibrated with precision, it is nevertheless real. A
country’s soft power is a national asset which can either be augmented or reduced by
actions taken by the government.

2. The concept of soft power, and indeed its label, is a relatively novel one. It therefore
has no place in the historical record. A nation’s influence on international developments is a
wider concept than that of soft power, encompassing, as it does, the use of both soft power
and hard power. The boundary line between the two categories is often blurred and hard
to identify.

3. Britain’s international influence has fluctuated quite widely in the past hundred years
as have the relative contributions to it of Britain’s hard and soft power. For example one
hundred years ago, just before the outbreak of the First World War, it would have been
reasonable to single out the world-wide, hard power influence of the Royal Navy as far and
away more significant than any soft power instruments existing at that time, which were in
any case relatively few in comparison with the present period. But Britain’s international
influence was certainly much greater then than it is now. Our influence will, in the future as
in the past, consist of a combination of our hard power and our soft power; but the latter
cannot simply compensate for a reduction in the former.

4. It would seem to make sense to assume that, in the period ahead, Britain’s relative
hard power, in a world where a considerable number of countries which are growing
economically faster than we are, or are likely to do, and which are devoting substantial
resources to increasing their hard power assets, will decline. That points to a greater weight
being placed on our soft power if we seek to sustain our international influence. But it is
important to recognise that too rapid a reduction in our hard power assets, or in our
willingness to make use of them, will undermine any efforts we make to increase our soft
power and with it our influence.

The Multilateral Dimension of Britain’s Soft Power

5. In the period since the end of the Second World War there has been a massive
expansion in multilateral diplomacy and in the activities of the multilateral organisations
which have been established to manage, and in some cases to regulate and seek to control,
international developments. These multilateral organisations vary widely in their
effectiveness and in the ambition of their mandates, varying from genuine elements of rules-
based systems such as exist in the World Trade Organisation’s trade dispute settlement
617
Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence
provisions or in the complex legal structures of the European Union, to much flimsier and
discretionary systems. Successive British governments have tended from the outset to
support strongly the establishment of such multilateral international organisations (in some
cases such as the UN, the Commonwealth and NATO being among the founding fathers of
them), calculating, correctly in the view of this author, that such structures would tend to
increase Britain’s soft power and help it to secure outcomes which it could not have
obtained by acting alone. That calculation remains today as valid as ever. The clear
implication is that present and future British governments should be working to support
these organisations, to increase their effectiveness and to extend the reach of rules-based
international systems where that can be demonstrated to be realistic and desirable, for
example in dealing with the challenges of climate change.

6. Britain’s membership of the United Nations, and in particular its status as one of the
five permanent members of the Security Council has been, and remains, an important source
of soft power. It is therefore a major national asset. Since that status can only be changed
with our own agreement, it is not easy to see how it could become vulnerable (and there is
no question of there being any link with our possession of nuclear weapons – four out of the
five permanent members of the Security Council did not have such weapons at the time they
became permanent members). But the soft power benefits which accrue to Britain from the
UN and from its large family of global agencies depend crucially on how effective these
institutions are at fulfilling their mandates. This is particularly true of the UN Security
Council’s role in ensuring international peace and security and in exercising its responsibility
to protect those citizens whose governments are unwilling or unable to protect them
themselves. It is important therefore that, as the strains imposed on our military by
operations in Afghanistan abate, we play a more active role in UN peacekeeping, in particular
by contributing to the more sophisticated elements now required of modern peacekeeping
operations. We should also be doing all we can to strengthen the credibility and the
disciplines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to support extension of the geographical
scope of the jurisdiction and the activities of the International Criminal Court; and to ensure
that the newly signed Arms Trade Treaty enters into force without delay and is
implemented world-wide.

7. The Commonwealth also is an important potential source of soft power, although
often under-utilised. It will be important to rid ourselves of two prevalent misconceptions.
The first is that the Commonwealth is an alternative to, or a substitute for, our membership
of the European Union; the second is that Britain somehow has a proprietorial role in the
way the Commonwealth develops. If we can do that, it should be possible to build up the
already substantial network of professional and cultural links which operate under the aegis
of the Commonwealth, devoting more resources to the provision of scholarships, and not
just to the developing country members of the organisation. It should also be possible over
time to strengthen the systems of democratic government, the rule of law, the freedom of
the press and respect for human rights as common rules shared by all members of the
Commonwealth and promoted by them more widely.

8. Our membership of the European Union has greatly expanded Britain’s soft power,
both within the borders of the Union and beyond them. We have been able to promote
successfully the establishment of the largest single market in the world and to shape its
legislation and regulation. We have championed major steps towards freer and fairer world
trade, with the European Union an indispensable player in successive global trade
negotiations and now negotiating free trade agreements with the United States and Japan.
618
Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence
We have been a leading supporter of successive enlargements of the Union which have
helped to build solid foundations for democracy and free market economies in the countries
of southern, central and eastern Europe, which were previously subject to totalitarian
regimes. There remains a major positive agenda for reform still to be accomplished in all
these areas and others. Should Britain withdraw from the European Union or come to play
a purely marginal role in the shaping of its policies it is difficult to see any of these soft
power benefits being retained.

Britain’s main national instruments of soft power

9. The BBC, and in particular its World Service and its foreign language services, are
clearly major, and still steadily expanding, instruments of Britain’s soft power, although their
effectiveness rests on their retaining the highest professional standards and on their being
seen to practice that genuine objectivity which is the hallmark of good journalism. In that
context the severing of the Government’s direct subsidy to the World Service should be
helpful. But it will only be so if it is possible to ensure that the World Service is able to
respond rapidly and flexibly to changes in demand arising from unexpected international
developments and if it is not starved of resources by the demands of the BBC’s domestic
services. It is far from clear that the arrangements made so far to secure these objectives
are yet sufficient.

10. The British Council, along with the BBC, plays a critical role in capitalising on the soft
power potential of the English language. It is hard to see English being challenged as the
lingua franca of the twenty-first century. It is important therefore to ensure that the British
Council is properly equipped and funded to play that role, and to compete with other
nations, particularly those for whom English is their native tongue.

11. Britain’s higher education establishments have been a significant part of our soft
power since the first generation of post-colonial leaders were mainly drawn from those
educated at British universities. That soft power role has greatly expanded in recent years
as our universities have grown and, by their quality, have attracted increasing numbers of
undergraduates, post graduates and researchers from an ever wider range of countries.
Britain’s higher education sector is now a major and rapidly growing contributor to Britain’s
invisible exports; and Britain is second in a world market for overseas students which is set
to grow in the years ahead. Unfortunately there is a real tension between the impact of the
Governments immigration policy, which has already resulted in sharp drops in the number of
students coming from a number of our main overseas markets, and the desirable objective of
continuing to develop and expand this important source of future soft power. The sooner
the Government can make it clear that the public policy implications of its immigration policy
will not apply to genuine students, researchers and faculty the better. Otherwise not only
will Britain’s universities be deprived of much-needed sources of funding but we will be
forgoing an important source of soft power.

12. The continuing steady and significant drop in foreign language skills at our schools and
universities may be in part a reflection of the global dominance of the English language. But,
if not reversed, it will over time diminish our soft power right across the board, including in
areas affecting trade and investment.

13. The commitment by the coalition government to bringing Britain’s Official
Development Aid up to 0.7% of our Gross National Income has made both an indirect and a
619
Lord Hannay of Chiswick – Written evidence
direct contribution to Britain’s soft power. The indirect role has been reflected in the
chairing by the Prime Minister of the UN panel set up to plot the way ahead on the post-
2015 Millennium Development Goals; and by the contrast with a number of other developed
countries who have fallen behind on their commitment to the 0.7% target. More directly
our ODA remains needed and appreciated in a wide range of developing countries whose
future prosperity will contribute to our own. But we should be doing more to work with
those major emerging nations like Brazil, China and India which are beginning to become aid
donors themselves and who have much valuable experience to impart. Such partnerships
are likely to make a genuinely valuable contribution to our soft power with both donors and
recipients.

Conclusion

14. This evidence has avoided covering areas in the Call for Evidence where the author
has had no direct professional experience. That is not therefore a comment on the relative
importance of those areas which are omitted. One general comment would be that the Call
for Evidence rather underplays the contribution to Britain’s soft power made by its
membership of and influence in the main international multilateral organisations.

September 2013

620
Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Jay of Ewelme, Sir Antony Acland – Oral evidence (QQ 292-
309)

Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Jay of Ewelme, Sir Antony Acland –
Oral evidence (QQ 292- 309)

Transcript to be found under Sir Antony Acland in Volume 1 (page 4)

621
H.E. Mr Keiichi Hayashi, Ambassador of Japan, H.E. Mr Roberto Jaguaribe, Ambassador of
Brazil, H.E. Mr Kim Traavik, Ambassador of Norway and Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the
Federal Republic of Germany and – Oral evidence (QQ 187-199)

H.E. Mr Keiichi Hayashi, Ambassador of Japan, H.E. Mr Roberto
Jaguaribe, Ambassador of Brazil, H.E. Mr Kim Traavik, Ambassador
of Norway and Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the Federal Republic of
Germany and – Oral evidence (QQ 187-199)

Transcript to be found under Dr Rudolf Adam, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
in Volume 1 (page 23)

622
Henry Jackson Society – Written evidence

Henry Jackson Society – Written evidence

The Henry Jackson Society is a cross-partisan, British think-tank which seeks to pursue, protect and
promote the principles of free and democratic societies. It focuses on Foreign and Defence policy, a
remit under which it publishes research and promotes policy debate. The below is a corporate view
for the consideration of the Committee.

Soft power and the United Kingdom

1. Soft power is far less tangible than hard power - it has definitional elasticity to an
extent - but is perhaps best illustrations in a few examples. For instance, the reach of UK
culture is virtually incalculable: there are remote and poverty-stricken villages in Africa in
which members of the male population can name the Manchester United starting line-up.
Harry Potter and James Bond are the two highest grossing film series of all time. English is,
and will likely remain, the go-to language of much of the human race when it seeks to
communicate across borders.

2. The UK’s combined strength in language, sport, culture, diplomacy, business and
education has allowed Britain to go as far as exceeding the reach of the US in the latest ‘Soft
Power’ ranking.1 The UK does not lack soft power but less clear is if we have a sufficient
focus on how to utilise it to achieve desirable ends, both in isolation and in concert with
hard power.

3. When it comes to both culture and language no outfit represents the UK better than
the BBC. Its brand recognition is exceptional and the BBC World Service has one of the
widest global reaches in the world. However, budget cuts are already impacting the BBC’s
global footprint and therefore reducing the UK’s soft power.

4. That said, the UK remains at the forefront of training foreign military officers (see
below) alongside the U.S., combined with its impressive record in educating the world’s
elites. Oxbridge and other excellent British universities are still very much at the centre of
the knowledge nexus and this factor brings immense clout to the UK. Indeed, educating
elites from around the world is really one of the crucial tenets of our soft power. Whilst
this collides with certain valid notions of elitism and deeper questions of a moral nature at
times in terms of the relationships it can involve, it is abundantly obvious that when it comes
to bridge building, diplomatic horse trading and gaining accurate insight, an affinity for Britain
on account of years spent here being educated - or indeed having studied together - is an
undeniable asset for our own foreign policy elites. These sentiments are not intended as
systemic value judgments, but as a description of a system that generates a very serious
amount of influence we ought to recognise.

Hard power and soft power - a complex relationship

5. Soft power is difficult and time-consuming to generate and can often fail to
accomplish the tasks to which it is set. At the same time, it arguably remains the most widely
experienced form of power in international relations, and is almost always the most
persistent. In contrast, hard power can be quickly generated, can compel changes ‘on the

1 http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
623