Gun-boat diplomacy to Popcorn diplomacy | The pacific cold war

Francis Fukuyama, in his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), argues that since the end of the cold war, humanity has not just reached a period of relative peace but the end of history as such. What he meant was, we have finally reached the political, economical and social system that constitutes the end-point of mankind’s socio-cultural development.

That idea was western liberal democracy.

Western liberalism on an international level simply means a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism — on a micro level it consists of international cooperation through multilateral institutions like NATO, IMF , WTO constituted upon human equality, freedom, rule of law. The order was established in the aftermath of World War 2 and for all practical purposes led by the United States of America.

While this might seem like an obvious way of living NOW, it was anything but that for most of the globe till late 20th century — the world was still experimenting with liberalism, communism , democracy , socialism etc. to name a few. Everyone had their own system of socio-cultural development and in situations like these, either party is certain about its own righteousness and the most notable struggle against two such opposing ideologies, communism (led by USSR) and capitalism (led by US), is today known as cold war.

We, once again, are seeing similar tensions across two of the world’s leading powers, China and the USA. China represents an alternative social order — one that undermines the US liberal world order and unlike erstwhile soviet union & China under Mao — current China can put money where its mouth is. CCP has lifted 800 million people out of acute poverty — single handedly reducing almost 70 percent of world poverty in the same period and its economy is extrapolated to surpass the US in a decade.

Thus leads to a very real scenario wherein we can see the economic prowess and the military industrial complex of the US being eclipsed by China sometime in future. So does that in turn mean — US losing the pacific cold war?

In my previous article (https://medium.com/@i16rohits/why-us-concerns-itself-over-taiwan-a-game-theory-perspective-2580a116519c) I tried to explain why the US concerns itself over Chinese aggression in the first place. In this article I will focus on a different lens — soft power used by the US to strengthen its position.

Soft power

Most of us remember the obvious showdowns of the cold war like the Cuban missile crisis, space race, Winston Churchill’s iron curtain speech, Vietnam , Korea , Afghanistan etc. — however that wasn’t the only frontier this war was fought upon.

Soft power (a term coined by Joseph Nye — 1990) refers to the ability of a state to co-opt rather than coerce other nations with hard power. In simpler terms — it’s about impacting the decisions of other states by appeal and attraction rather than using missiles or threat of invasion.

Soft power often represents a direct communication channel with the people of other countries in order to influence their way of thinking and which, in turn, would eventually affect the thought process of their governments for the purposes of glorifying the international image of one’s own state. This in turn bends the government favourably towards the other nation.

Let me name some historical incidents of soft power’s influence :

• Egypt under the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser trained and dispatched thousands of teachers across the Arab world in an effort to spread ideas of anti-Israel & Zionism.
• Fidel Castro’s regime’s medical internationalism programme has dispatched thousands of medical professionals abroad for cultural diplomacy purposes.
• Famously, Pope John Paul II visited Poland in 1979, some political commentators said his visit influenced events against Poland’s communist government, the Soviet Union, and ultimately communism, which promoted atheism.

While these are notable examples of soft power in practice, the reason it becomes excessively relevant in today’s time is because of the stakes involved. We live in a highly globalised world with stock markets tumbling over the slightest risks — in current context — no one really wants war — take House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan — while immensely aggravating to China, both parties avoided direct conflict. The Pacific cold war , just like the previous one, has less to do with territorial ambitions as compared to an ideological warfare for world order, just the parties have changed.

US’s Soft power across globe

USA has, for most parts been directly involved in projecting its soft power to influence and sway populace living in other countries, from Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe post WW2, to setting up global institutions like UN, IMF, to sending disaster reliefs to Japan, Pakistan etc

However, since the last few decades, America, being America, has honed out this responsibility as well to the private sector. In comes Hollywood — with all its glamor and blockbusters.

Popcorn Diplomacy

Cinema has transcended borders at an unimaginable scale — Hollywood has been making more than 10 billion dollar each year for last decade and majority of revenue for blockbusters have been coming in from international markets — this movement has been further democratized with the rise of OTT platforms like Netflix, Prime video , Hotstar etc.

The United States sees itself as the defender of the status quo. Any action that challenges these notions — positions itself as an alternative paradigm, something which wants to change the current world order with its sense of socio-economic development , nationalism etc.

Historical Context of Popcorn diplomacy

America’s public diplomacy always had a soft spot for cinema. The institutional framework of US administration gives power to the Secretary of State to employ its influence to project American interests to any extent — however this partnership has almost always been informal in nature.

There are 2 main ways used by any administration to use cinema as a soft tool (domestically or internationally):

1. Mutually beneficial cooperation : In this, studios get a chance to reduce their production costs and inside knowledge to make their films more authentic — like in form of consultation from pentagon / NASA for sci-fi projects or using government bases for shooting or tax cuts for specific ideology — in exchange for promoting specific image of an agency, let’s say CIA, or avoiding scenes negative to it’s repute.
2. Mobilization for addressing specific issues: Under it, government or federal agencies turn to industry with proposals to support a specific discourse — like post 2001 White house requested support for the war on terrorism.

Some of these interventions are very implicit in nature, but a major reason for looking at public diplomacy via this angle is because of confirmed participation of the United States government in Hollywood’s blockbusters. Some even got explicit support from pentagon like : Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America — The First Avenger, Captain Marvel, Man of Steel, Transformers series. NASA cooperated with series like Thor, Ant-man, Justice League.

But, this begs a different question: are these stand alone incidents and partnerships in good faith, or are there recurring themes of active persual of US specific interests. Well — let’s find out.

Blockbusters & US Narrative

Let’s first zero down on some blockbusters — criterion being how long they have been running for, box office collection (proxy for its reach & impact) and much of box office collection has been from overseas markets. So right off the bat, there are obvious contenders — Marvel & DC cinematic universe, the James Bond saga (latest reboot from 2006–21), Mission Impossible and the Transformer series.

The US represents the idea of protecting the status quo — a rules based world order. America positions itself as a defender of status quo and has vowed to defend it against any attempts to revise it (Blinken 2022; US National Security Strategy, 2015). Let’s see what this means in foreign relation’s context and what it basically means.

• The threat to world order is represented as a threat to the world itself: In Marvel, DC, Transformers — the greatest threat always comes from outer space or outside world/ aliens. These aliens are a proxy of a different culture, mentality & values and hence to be perceived dangerously. Spy movies say this logic even more bluntly — antagonists in Mission Impossible series do not even want to destroy the world. They openly declare that they just want to change the order it exists in. In Rogue Nation : it’s the syndicate, in Fallout it’s the Apostles group.

Both of which translate to — a new world order is a danger to the world itself!

• Immunity of main character : In all these films , at some point or other it is asked whether or not these so-called superheroes should be checked for the havoc they create , the collateral damage that is caused in their purusual of justice. The fact that they never ask for permission and they are a relic of the past. Avengers: Civil war (Captain America to be held liable), Sokovia Accords in Avengers : Ultron , Ethan Hunt being called a relic of the past in Fallout-an echo of NATO’s relevance in present world order. These themes also resonate with the actions taken by the US military & NATO — without UN mandate.
• American exceptionalism : The heroes or protagonists of the movies are taken as “messiah” — there is nobody else like them and only they can protect the world. At some point or the other in all the movies, the protagonist had to go against the established norms for the greater good. Transformers — Sam Witwicky has to go against explicit orders to support autobots and Optimus prime. In Man of Steel(2013)- Superman — for the first time since the character was made (1938) — commits a murder. This narrative fits in perfectly with the US’s context — no one would question a soldier killing foreigners — sometimes even innocent foreigners in their native land — all of that is collateral damage in pursuit of greater good.
• American centricity : All of these cliche plots of world threatening danger almost always take place in the United States . The implicit message being that should America fall — all of the world will fall.

Conclusion

The US’s use of soft power — or Hollywood as a means of soft power is nothing new — the same has been pursued since WW1 when there was a need to rally support in the US for the allied cause. China realizes its potential as well and has been actively pursuing soft power as a diplomatic tool as well — it has been setting up Confucius institutes across the world and has been actively sponsoring intra border cultural exchanges via economic initiatives like BRI.

However, the point of this article isn’t to firmly say which world order is the right world order or to demonize the USA for using Hollywood as a means of soft power. Rather, the point is to offer a nuanced view on the frontiers on which the current war is being fought upon — which as it turns out aren’t just economic, military and industrial. And this is where the US has a massive advantage that China can’t even compete with in the foreseeable future

Soft power helps get massive concessions ,friendlier terms with other nations and eventually lay foundations for converting them to an ally. But as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is famously said to have asked, “How many tank divisions does the Pope have?” — an active reaffirmation to the idea that all soft power is derived from hard power eventually.

So like all differences, throughout history on the world stage, always found a way to resolve it on the battlefield. I just hope this one has a more active perusal of soft power as its means to an end.