REEEAAALLL "soft power"

For a long time, the brother of a friend and a fixture on the Liberal front benches in the House of Commons was Lloyd Axworthy. Princeton educated, left-leaning to the point of toppling over in a light wind, and un-unelectable in his Winnipeg South riding: Axworthy was the country's single-most ardent proponent of "soft power." As best I can recall, soft power has two definitions: one from the supply side as it were; one from the demand side:

Soft power is what a nation with no real power pretends to exert on the diplomatic stage: not even blustery threats because everyone knows it has no means to carry out its intents. It has to rely on having a bully on its side to do its work.

Soft power is what a nation does in a world full of madmen with artillery and unnecessary firepower. Rational people can sort out their differences over lattes with words. Interests need not escalate to violence.

"Wet" as Thatcher would have said.

Canadians (who cared) wrung their hands over this policy for years. Now, more frequently we see coming from academia and other sources with interest (we should be clear to understand), words such as these in the NATIONAL POST

Canada's air force, as well as either the army or navy, will likely cease to exist around the end of this decade unless the federal government orders a massive infusion of cash, warns a Queen's University study to be released today.

Of course the story appears here and here as well. May have even reached international media -- if they care. The latter link points to a title that draws the natural conclusion: not only would Canada be impotent on the world stage, it would be incapable of defending itself. Unlike Switzerland, Canada has not been, is not, and for various reasons can not be neutral. So, not having any means of defence could be precarious. [Didn't Al-Qaeda have us on their "naughty" list? ed.] For instance, from The Globe and Mail

The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces core assets and core capabilities,' the report says.

'Even if the next government were to provide nearly unlimited funds in an attempt to overcome this deficit, little can be done before the apprehended crisis becomes fact. The downward slope of the capabilities curve is too steep, and the slide is too fast.

That, in turn, would lead to a loss of sovereignty. The best hope might be to be integrated into the United States: plenty in common, adjoining properties, . . . At worst, Canada could become a battlefield with other nations (read: with weapons) vying for its best parts: Russians after the diamonds and oil in the North; France after Quebec; China and/or Japan after the port of Vancouver; which Washington would see as its own strategic and economic territory.

A victory for "soft" power.

Posted by Grayson at December 3, 2003 07:42 AM