Britain as a top three ‘soft power’ is something we should fight to retain

In this year’s just-published Global Soft Power Index, Britain held on to third place, behind Germany and Japan. The most notable faller was the US, knocked off its top perch, down to sixth, below Switzerland and Canada.

It’s easy to mock such a ranking, prepared by Brand Finance, a consultancy that rates the value of corporate brands around the world. After all, what does it mean, soft power? The firm’s researchers interviewed 75,000 people at random from 105 countries, and questioned 778 experts including business leaders, market analysts, politicians, academics, think tanks and NGOs, and journalists. They were asked to give their assessment of countries according to business and trade, governance, international relations, culture and heritage, media and communication, education and science, and values.

Still, the table is open to criticism – it’s not scientific enough, its findings are nebulous, they don’t amount to anything. I disagree. It may not be precise – they could always survey more people and use more detailed criteria – but the results strike me as reasonably accurate. As to whether it matters, ask yourself, how else can we judge a nation separately from economic statistics and military muscle, what other method would you choose?

Is anyone really surprised, for instance, that Donald Trump’s America plummeted in the eyes of the world? What hit his country’s hegemony was Washington’s response to Covid, but it was more than that. Trump’s US became regarded internationally as somewhere not to be taken seriously; a reputation for democracy and fairness was dashed.

These are factors that traditionally have also weighed in Britain’s favour. We’re not an economic or defence superpower but we perform well in other areas. The world looks to us for leadership in governance, international relations, legal and judicial affairs – we’re respected worldwide for our belief in proper process and consideration for others.

Don’t assume this is of little significance. Whenever investors are asked why they choose to put their money here or business chiefs explain why they’ve relocated to the UK or companies as to why they enjoy trading with us, they invariably mention how comfortable and secure they feel. They know we adhere to systems and processes that function equitably and transparently, that are consistent and reliable.

So, whenever an opportunity presents itself to shore up that assessment we must take it. One such opening has arisen with sanctions.

Having left the EU we now have the chance to make our own mark on a measure of deterrence and punishment, a big stick, that carries enormous force and is viewed with justifiable dread by rulers, leaders and tycoons.

We have the ability to build a new individual sanctions regime that is beyond reproach and as a result will be admired and respected, and feared. It will add to our lustre that as nation we behave properly and decently.

We should recognise for a start that imposing sanctions, putting someone on a banned list, is not to be taken lightly. It’s tantamount to finding them guilty of a criminal act; often in the case of sanctions, some form of corruption. In which case, if we’re going to take the role of judge and jury we should take the moral high ground and agree from the outset that the European Convention on Human Rights applies, specifically Article 6, that everyone has the right to a fair hearing.

We’re saying they’re guilty and putting them on a sanction register that will likely result in great damage to them. Their finances will suffer, they cannot trade with us, their international standing will be harmed. Their relatives will also be affected, possibly their close circle and associates. This should not be a box-ticking exercise conducted by officials and approved by a minister. If we’re going to apply sanctions we should follow the same procedure as a criminal court – collect as much relevant evidence as possible and approach the case scrupulously, aiming to prove the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Currently, that is not our aspiration. We require only “reasonable grounds to suspect” which is nowhere near the same. Yet, we must appreciate that a sanction carries considerable power and can have lasting and far-reaching consequences.

We need to look at where that evidence is originating. If it’s coming from an NGO is that organisation really qualified to be making these assertions, where does it derive its own funding, what are its real motives?

Is the imposition of sanctions proportionate? Are there steps in place to remove sanctions? We often want them to force a change in behaviour – in which case they cannot be permanent, there has to be a mechanism in place for their removal.

Read More:

We have to understand and be seen to acknowledge the gravity of what we’re doing. We need to have a system of appeal, not reliance on judicial review of a decision taken in Whitehall. We should put our hands up – if we get it wrong we will provide adequate compensation. We must understand too that an imposition of sanctions will be seen inevitably as a sign of wrongdoing, it can prejudice a criminal investigation and trial.

I’m not saying go softly, adopt a light touch, or worse, turn a blind eye. That’s not what we’re about, not how Britain should be behaving. What I am advocating is to reform, to proceed judiciously, to show how it’s done, to enable others to see that we never let our standards slip, that when we punish we also behave responsibly.

Brave words but being third in the world is a good place to be. It’s something we should fight to retain and, if possible, to climb higher still. Leaving the EU has proved difficult and tortuous, and the effects are not yet being fully felt, but here at least we have a chance to play to our strengths and to lead by example.