Today people around the world will take a moment for Remembrance, for national mourning for those bright young men and women who fought and died for freedom.
Yet even as we observe the two minute silence, conflicts in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine War, and an increasing number of brutal insurgencies and armed conflicts in Africa and around the world rage on.
Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and millions more have been displaced by conflict. Faced with suffering on this scale, it is hard to argue that power does not sit squarely with those who command armies, weapons, and coercive force.
In times such as these, it may seem naïve, or even crass, to talk about the importance of soft power.
Yet in an increasingly complex, unstable, and violent world, where revisionist powers and non-state actors alike seek to shatter the status quo, soft power is more vital than ever. Winning the battle for hearts and minds has always been an important priority in both war and peace.
The British Council was founded over ninety years ago for precisely this reason – to counter the rise of fascism.
And it is a truth powerfully demonstrated in the Russo-Ukrainian War where, from the earliest days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, success in the information war has determined whether the West would provide Ukraine with the critical aid and materiel to remain free or sit back, deterred by Russian nuclear sabre-rattling.
Today's AI-enabled information wars, where conflict is refracted through propaganda, memes, Lego and algorithmically amplified outrage, demonstrate that the battle to shape narratives remains as important as the battle for territory and resources.
At least from the perspective of much of the liberal democratic world, we appear to be living in a world gone mad. The old order appears fractured, perhaps broken beyond repair. The emerging order is seemingly far more transactional and prone to lawlessness, caprice, and violence.
The world today seems more akin to the war torn Hellenic era of Thucydides than Francis Fukuyama’s bureaucratic, greige utopia. Will we all come to lament the never realised End of History with its boring rule of the technocrat?
The return of personalist leadership should concern us. When institutions become subordinate to individuals, diplomacy becomes more transactional, policy more erratic, and the risks of confrontation increase as national interests become entwined with personal prestige and political legacy.
So, we must now contend with powerful leaders, often driven by paranoia and ahistorical nostalgia, who seek to reshape borders, impose spheres of influence and prove they too deserve to have ‘the Great’ after their name.
It has become a meme to quote the Melian Dialogue 'the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must' but that is the world as it is today, as the post-Cold War rules based international order teeters on the edge of collapse. But just as we never actually reached Fukayama’s End of History, the current Great Power revival may yet be remembered as one of those dark and disorientating chapters in humanity’s long and too often bloody history. Whether it is a palace coup, popular revolt, military catastrophe or just Old Father Time, the age of the Strong Men of today has a definite Best Before Date.
The great rivalries of today may well outlast the current crop of leaders, even those who lay claim to power for life, but the nature of the rivalry will inevitably change over time. There may be worse yet to come.
But competition does not need to lead to conflict. It is possible to avoid or defuse the Thucydides Trap, even if Remembrance Day stands testament to humanity’s terrible record in doing so.
How do states navigate competition without resorting to war? And how do they recover from the conflagration once war is upon them?
Diplomacy can work, but it depends on trust and confidence between negotiating parties. Just as power is often described in terms of being hard and soft, so peace researchers often distinguish between negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace is the absence of organised violence. Positive peace goes further, describing the presence of the institutions, relationships and conditions that allow societies to resolve disputes without resorting to violence.
Negative peace can be delivered through deterrence, and to be clear it is imperative that states like the UK devote the resources needed to build the defensive capability to deter and frustrate the hostile activities of states and non-state actors that seek to do them harm. Make no mistake, national security is social security.
Positive peace comes from trust and understanding, through the confidence building and familiarisation that comes from shared experiences. The British Council and our peers can provide the opportunities for learning, sharing, and understanding, which foster trust and a sense of solidarity.
By working in areas perceived as low risk and high reward – education, the arts, language, science, sport – the British Council helps create the trusted spaces in which relationships can be built, difficult conversations can begin, and positive peace can flourish.
Where negative peace can be cold, conflict suspended rather than truly ended, positive peace is the warmth of spring, and the green shoots of renewal. It is central to the long-term security and prosperity of nations.
Conflicts rarely end in total victory for one side over the other. Far more often, the exhausted combatants are finally forced to the negotiating table having fought to the point of stalemate, or under pressure from third parties with the influence and leverage to impose their will on the warring parties. Terms are agreed and negative peace is delivered.
But to secure a lasting peace, to move from armistice to normalcy, the root causes of the conflict must be addressed and institutions, mechanisms and confidence building measures implemented to ensure future tensions can be resolved through dialogue.
Those measures will necessarily involve hard power interventions to deter further conflict, but trust is the key. It is only if, at a fundamental level, the opposing sides trust one another that there is a chance to pick up the phone and step back from the brink of destruction. And it is only through the restoration and renewal of trust between divided peoples that “never again” can really mean the end to conflict.
The poppies many wear each November are a symbol of sacrifice. We pause for a minute to remember and pay our respects, and then the maddening reality of today’s world comes crashing back into our lives. But Remembrance is not, or should not be, about one moment. Poppies bloom in the quiet after the conflict, in abandoned fields that have been turned into mud by the marching feet and tracked wheels of war. They are a symbol of sorrow, but also of hope. The lesson of Remembrance is the imperative to do everything possible to secure the peace on which our prosperity and progress depend.
Lasting peace, boring, wonderful normalcy, requires both hard and soft power. Soft power is not secondary to hard power in delivering peace and security; it is central. Peace requires hard work, tough decisions, serious investment, and continuing effort. And it requires honesty, trust, self-confidence, and an openness to others. We honour those who lost their lives to conflict by striving for a better, peaceful future.