While the range of idioms routinely applied to geopolitics can seem infinite, those that actually have merit—that is, accurately portray the unfolding dynamic—comprise a precious few. One that is overused yet can also graphically capture events is the approach described as the "carrot and stick." Essentially, this suggests that an adversary's (or even an ally's) behavior can be systematically shaped by the deft application of rewards (the carrot) and punishments (the stick). In the geopolitical sphere, rewards can include trade agreements, loan guarantees, and the lifting of sanctions. In turn, punishments can take the form of increased tariffs, threats of military action, and the imposition of economic embargoes.

In negotiation theory, this roughly parallels the concept of forcing and fostering strategies. Where the former employs various means of coercive power to compel specific reactions, the latter introduces attractive possibilities to encourage desired responses. Despite the common, seemingly intuitive assumption that force equals power, decades of research into the science underlying negotiations strongly suggest that more is achieved for the parties involved—both individually and collectively—through fostering approaches.

Might the same hold true in geopolitics?

Our geopolitical universe continues to mirror the physical universe. At the sub-atomic level, the galaxies, along with the individual stars and planets that comprise them, are composed of little more than energy and information. Similarly, if we were to search for the fundamental building blocks of our geopolitical universe, we would also find these same two forces at play. In a world shaped not by the laws of physics but rather by the influence of politics, economics, diplomacy, and military capabilities, we are awash in both energy (which can manifest itself in such recognizable forms as alliances, monetary policies, and arms) and information (which may appear as national security strategies, narratives, and social media).

Energy and information can be employed in a variety of creative ways to achieve geopolitical objectives. History suggests, however, that these approaches generally fall into the same two primary categories: forcing and fostering. Through economic sanctions or military action, we try to force our adversary to bend to our desires. And when they do, it is almost always because they were left with no other reasonable alternative. By offering economic support or protection under our military umbrella, we hope to foster cooperation in achieving shared goals. And when they offer that cooperation, they do so because it is a more attractive option that others available to them. Therein lies the fundamental difference between force and power.

Traditional Eastern philosophy has long endorsed the idea of fostering as the ultimate form of power, while dismissing the employment of force as a viable means for securing an objective. In The Art of War, master strategist Sun Tzu argues against the folly of pursuing a brutal war of attrition and instead offers this sublime message:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Consistent with that theme, Lao Tzu, the legendary sage who is thought to have penned the timeless Tao Te Ching (believed to be the spiritual foundation of the Art of War), offers a similar thought that is an ironic—and certainly counterintuitive—element of human nature:

“Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.

Mastering others is force; mastering yourself is true power.”

Using the terminology and the philosophical construct this passage sets forth, the challenge—whether it comes in the form of countering extremist narratives, orchestrating the rapprochement between two contentious nations, resolving religious-based violence, or settling intraorganizational discord—the pursuit of power too often involves the use of force over others rather than addressing our own shortfalls. This, in turn, arises from an obsession with knowing everything possible about our potential adversaries while become effectively blind to what we have become. Against this background, it thus becomes relatively easy to understand that in any calculus involving energy and information, if either factor is negative, the product will be substantially diminished.

In future blog posts, we will explore how the building blocks of our geopolitical world—energy and information—are being used to generate either force or power. What we find is sure to speak volumes about how a given scenario is likely to develop.

(Note: This post is drawn from an IntelBrief the author originally prepared for The Soufan Group. That IntelBrief can be found here.)