An interesting and analytical piece from Variety on the potential implications and risks of Saudi Sovereign funds financing $24 B out of the total $ 110 B purchase price of WBDiscovery.
There are a lot of angles to look at this from, especially with the current attacks/conflict/war in the region.
Here’s just one:
“Big sovereign investors negotiate the level of visibility they want into strategy and major decisions,” said New York-based lawyer and analyst Irina Tsukerman. “They automatically get ongoing access to leadership and leverage tied to future financing, even without publicly acknowledged voting rights,” she pointed out.
So, money is “soft power”?
As opposed to holding a gun to someone’s head, I suppose?
This tracks with the usual definition in international relations.
e.g., International grant funding — whether to UN organizations like WHO and UNDP or directly to other countries and programs through US AID and its counterparts — is generally considered as important ‘soft power’ mechanisms. In principle, the recipients of the grants and loans are in control of their governance but as these are long term relationships, the donor countries have significant strategic influence.
This is why foreign affairs specialists have commented that, beyond the moral and ethical considerations in the elimination of US AID funding — and lesser contractions in international grants by other NATO donor countries shifting budgets to prioritize defence build ups — mean that the US and NATO donor countries are giving up soft power.
Meanwhile, China and the Saudis are reportedly gaining influence through direct and indirect investment, foreign aid grants and loans etc.
Exactly. That would be hard power.