End of the age of soft power?

The 21st century was to be driven by the win-win use of soft power — but in the last few years global leaders have rejected it in favour of a ‘might is right’ attitude

There are carrots, there are sticks, and there’s soft power. According to the most common definitions of the term used after American political scientist Joseph Nye made it a foreign policy byword, soft power is one of three ways in which a nation is able to effect a desired outcome in an international context. One, through military might, threats and coercion; two, through the use of economic and financial blandishments and sanctions. These two are together considered as a country’s hard power.

And then there is the use of soft power, an intangible mix of a country’s culture, connectivity, governance and freedoms that influences others into aligning themselves with its goals. “When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy and human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive,” Mr. Nye wrote in his treatise, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.

For the past few decades, especially after the late U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit to China and the opening up of the world economy, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the invention of the Internet and the fillip it gave globalisation, soft power appeared be the preferred option for global powers. It was felt that in the 21st century countries were moving away from a path of confrontation and focussing more keenly on ending global poverty and inequality.

India’s rise on the global stage too was fuelled by its soft power: from Bollywood, yoga and Ayurveda, to its multicultural and pluralistic underpinnings as the home of most world religions.

More than two decades into the century, however, that resolve is already in some doubt, with the perception that soft power’s efficacy is in decline. This is for a number of reasons, most notably the rejection of soft power by global leaders, increase in global polarisation, rise of populism, militarisation of diplomacy and lowering of the exemplary values big powers adhere to.

The biggest attrition in soft power diplomacy has come from the big global powers themselves. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so much more brutal and adversarial than its operations in Crimea, where it actually won a referendum before it annexed the Ukrainian territory in 2014, show that its desire to ‘reunite’ areas through a show of soft power has substantially given way to hard power domination.

Sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union in retaliation to Russia’s actions point to a growing weaponisation of economic measures. The U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan lock stock and barrel, in spite of the Taliban takeover, indicates an acknowledgement that any attempt at ‘winning hearts and minds’ had failed. China’s complete shutdown on information in the weeks and months following the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, coupled with its aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait and along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India, have shown a similar disregard.