Trimester: IV
Subject: Political Science - II
Project Topic: Soft Power in the Modern World
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Page | 1
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to our professor of Political Science - II, Dr.
XXXXX, for instilling in us the spirit of inquiry and curiosity, and the will to study not just
this subject, but all subjects, with the utmost care, meticulousness and the desire to learn. I
would also like to express my thanks to this marvellous university for giving me the
opportunity to make this project and take away valuable lessons after its completion. My
gratitude also goes to the library staff for providing the requisite books, internet resources and
time for making this project, and also to my friends and seniors for guiding me along the
way.
Page | 2
Table of Contents
Statement of Problem.................................................................................................................4
Aims and Learning Objectives...................................................................................................4
Research Methodology...............................................................................................................4
Introduction: What is Power?.....................................................................................................5
What is Soft Power?...................................................................................................................8
How Do States Use Soft Power?..............................................................................................11
Non-Government Organizations and Soft Power....................................................................13
Soft Power in International Relations......................................................................................14
The United States and Soft Power...........................................................................................15
The Rise of China and Soft Power...........................................................................................18
Limits of Soft Power................................................................................................................21
India’s Soft Power....................................................................................................................22
Conclusion................................................................................................................................26
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................27
Primary Sources...................................................................................................................27
Secondary Sources...............................................................................................................27
Page | 3
Statement of Problem
The author wishes to analyse the role played by soft power in today’s world to create a
particular presence for countries globally, something which helps them further their overall
agenda, with a special focus on India.
Aims and Learning Objectives
This project aims to:
1. Elucidate the meaning of the term ‘soft power’;
2. Analyse the role played by it in the modern world;
3. Establish the causal linkage between soft power of countries and furthering of their
political agenda internationally, and;
4. Analyse the potential of India in enhancing its soft power, and suggest methods to do
the same.
Research Methodology
Doctrinal method of research has been used in this project. Primary and secondary sources of
information include – but are not limited to – journals, articles, research papers, books,
magazines, etc. An attempt has been made to simplify data, statistics and facts to provide
usable, logical conclusions from the same which provide insight into the project topic
effectively.
Page | 4
Introduction: What is Power?
The most sought and valued end of politics is power. This is true from a realist perspective,
which is the one used to explain this fascinating capability. There are two ideas that should be
stated before continuing and that will be explained throughout this article. First, power varies
depending on the level of analysis; it is different at the individual level, national and
international level. And second, power is exercised rather than held. The simplest and most
effective way to understand power is explained by Dahl as the ability of A to make B do
something that otherwise would not do. In this definition it is implied the fact that A does not
hold power as a material possession but instead preforms an action over B.1
Power can be classified in two, ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. ‘Power over’ focuses on the
exercise of control through behaviour and interactions from one actor to another. On the other
hand, ‘power to’ is related to how social relations define the actions and capabilities of an
actor. At the individual level, the most predominant form of power is ‘power over’. In this
sense, if the definition provided by Dahl is considered, according to Barnett and Duvall, the
result will be a type of compulsory power. Where A has the means to exercise power over B,
B does not have the same wants as those of A and that power does not have to be
intentionally exercised. One interesting example of ‘power over’ is that of micro-physics
suggested by Foucault2, in which he argues that power is exercised by creating micro-physics
over the body (or person). Instead of believing that the other actor is a material property, it
can be seen as a body that has to respond to very small and subtle dispositions. Additionally,
the effectiveness of power is negatively correlated to how evident it is. In other words, the
less evident the exercise of power is the more effective it becomes, because this way it
generates a smaller reaction.
At the national level, power occurs and is exercised more evenly between ‘power over’ and
‘power to’. In a democracy, the power is granted consciously from the people to the
government (or institution). Moreover, the institution has the capabilities and performs the
actions based on the nature of the social relations that have established how the power should
be executed. The national government is an institution created by society that exercises power
to delimit another actor’s actions. In this sense, Neale argues that institutions “imply ‘you
1
The Concept of Power by Robert A. Dahl. Department of Political Science, Yale University.
2
Power (The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Vol. 3).
Page | 5
may’ as well as ‘thou shall not,’ thus creating as well as limiting choices”. However, in
contrast with compulsory power presented at the individual level, at the national level, power
does not require a direct relation among the actors but only the participation of those specific
actors to the capability and action at discussion. For instance, there is not a direct relation
between the legislative power and a random citizen, yet when a law is promulgated both
specific actors are subject to the capabilities one has over the other to legislate. Additionally,
one particular case in which an institution can be categorized as exercising compulsory power
would be if it was controlled or possessed by A and shaped the actions done by B. This could
be the case of a totalitarian regime.3
The international level represents a particular situation for the exercise of power because of
its anarchic nature and the predominance of states as the main actors. Kenneth Waltz argues
that the international system is organized in a structure that focuses on the arrangement of its
units (States) depending on the different capabilities. In the international system, each unit is
equal to others because of sovereignty and given the anarchy under which it works no “unit is
entitled to command; none is required to obey”. Nevertheless, the moment when equal units
begin to interact between each other capabilities arise and locate them in a specific place.
Moreover, in the international level, if A has large military capabilities it means it is able to
exercise power over B that has fewer military capabilities. B’s interests and actions are
shaped by the structure in which more capabilities are allocated to A. Additionally the
ultimate objective of every actor is its survival. Furthermore, compulsory power can be
exercised if military capabilities are regarded as the sole source of power, in spite of the
sovereignty that each State has. On the contrary, when a Permanent Member of the Security
Council of the United Nations vetoes a resolution, this practice falls within institutional
power, particularly the ‘power to’ forbid an action.
Regardless of the level of analysis, the quest for power is a never ending game that actors
involved in it, are always looking to play in their favour. States, more often than not, will act
as if the only thing that mattered would be to have the necessary capabilities to “have” power
over another State. Sometimes the actions used to achieve that objective can be cooperation
or the formation of alliances and some other times the use of force will be preferred. Whereas
institutions are limited by the ‘power to’ do something that is provided by its very own
constitution, based on its practices and costumes. In addition, individuals can exercise power
through a large array of practices. Finally, irrespective of the level, the techniques, methods,
3
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978, pp. 4-15.
Page | 6
actions used to exercise power will be relative to the expected outcome, the cost involved, the
time available and most of all the capabilities.4
4
Article: Three Dimensions of Power, Michael Valdivieso (2014).
Page | 7
What is Soft Power?
Soft power has been defined in a number of ways. For example, soft power is viewed as the
“non-material capabilities such as reputation, culture, and value appeal that can aid the
attainment of a state’s objectives”5. Joseph Nye, who has written the seminal work on soft
power in the study of international relations, says that soft power is “getting others to want
the outcomes that you want”. However, with soft power, as opposed to hard power, the idea
is to elicit change by altering what others prefer (their preferences). Thus, soft power is more
than the ability to influence other actors in international relations, but rather, it is the “the
ability to attract, and attraction leads to acquiescence”. Vuving (2009) suggests that “we can
add the word “accept” to the definition, and soft power is the ability to get others to want or
accept what you want.6 However, there is still a problem with the word “accept” in the sense
that you decide that there is nothing you can do to change an unpleasant fact and so you have
to accept it or when you accept something unwillingly. Thus, the statement “soft power is the
ability to get others to want, or accept, what you want” is not a precise definition but a first
and useful approximation to a definition of soft power”. Other, such as Breslin says that “soft
power is conceived as the idea that others will align themselves to you and your policy
preferences because they are attracted to your political and social system, values and
policies”7.
Historically, the attention to power has revolved around material capabilities such as a
military. In fact, many who think of power tend to view it in this fashion. As Joseph Nye
explains, “[b]ecause the ability to control others is often associated with the possession of
certain resources, politicians and diplomats commonly define power as the possession of
population, territory, natural resources, economic size, military forces, and political
stability”.8 However, as Nye wrote in 1990, he said that “today, however, the definition of
power is losing its emphasis on military force and conquest that marked earlier eras. The
factors of technology, education, and economic growth are becoming more significant in
international power, while geography, population, and raw materials are becoming somewhat
less important”.9 However, some have suggested that the idea of soft power has evolved since
5
Viotti & Kauppi, 2013: 207.
6
Vuving, A.L. (2009). How Soft Power Works. “Paper presented at the panel “Soft Power and Smart Power,”
American Political Science Association annual meeting, Toronto, September 3, 2009,” pages 1-20.
7
Breslin, S. (2011). The Soft Notion of China’s ‘Soft Power.’ Chatham House. February 2011, pages 1-18.
8
Nye, J.S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth Anniversary, (Autumn 1990), pages 153-171.
9
Ibid.
Page | 8
Nye’s (1990) initial discussions of soft power. Some have suggested that soft power initially
did not included international aid or international investment, and now, that this is another
aspect of soft power.10
Thus, to understand the importance of soft power, one has to know the limitations of hard
power, as scholars see it. While hard power has been one of the most prevalent forces in the
history of international relations, those who believe that hard power is in decline, in turn
advocate the emphasis on soft power. There are many reasons that some have suggested hard
power (or military power) is not as important, and not as used, as it may have been in the
past. For example, while there is a history of military power (which still exists today), some,
such as Joseph Nye (1990) say that “[t]oday…the direct use of force for economic gain is
generally too costly and dangerous for modern great powers. Even short of aggression, the
translation of economic into military power resources may be very costly11. Furthermore,
even with states that want to ensure security, the way to do that may not be to invest in a
military, but rather, there may need to an increased need to develop forms of soft power, such
as “communications, organizations and institutional skills…”, among other forms of soft
power, in order for a state to maintain influence in international relations). Moreover, as
states become more interdependent on one another economically, military options to resolve
conflicts are less possible, and much less of an option. And thus, because of the decline in
hard power in international relations, and because of the ability to use soft power factors,
advocates of soft power have said that states must adapt to their ideas of power, not
eliminating the military, according to some, but rather to invest in these other issues of soft
power.
However, just because a leadership realizes the importance of soft power in international
relations, does not mean that establishing soft power is without difficulty. Many see both
military and economic power as “straightforward.” However, soft power, on the other hand,
“is more difficult, because many of its crucial resources are outside the control of
governments, and their effects depend heavily on acceptance by the receiving audiences”.
Furthermore, soft power is also difficult to achieve because it can take a long time for a
county to be able to develop adequate soft power capabilities.12
Furthermore, it is not enough to build one’s soft power in international relations, but rather, it
has to be done within a context that is filled with various pieces of information. Because there
is so much information, the need for credibility with regards to soft power is more important
10
Kurlantzick, 2006.
11
Supra note 5.
12
Ibid.
Page | 9
than ever before. Whereas before, governments were the primarily modes of communication
of information, and thus, they could better control the information, and in turn, their influence
on soft power. However, with the rise of media, and the belief that citizens are better
recognizing propaganda, this has led governments to be in a competition with other media
sources with regards to the sharing of information (Nye, 2004), which can in turn alter their
level of soft power. It is for this reason that viewed credibility has become the cornerstone of
information sharing. Thus, states will often compete to tell their side of the story, and often
with the intention of reducing the voice (and therefore the level of soft power) of an actor’s
political rival. And inaccurate reporting, while achieving a goal with regards to one objective,
may damage the level of soft power an actor has in the future.
Page | 10
How Do States Use Soft Power?
States have a number of ways to employ soft power techniques in their international relations,
as well as in their domestic politics. Much of this revolves around their public diplomacy
with other countries and other international actors. And with this, it is not enough to provide
information, or pitch an idea that the state or non-state actor wants to convey, but effective
diplomacy, and the successful building of soft power “involves building long-term
relationships that create an enabling environment for government policies”. This can be done
in a number of capacities. For one, governments often communicate daily about decisions
that they have made, or plan to make. And while much of the attention is on domestic media
outlets, soft power can be built through focusing on international media as well (Nye, 2004).
Along with daily communications is also strategic communication, which can be the use of
symbols, as well as planned campaigns towards particular issues in international relations
(Nye, 2004). Lastly, in diplomacy is the importance of friendship building among states, and
among citizens of the respective states. Soft power can be developed with this approach
through the establishment of places where citizens can dialogue, or programs that promote
cultural exchanges between the different countries (Nye, 2004).
However, one has to remember that soft power can only work if the policies promoted or
represented by the states are favourable to others. Bad policy cannot be fixed or hidden by
soft power, as “even the best advertising cannot sell an unpopular product, and policies that
appear as narrowly self-serving or arrogantly presented are likely to consume rather than
produce soft power”.
But again, soft power doesn’t even have to be built through programs that are constructed
with the primarily intention of sharing information or promoting a particular issue or agenda.
For example, in the case of Norway, they have a very limited budget for these practices.
Instead, its continued attention, references, and actions to ideas of world peace have helped
build its soft power with regards to their international relations. And often times, despite the
best effort of a state to improve upon its soft power (e.g. the United States and its relationship
with Muslim-majority countries), sometimes even non-government actors shape the soft
power of the state. One example of this that Nye (2004) gave in his work on soft power was
the role of American missionaries, and their work in Muslim-majority states. While these
actors were not sanctioned nor connected to the policies and government branches of the
United States, these actors will continue to exist it can always be viewed by some as a
Page | 11
negative reflection on the state or that said society. A recent case of this has been the issue of
Islamophobic actions by non-government actors in the US, whether it is Terry Jones’ burning
of the Quran, or the film the “Innocence of Muslims” which was not only Islamophobic, but
it did have American officials condemning the film, knowing that some Muslims may attempt
to tie this film to the United States government.13
Furthermore, even branches of the government that have traditionally viewed as being part of
the “hard power” establishment can build soft power (and countries can also develop a
combination of both, which has been termed “smart power”) 14 (and some say that where soft
power exists, hard power is not too far away). 15 When looking at hard power and soft power,
one example of state using traditional hard power entities for soft power is a country’s
military. While the military is the epitome of hard power, troops can also work with troops of
other countries, which in turn can build soft power as it related to friendships and the
reputation of the country. However, the military can also become involved in th
communications of the state, helping shape what the public hears and sees with regards to a
war or conflict, which of course can influence perceptions, and soft power, and again, in
different ways,16 depending on the actions, foreign policies, history of activity, etc.
Non-Government Organizations and Soft Power
13
Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Chapter 4, Wielding Soft Power. April
5, 2004.
14
Wilson, E.J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 616, pages 110-123.
15
Cooper, R. (2004). Hard Power, Soft Power, and the Goals of Diplomacy. In: David Held/Mathias Koenig-
Archibugi (eds), American Power in the 21st Century, 2004, pp. 167-180.
16
Supra note 10.
Page | 12
Along with government initiating policies that help build soft power in their international
relations, this can also be done through non-state channels, such as non-governmental
organizations, multinational corporations, or private citizens. In these cases, it may be that the
government itself is not responsible for the actions of these independent entities, yet their
actions could be a positive for the development of soft power for the country. For example,
non-governmental organization who work on issue sod human rights and development can
build international trust, which in turn might shed a better light on the state in which the non-
governmental organization is from. In addition, NGOs that have strong ties in other countries
can build friendships and communications with others citizens, or even between political
parties (Nye, 2004).
Moreover, corporations can also have an influence on soft power. If they are well known, and
well-liked, then citizens may associate their actions with those of the state. Or at least can
have a positive image of the country, as it allowed such companies to exist and flourish. All
of this can improve upon a country’s soft power. But along with this, many multinational
corporations are influential throughout the world. For example, “their representatives and
brands directly touch the lives of far more people than government representatives do. Some
public-spirited business people have suggested that companies develop and share sensitivity
and communications training for corporate representatives before they are sent abroad”17
Soft Power in International Relations
17
Supra note 10.
Page | 13
Despite the recent attention to soft power, states have attempted to use soft power in their
international relations for centuries. For example, Nye says of France, that “[i]n the 17th and
18th centuries, France promoted its culture throughout Europe. French not only became the
language of diplomacy, but was even used at some foreign courts such as Prussia and Russia.
During the French Revolution, France sought to appeal over the heads of governments
directly to foreign populations by promoting its revolutionary ideology”. 18 And after it lost
the Franco-Prussian War, it was said that the French government “sought to repair the
nation’s shattered prestige by promoting its language and literature through the Alliance
Francaise, which was created in 1883”. Now this doesn’t mean that soft power is always well
intentioned, since France, under the Third Republic beginning in 1870, pushed its idea of
French civilization and French culture, at the expense of others. 19 Furthermore, states
attempted to also use soft power during World War I. And even afterwards, with the
technological advances of radio, countries began using these tools to advocate various
messages.
However, despite the rich history of soft power, it could be argued that we have seen an
increased attention to soft power in international relations evolved from the end of the Cold
War. During this time, many of the international relations interactions revolved around
military and economic aid. The United States, as well as the Soviet Union, each used such
incentives to attract allies in pursuit of their preferred economic and government systems.
And despite the fall of the Soviet Union, and the economic and military costs to both the
United States and the Soviet Union, the United States was viewed as arising out of the Cold
War not necessarily more militarily or economically powerful than they were years before,
but rather, the United States has risen in soft power.20
The United States and Soft Power
18
Ibid.
19
Conklin, A. (1997). Chapter 1: The Setting: The Idea of the Civilizing Mission in 1895 and the Creation of
the Government General, pages 11-37.
20
Supra note 10.
Page | 14
The United States has used soft power throughout its history, although it “was a relative
latecomer to the idea of using information and culture for the purposes of diplomacy” 21For
example,
“In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson established a Committee on Public Information, which
was directed by his friend the newspaperman George Creel. Creel’s task, he said, was “a vast
enterprise in salesmanship, the world’s greatest adventure in advertising.” Creel insisted that
his office’s activities did not constitute propaganda and were merely educational and
informative. But the facts belied his denials. Among other things, Creel organized tours,
churned out pamphlets on “the Gospel of Americanism,” established a government run news
service, made sure that motion picture producers received wartime allotments of scarce
materials, and saw to it that the films portrayed America in a positive light. The office
aroused sufficient suspicions that it was abolished shortly after the return of peace”.
Furthermore, other United States presidents also understood the importance of soft power,
both in terms of domestic politics, as well as international relations. For example, in the
1930s, President Roosevelt understood that the United States needed to promote their own
ideas throughout the world, particularly to counter Nazi messages coming out of Germany. In
fact, Germany and the United States was in a competition for influence through soft power in
Latin America. And such commitment to soft power approaches did not dissipate during the
war. In fact, the government began working with the film industry in Hollywood to help. For
example, “in 1942, Roosevelt created an Office of Wartime Information to deal in
presumably accurate information, while an intelligence organization, the Office of Strategic
Service, included dissemination of disinformation among its functions. Even the OWI
worked to shape Hollywood into an effective propaganda tool, suggesting additions and
deletions to films and denying licenses to others. And Hollywood executives, motivated by a
mixture of patriotism and self-interest, were happy to cooperate”22
Then, the idea of using soft power continued throughout the Cold War. Here, different voices
debated the best approach towards soft power, namely, whether it was better to be “direct”
messages, or whether the process of soft power would be gradual23. And again, as we see with
the case of the United States and soft power during the Cold War, soft power doesn’t
necessarily mean that this power is used for good, or used honestly. Information could be
21
Ibid.
22
Rosenberg, E. (1982). Spreading the American Dream. New York, New York. Hill and Wang.
23
Supra note 10.
Page | 15
viewed as propaganda, as it was sometimes difficult to discern the differences, with a “thin
line” between the two.
Nye as early as 1990, argued that since military power was less relevant in the international
relations system, that other forms of power, such as soft power, would be critical for states.
And within this, he spent time speaking about soft power within the context of the United
States of America. For example, many have argued that while the United States still boasts
the strongest military in the world, and has done so for decades, and particularly following
the end of the Cold War, and “although the United States still have leverage over particular
countries, it has far less leverage over the system as a whole”. For example, the United States
continues to have influence through films made in the United States. Moreover, the US also
builds its soft power through connections to American corporations operating abroad 24. They
have a great presence through such corporations; “in 2012, four out of the five top department
corporations in the world were U.S.-based (the fifth also had strong links with U.S.-based
media corporations”25.
And when looking at media, the United States has a great presence in his category of soft
power. As Thussu (2014) explains, “…the global media continue to be dominated by the U.S.
Due to its formidable political, economic, technological, and military power, American or
Americanized media are available across the globe, in English or in dubbed or indigenized
versions. The American media’s imprint on the global communication space, by virtue of the
ownership of multiple networks and production facilities —from satellites to
telecommunication networks, from cyberspace to “total spectrum dominance” of real space—
gives the U.S. a huge advantage”.26
However, in recent years, many have wondered whether the United States is losing soft
power in international relations, with some suggesting that the United States actually has
been losing its soft power in international relations. Clearly, there have been cases where this
has certainly been true. For example, “exaggerated claims about the imminence of Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and the strength of his ties to Al Qaeda may have
helped mobilize domestic support for the Iraq war, but the subsequent disclosure of the
exaggeration dealt a costly blow to British and American credibility. Under the new
conditions more than ever, the soft sell may prove more effective than a hard sell”27
24
Cooper, R. (2004). Hard Power, Soft Power, and the Goals of Diplomacy. In: David Held/Mathias Koenig-
Archibugi (eds), American Power in the 21st Century, 2004, pp. 167-180.
25
Ibid.
26
Supra note 21.
27
Supra note 10.
Page | 16
Moreover, we are also seeing the rise of soft power with other states, which in turn may also
be at the expense of US control of many aspects of soft power. For example, when looking at
entertainment as it relates to soft power, one sees the rise of other entertainment markets
through film and television distributions from countries such as Turkey, India, and Brazil. For
example, Turkey is producing soap operas that are popular throughout the Balkans and
Middle East. And India’s Bollywood films are also highly popular around the world, and
itself is a 3.5 billion dollar industry, with “the Indian entertainment and media industry was
worth $29 billion in 2013”28.
The Rise of China and Soft Power
States in East and elsewhere are building their relationships with China, as they see China’s
power in the region and in the international system as increasing. And while China clearly
28
Supra note 21.
Page | 17
has continued to build their military, and their economy has improved greatly in the past
couple of decades, some have argued that part of the reason that states are viewing China in
this light is because of China’s soft power.29 However, many have argued that their rise of
soft power has not always been there at the levels that we have seen in recent years. Before
the 1990s, China was focused on military power, and did not spend as much time and
resources on soft power initiatives with regards to other states. However, Kurlantzick argues
that 1997 was a critical year for China’s rise of soft power. He states that “the year 1997
provides a convenient date to mark China’s soft power emergence. Beijing refused to devalue
its currency during the financial crisis, portraying its decision as standing up for Asia. After
the crisis, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretary General Rodolfo
Severino announced, “China is really emerging from this smelling good.” With Southeast
Asian opinions of Washington falling, and with Taiwan’s 1990s investment push into
Southeast Asia faltering, a window was open for Chinese soft power” 30. However, along with
this, the leadership in China also shifted their international relations towards more attention
on soft power. And it seems to have paid off, with more and more people seeing China as an
important state in the world. Speaking on China’s overall approach to soft power, Kurlantzick
explains that “Since 1997, then, it is possible to identify Chinese soft power strategies. First,
Beijing enunciates a doctrine of “win-win” relations. China implicitly contrasts its “win-win”
philosophy with that of the United States, which Beijing portrays as disrespectful of
sovereignty and punitive toward Southeast Asia. By contrast, Chinese leaders emphasize that
Beijing is willing to listen to other nations. China has backstopped this “win-win” rhetoric
with real initiatives, signing Southeast Asia’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.”
China has spent a great deal of money on building soft power through communications, as
they are “investing heavily in its external communication, including broadcasting and on-line
presence across the globe”. For example, “in 2011, two years after President Hu Jintao
announced a $7 billion plan for China to “go out” into the world, Chinese broadcasting has
expanded greatly, with CCTV News’s Beijing headquarters appointing English-fluent foreign
journalists to develop a global channel. By 2012, CCTV News was claiming 200 million
viewers outside China and broadcasting in six languages, including Arabic. In the same year,
CCTV also opened a studio in Nairobi and has plans to increase the size of its overseas staff
dramatically by 2016.”
29
Kurlantzick, J. (2006). China’s Charm: Implications of Chinese Soft Power. Carnegie Endowment Policy
Brief. 47, June 2006, pages 1-7
30
Ibid.
Page | 18
Moreover, they are willing to use foreign aid as a soft power tool, employing a variety of soft
power tools to build relationships not only with leaders, but with citizens of other countries as
well, such as farmers (reassuring them regarding China’s trade), and students (through
scholarships. This has been a centre of focus for many, as there is a belief that a lot of reason
why China’s soft power is increasing is due to their economic influence. Lastly, one cannot
ignore references to China’s history in attempts to form their soft power now as it relates to
present and future actions.31
It must also be noted that the rise of China’s soft power can be coupled with the argument
that United States soft power is declining, particularly in East Asia, where China’s enrolment
of foreign students has risen, whereas the United States’ international student enrolment has
declined32. In addition, the United States not sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, but
the United States continues to have many sanctions on South-East Asian states 33. As
Kurlantzick pointed out in 2006 during President Bush’s term “America’s popularity is
plummeting around the world. Washington has made it harder for foreigners to obtain visas,
undermining the idea of the United States as a land of opportunity. The United States’
unrivalled global power has fostered resentment in some nations toward the United States.
The George W. Bush administration’s disavowal of multilateral institutions has damaged the
U.S. moral legitimacy abroad. The failures of neoliberal economics, linked to Washington, in
regions like Latin America have rebounded against the United States”. Furthermore, many
have also been upset with current US President Barack Obama and what is seen as a
continuation of Bush foreign policies, along with US support of Israel, and thus, some
continue to see a decline in US soft power. And along with this, looking at China’s approach
towards soft power, they have also reached out to countries that used to have stronger ties
with America, but that don’t now (such as Cambodia, Sudan, and Venezuela, for example).
Moreover, people see China’s hard power increase in the future, which could affect their soft
power today.34
However, this is not to say that China’s soft power is absolute. For example, in a study
looking at China’s soft power in Europe, one of the key findings from a public opinion study
has been that there are perceptions of credibility issues amongst Europeans. And it seems that
31
Breslin, S. (2011). The Soft Notion of China’s ‘Soft Power.’ Chatham House. February 2011, pages 1-18.
32
Gates, B. & Huang, Y. (2006). Sources and Limits of Chinese ‘Soft Power.’ Survival, Vol. 48, No. 2, pages
17-36.
33
Supra note 28.
34
Supra note 29.
Page | 19
much of this is due to the political system in China 35. As d’Hooghe explains, “the
mechanisms of maintaining control over its society seriously hamper the growth of China’s
soft power and cautious international impressions that China is moving towards a more open
society”. d’Hooghe (2010) goes on to say that “the majority of China’s soft-power
messengers, are, in one way or another, censured by Beijing”, although the state is seeming to
at least acknowledge the importance of non-state actors with regards to China’s soft power36.
It will be interesting to see if they open up their control of the media and of non-
governmental actors.
Limits of Soft Power
Some sceptics object to the idea of soft power because they think of power narrowly in terms
of commands or active control. In their view, imitation or attraction do not add up to power.
35
d’Hooge, I. (2010). The Limits of China’s Soft Power in Europe: Beijing’s Public Diplomacy Puzzle.
Netherlands Institute of International Relations. ‘Clingendael.’ January 2010, pages 1-42.
36
Ibid.
Page | 20
Some imitation or attraction does not produce much power over policy outcomes, and neither
does imitation always produce desirable outcomes. For example, armies frequently imitate
and therefore nullify the successful tactics of their opponents and make it more difficult for
them to achieve the outcomes they want. But attraction often does allow you to get what you
want. The sceptics who want to define power only as deliberate acts of command and control
are ignoring the second or "structural" face of power—the ability to get the outcomes you
want without having to force people to change their behaviour through threats or payments.
At the same time, it is important to specify the conditions under which attraction is more
likely to lead to desired outcomes, and those when it will not. All power depends on context
—who relates to whom under what circumstances—but soft power depends more than hard
power upon the existence of willing interpreters and receivers. Moreover, attraction often has
a diffuse effect of creating general influence, rather than producing an easily observable
specific action. Just as money can be invested, politicians speak of storing up political capital
to be drawn upon in future circumstances.
Of course, such goodwill may not ultimately be honoured, and diffuse reciprocity is less
tangible than an immediate exchange. Nonetheless, the indirect effects of attraction and a
diffuse influence can make a significant difference in obtaining favourable outcomes in
bargaining situations. Otherwise leaders would insist only on immediate payoffs and specific
reciprocity, and we know that is not always the way they behave.
Soft power is also likely to be more important when power is dispersed. A dictator cannot be
totally indifferent to the views of the people under his rule, but he can often ignore popularity
when he calculates his interests. In settings where opinions matter, leaders have less leeway
to adopt tactics and strike deals. Thus it was impossible for the Turkish government to permit
the transport of American troops across the country in 2003, because American policies had
greatly reduced our popularity there. In contrast, it was far easier for the United States to
obtain the use of bases in authoritarian Uzbekistan for operations in Afghanistan.37
India’s Soft Power
India adopted soft power as a tool in its foreign policy approach long before Nye formally
conceptualized the term. Many scholars attribute India’s soft power potential to its
democratic values, tolerance for diversity, economic growth, and rich cultural values.
37
The Benefits of Soft Power, Joseph S. Nye.
Page | 21
However, these qualities are not unique to India and, indeed, many Western countries have
used soft power more effectively than India.
Ultimately, India can attribute its successful adoption of soft power to Mahatma Gandhi’s
non-violent struggle against Great Britain’s colonial dominance. Gandhi’s efforts had a
decisive impact on the Nehruvian perspective on international peace and cooperation,
conceived by India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The Nehruvian view heavily
revolves around the idea of non-alignment and a democratic, international order.
Gandhi’s freedom movement was a moral undertaking, not merely because it fought for
human freedom and dignity, but also because Gandhi used love and self-sacrifice
(“Satyagraha”) as a moral weapon to push for the civil, political, and socio-economic rights
of Indians. According to Nehru, winning freedom through peaceful means demonstrated that
“physical force need not necessarily be the arbiter of man’s destiny.”
Nehru believed, in light of the Cold War’s start and India’s newfound independence, that the
only alternative to a world order defined by power politics was collectively working towards
a cooperative and peaceful world order. This view was only intensified by his belief that the
world’s superpowers, including the United States, its European allies, and the Soviet Union,
continued to be heavily immersed in power struggles. Nehru concluded that India could set
an example for the world by pursuing a policy of non-alignment.
Similar to Gandhi’s “Satyagraha,” Nehru’s notion of non-alignment strived for a just and
equitable international order through active participation in world affairs. Like Gandhi, Nehru
believed that it was easier for India to encourage peace and universal brotherhood among the
populations and leaders of the major powers than to coerce them to drop inclination for more
economic and military power. The success of Gandhian and Nehruvian ideas laid the
foundation for India’s use of soft power and provided a revolutionary alternative to
traditional, hard-hitting power politics.
India’s Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) provided it with an international profile larger than
was warranted by its economic and military strength. Though Western observers often
mistook NAM for neutrality, they eventually could not ignore the impact of the movement,
which was especially palpable in 1962, when Nehru rejected American attempts to tie
Western aid to the conditionality of settling its Kashmir dispute. India’s moral high ground in
leading the NAM was instrumental to America’s continued provision of aid to India without
conditionality.
India came to be considered a leader among third world countries and was asked to play a
pioneering role in the Non-Aligned Movement, primarily due to Nehru’s innovative ideas and
Page | 22
convincing rejection of power politics. Nehru pointed to a North-South division of the world
based on economic inequalities that was overshadowed by the Cold-War driven East-West
division, which he considered an ideological divide designed to serve the interests of the
world’s superpowers. This persuaded other developing countries to rally around India’s
leadership to work for a democratic international economic order
Nehru believed that the global South could only overcome its poverty and underdevelopment
through peace and cooperation. Therefore, India and other non-aligned countries collaborated
to end global apartheid and colonialism, promote disarmament, and mediate Cold War-
related disputes. India played a pivotal role in the international diplomatic efforts to address
the above predicaments by participating in the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council, the U.N.
General Assembly and its committees, and the Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD). India also helped found the Group of 77, which adopted formal resolutions to
address the unequal distribution of resources and technology in the global economy.
During the Cold War, many U.S. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and John F.
Kennedy, realized that the non-aligned countries could play a decisive role in the Cold War
and, therefore, sought to engage them through constructive diplomacy. India’s assistance was
crucial to the Kennedy Administration’s efforts to stabilize the Republic of the Congo.
India’s key role in defusing the Korean War (1950-53) led to its appointment as the Chairman
of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. For its contribution to Indo-Chinese peace,
India was rewarded with the role of chair of the International Control Commission, set up
under the Geneva Agreement. India and other Afro-Asian countries’ influence prompted
massive amounts of aid from both the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite Nehru’s
inclination toward the USSR’s socialist model of development, the United States was the
largest provider of aid to India throughout the Cold War. Had India been a part of the Cold
War’s power politics and joined either military bloc sponsored by the competing
superpowers, it would have been virtually ignored by the other. Therefore, it was not possible
for India to play any meaningful role toward securing international peace and security.
The Nehruvian approach to foreign policy, however, accorded greater importance to world
politics than to regional issues, making the impact of India’s soft power historically weakest
in its own region. China’s decisive victory in the 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict prompted
India to recognize the importance of economic and military power. Subsequently, India
devoted more of its budget to defense and intelligence operations, and despite Nehru’s
commitment to peace and nuclear disarmament, started its covert nuclear program. China’s
growing influence drove India to open trade to states like Nepal and Bhutan in return for
Page | 23
allegiance. India, under successive prime ministers, reverted to strong regional policies
whenever it perceived a vulnerability to external pressures in the region.
During the Cold War, land and water disputes with Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh made
India a controversial political actor in South Asia. India’s intervention in Pakistan’s and Sri
Lanka’s civil wars made its neighbours more cautious of India’s hard power. Moreover,
stipulation of representation by India on foreign policy matters and exclusive assistance from
India in resolving internal conflicts in the trade treaties provided grist to a perception among
India’s neighbours that the treaties were unfair.
Current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tried to recreate a regional atmosphere of
trust by inviting South Asian leaders to his swearing-in ceremony and making diplomatic
visits to neighbouring countries. However, India is still having difficulties in changing its
neighbours’ behaviours by using soft power. Neighbouring countries with weak democracies
and frequent political transitions continue to be threatened by India’s strong and stable
democracy. Additionally, countries with heritages rooted in the former Indian subcontinent
may feel the need to assert their own identities in order to distinguish themselves from India’s
prominent legacy.
Gradually, India is moving away from its role as a leader among third world countries, a
position that has fuelled its use of soft power. On the contrary, India has become a mere
follower of the West by shifting its focus from general purpose third world groups, like NAM
and G-77, to issue-specific groups like the G-20. Modi is pursuing a course of multi-
alignment and is promoting India as a reliable economic and military partner by showcasing
India’s soft power, including its democratic credentials, tourism, yoga, Sufi music, and
Bollywood culture. Currently, India treats soft power as a complement to its hard power
resources with the hope that its flourishing economy will contribute to the build-up of its
military.
While hard power resources are necessary for India’s defence and development, India should
also preserve its rich heritage of soft power resources, which was conceived more as an
alternative to hard power than as a supplement. Many of India’s non-alignment objectives –
including an egalitarian economic order, universal disarmament, discourse on sovereignty in
the context of human rights issues, and the democratic spread of knowledge and technology –
remain unfulfilled. The Nehruvian vision of a peaceful and democratic world should remain
an inspiration for India, with the promotion of a peaceful regional order serving as a stepping
stone to this vision. While India’s engagement with major economic and military powers has
improved disproportionately in relation to its regional engagement, it should ensure moving
Page | 24
forward that it engages its neighbours on favourable terms so as to make a concerted effort to
assuage their perceptions of India as a threat.38
Conclusion
Hard power is coercive power executed through military threats and economic inducements
and based on tangible resources such as the army or economic strength. In contrast, soft
38
The Impacts and Limits of India’s Soft Power, Manoj Kumar Mishra.
Page | 25
power is persuasive power deriving from attraction and emulation and grounded on intangible
resources such as culture. Although they are oppositional approaches to power, their
combination, smart power, has its place in academic debate and policy making. Overall, it
appears that soft power strategies are more effective in the contemporary international system
than hard power strategies. The demise of hard power is caused by changes in the world
order, whereas the strength of soft power is based on its endurance and sustainability. As soft
power has weaknesses, too, it is worth considering the strength of smart power strategies.
Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. The power to attract—to get others
to want what you want, to frame the issues, to set the agenda—has its roots in thousands of
years of human experience. Skilled leaders have always understood that attractiveness stems
from credibility and legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even
the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear.
When the United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in
the way it went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft
power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to
pay higher costs in the blood and treasure than would otherwise have been the case.
Similarly, if Yasser Arafat had chosen the soft power model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King
rather than the hard power of terrorism, he could have attracted moderate Israelis and would
have a Palestinian state by now. Leadership is inextricably intertwined with power. Leaders
have to make crucial choices about the types of power that they use. Woe be to followers of
those leaders who ignore or devalue the significance of soft power.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Page | 26
1. The Concept of Power by Robert A. Dahl. Department of Political Science, Yale
University.
2. Power (The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Vol. 3).
3. Nye, J.S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth Anniversary, (1990).
4. Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
5. The Benefits of Soft Power, Joseph S. Nye. (2005)
Secondary Sources
1. Article: Three Dimensions of Power, Michael Valdivieso (2014).
2. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth
Edition, Revised, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.
3. Viotti & Kauppi, 2013: 207.
4. Vuving, A.L. (2009). How Soft Power Works. “Paper presented at the panel “Soft Power
and Smart Power,” American Political Science Association annual meeting, Toronto,
September 3, 2009.”
5. Wilson, E.J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science.
6. Cooper, R. (2004). Hard Power, Soft Power, and the Goals of Diplomacy.
7. Rosenberg, E. (1982). Spreading the American Dream.
8. Breslin, S. (2011). The Soft Notion of China’s ‘Soft Power.’ Chatham House. February
2011.
9. The Impacts and Limits of India’s Soft Power, Manoj Kumar Mishra. (2010)
Page | 27
