The future of American soft power
Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion ('sticks'), payment ('carrots') and attraction ('honey'). The first two methods are forms of hard power, whereas attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country's culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, 'How many divisions does the Pope have?' But the papacy continues today, while Stalin's Soviet Union is long gone.
When you are attractive, you can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see you as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and follow your lead. If they see you as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: the American side was 'an empire by invitation.' That became clear when the Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956 and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has not only survived but voluntarily increased its membership.
A proper understanding of power must include both its hard and soft aspects. Niccolo Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both. Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself, and because its effects take longer to realize, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power can involve higher costs than when it is combined with the soft power of attraction. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in communism and were drawn to Western values.
If allies see you as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and follow your lead
Joseph S. Nye Jr.
After the Second World War, the US was by far the most powerful country and it attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as 'the liberal international order' — a framework comprising the UN, the Bretton Woods economic institutions and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the US did not always live up to its liberal values and Cold War bipolarity limited this order to only half the world's people. But the postwar system would have looked very different if the Axis powers had won the Second World War and imposed their values.
While prior US presidents have violated aspects of the liberal order, Donald Trump is the first to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office was to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that climate change and pandemics pose.
The effects of a US administration surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Coercing democratic allies like Denmark or Canada weakens trust in our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the US Agency for International Development — created by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on.
Trump has defined China as America's great challenge and China itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-President Hu Jintao told the Communist Party of China that the country needed to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbors. Second, the party insists on maintaining tight control over civil society. The costs of such policies have been confirmed by public opinion polls that ask people around the world which countries they find attractive. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power.
Will America's cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government's soft power over the next four years?
Joseph S. Nye Jr.
To be sure, American soft power has had its ups and downs over the years. The US was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country's society and culture, as well as from government actions. Even during the Vietnam War, when crowds marched through streets around the world to protest US policies, they sang the American civil rights anthem 'We Shall Overcome.' An open society that allows protest can be a soft power asset. But will America's cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government's soft power over the next four years?
American democracy is likely to survive four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and a federal constitution that encourages checks and balances. There is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections. Moreover, civil society remains strong and the courts independent. Many organizations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump's actions and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with Trump's economic policies.
American soft power recovered after low points in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as from a dip in Trump's first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had, but China is striving to fill any gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West. If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from UN agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
5 hours ago
- Leaders
When Will Arabs Form Deterrent Force to Protect Themselves?
By: Dr. Atef Al-Shabrawy International Expert in Development and Social Economy In 1966, the classic theorist Thomas Schelling introduced a novel concept at the time: 'deterrence.' After World War II, military strategy shifted away from what was known as 'military victory' and began to rely on the art of coercion, intimidation, and deterrence. Schelling argued that the ability to inflict harm on another state is a threatening factor that influences the behavior of that state, compelling it to refrain from aggressive actions. In response to a question from French television in 1974 about whether Iran planned to acquire nuclear weapons, the Shah of Iran cleverly replied, 'My country has signed a non-proliferation treaty. If we trust the major nuclear powers because they are responsible, we wonder: what would happen if there were a 'frivolous' state in the region seeking to acquire such weapons, and who would it attack?' The Concept of Deterrence This approach was echoed by France in the same year when it announced its possession of what President de Gaulle termed 'nuclear deterrence.' This weapon was developed independently by France to avoid reliance on the United States, allowing it to leave NATO. De Gaulle himself, using similar justifications, provided Israel with nuclear weapons under the pretext of protecting it from the Arab threat. In a jab at President Nasser for supporting the Algerian revolution, French diplomat Stéphane Hessel wrote in his memoirs in 2011: 'Helping Israel acquire nuclear weapons is a mandatory task; we created Israel, and we must protect it from a dangerous Arab world that opposes it.' Nuclear Experiments Researcher Dominique Schnapper noted in her 2021 book 'De Gaulle in the Eyes of the Jews' that between 1960 and 1966, France conducted dozens of nuclear tests, some of which were attended by Israeli experts. Consequently, Israel did not need to conduct its own nuclear tests, as France shared the results of its experiments, effectively granting Israel entry into the nuclear club. Mordechai Vanunu Exposes Israel Despite this, Israel continued to deny possessing nuclear weapons until its project engineer, Mordechai Vanunu, leaked classified information and photographs from the Dimona reactor to the British press in 1986, revealing the 'Israeli nuclear ambiguity' that had persisted for decades. Israeli-Iranian Bombardment During the 12 days of mutual Israeli-Iranian bombardment, it became evident that the struggle for control over the Middle East and its resources involves preventing certain countries from acquiring any deterrent capabilities, monitoring and stifling their attempts, and even destroying them. Iraq was destroyed under the pretext of possessing fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and similar arguments were used against Iran, as if nuclear weapons were the exclusive domain of major powers and their allies. In May 1998, India announced that it had become a nuclear power following secret tests that went undetected by American satellites. Shortly thereafter, its historical rival, Pakistan, declared its entry into the nuclear club, becoming the only Muslim nation to achieve this feat while the major powers were distracted. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, conducted tests in the Baluchistan mountains before being arrested for allegedly assisting Iran, Libya, and North Korea in developing nuclear technology. He was forced to make a televised apology but remained under house arrest until his death in 2021. Ballistic Missiles The intense Iranian bombardment of Israel highlighted the fact that nuclear technology is not the only deterrent weapon; ballistic and hypersonic missiles can also serve as strategic deterrents. The world witnessed their use in Iranian attacks on Israeli cities, which caused global panic and compelled major powers to intervene. These missiles effectively deterred and broke the aggressor, and the brief conflict, which aimed to divert attention from the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, appeared to be a test of weapons and technologies in preparation for a larger battle whose participants we do not yet know, but we do know its location. Extreme Democracy With the cessation of bombardment, a new dimension of nuclear and strategic deterrence emerged, particularly for Arab nations in the region. The alarming increase in economic exchanges and investments between regional countries and the West seems to have provided us with no negotiating advantage or satisfaction regarding our positions and orientations. It has not erased the cultural and ideological divisions among us, nor the greed for our resources. There is now a tangible threat from the 'Western democracy' that once brought forth Hitler as a symbol of the extremism produced by the ballot box. Recently, 'democratic' extremist leaders have emerged in the United States, Israel, and most European countries, with increasing possibilities of future leadership that may be even more extreme and violent, potentially unleashing bloodier wars. NATO has decided to raise member contributions to military spending from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035. Enormous Military Budgets It is worth imagining that the 32 NATO countries do not spend more on defense than they do on healthcare or education. Nevertheless, adopting a 5% contribution means these countries will allocate more to their militaries than to education. These enormous budgets could become a more aggressive and extreme force, potentially turning against any friendly nations. The Future of Arabs The future of Arabs is now at the mercy of existential threats that require us all to form an independent intellectual, scientific, and material force, seeking a 'entity' that achieves the strategic deterrence necessary to prevent future generations from suffering and being destroyed by a new right-wing extremist. I recall the words of Saudi writer Othman Al-Omeir: 'We are heading into the future with the people of the future.' I doubt that the 'people of the future' he referred to will take us along with them, given our weaknesses. It is perhaps better to say: 'We are heading into the future with our strength; for strength secures us a place among the people of the future.' Short link : Post Views: 3
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
The unfinished business in the Balkans
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina that dominated headlines in the first half of the 1990s. Three decades later, the Balkans, located in southeastern Europe, remains the primary area of unfinished business for Euro-Atlantic integration. While some countries in the region have joined major Western institutions such as the EU and NATO, others remain outside the fold. Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo are not part of either the EU or NATO. Meanwhile, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Albania are NATO members, but are still waiting on EU membership. In recent years, little progress has been made in advancing their accession prospects. As a result, the region continues to represent a source of instability not just for Europe, but also for the broader transatlantic community. Apart from Ukraine, no other region poses a more persistent geopolitical challenge for Europe. This is not just a European problem. Following the violent wars of the 1990s that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia, the US played a decisive role in helping stabilize the Balkans — through peacekeeping forces, sustained diplomatic engagement, and eventually the Dayton Agreement itself. At the time, Washington recognized that instability in the Balkans could quickly spiral into broader conflict. Today, however, both the US and Europe appear unwilling — or perhaps unable — to engage seriously in the region. The lack of strategic attention has created a vacuum. This should be cause for concern. Much of Europe's instability over the past century has originated in the Balkans. The First World War began with an assassination in Sarajevo. In the early years of the Second World War, the region played a pivotal role as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy competed for influence. And in the 1990s, ethnic and religious violence killed hundreds of thousands, many of them civilians, across Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. Unfortunately, the challenges in the region are far from resolved. Today, Serbia arguably presents the greatest destabilizing potential in the region. Serbian leaders, especially President Aleksandar Vucic, often invoke the idea of a 'Serbian world.' This concept suggests that ethnic Serbs living outside Serbia's modern borders, such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro, deserve a special status or even direct protection from Belgrade. This mindset has dangerous implications for the region's fragile peace. Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its complex internal structure and the Serb-dominated entity of Republika Srpska, are particularly vulnerable. Kosovo, too, continues to face periodic flare-ups. Montenegro, though more stable, has seen political turmoil in recent years that sometimes taps into the same ethnic divisions. The 30th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement should be a moment for reflection, but also for renewed commitment. Luke Coffey Serbia's assertiveness has also opened the door to increased involvement by Russia and China. Beijing's role is largely economic, focused on infrastructure and energy. Moscow has actively exploited ethnic tensions and political divisions to distract Western policymakers and prevent further Euro-Atlantic integration. One of the reasons the Balkans remain such a challenge is the lack of credible, sustained effort by NATO and the EU to bring the remaining countries into the Euro-Atlantic community. After years — sometimes decades — of vague promises about eventual membership, public frustration is mounting. This creates fertile ground for disinformation, resentment, and foreign meddling. It is time for the West to re-engage meaningfully in the Balkans. NATO and the EU should craft clear strategies and realistic roadmaps for eventual accession tailored to each country's unique circumstances. Policymakers must restore credibility to the idea that integration is possible, not merely aspirational. And whether or not President Donald Trump likes it, the US will have a role to play — as it has since the 1990s. In fact, his first administration made modest but real progress in the region. One major accomplishment was brokering the partial normalization agreement between Serbia and Kosovo under the so-called Washington Agreement in 2020. Another significant achievement was the resolution of the long-standing name dispute between Greece and North Macedonia, paving the way for the latter's accession to NATO. This, combined with Montenegro's NATO membership in 2017, marked a major expansion of the alliance in the Western Balkans during Trump's first term — one that enhanced regional security and reduced space for Russian influence. Trump, now back in the Oval Office, has made global diplomacy a core theme of his second term. He has shown interest in brokering ceasefires and peace deals in conflicts from Southeast Asia to Central Africa. The Balkans should be on that list. There is no reason why the US, working with European allies, cannot convene a new round of high-level diplomacy aimed at resolving some of the region's most pressing disputes, especially between Serbia and Kosovo, and within Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 30th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement should be a moment for reflection, but also for renewed commitment. The success of Dayton was never supposed to be the end of the story. It was meant to be the beginning of a longer process of political normalization, economic development, and Euro-Atlantic integration. Sadly, that process has stalled. But it is not too late to finish the job. As Washington, Brussels, and London remain understandably focused on Ukraine, they must not ignore another part of Europe with a long history of instability — and vast untapped potential. A stable, secure, and integrated Balkans would strengthen the entire Euro-Atlantic community. It would also send a powerful message to adversaries that Europe is united, resilient, and committed to completing the work it began 30 years ago in Dayton.
Al Arabiya
11 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Athens mayor clashes with Israel ambassador over antisemitic graffiti
The mayor of Athens became embroiled in a war of words Sunday with the Israeli ambassador to Greece who accused city authorities of not doing enough to clean up antisemitic graffiti. Ambassador Noam Katz told the Kathimerini daily in comments published Sunday that Israeli tourists felt 'uncomfortable' in Athens because the mayor Haris Doukas does not act against 'organized minorities' who put up anti-Jewish graffiti. Doukas responded within hours on X: We have proved our strong opposition to violence and racism and we do not take lessons in democracy from those who kill civilians.' 'Athens, capital of a democratic country, fully respects its visitors and supports the right of free expression of its citizens,' the Socialist PASOK party mayor added. 'It is revolting that the ambassador concentrates on graffiti (that is clearly wiped off) while an unprecedented genocide is taking place in Gaza,' Doukas added. Greece, as well as several other European nations, has seen a number of left-wing led pro-Palestinian demonstrations. A cruise ship carrying Israeli tourists around the Greek islands was greeted by demonstrations in several ports. While following a pro-Arab policy for several decades, Greece has since 2010 stepped up links with Israel, notably on security and energy. Since the Gaza war started in October 2023, with the Hamas attack on Israel, a growing number of Israelis have visited Greece and started investing in its property market. According to the Athens mayor, the number of Israelis who have secured Greek residents permits by buying property increased by 90 percent last year.
