Why soft power counts

Maleeha Lodhi Published May 15, 2023

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK & UN.

Join our Whatsapp channel

THE debate continues over the value and role of soft power in the conduct
of foreign policy. It has long been acknowledged that international
perceptions are consequential to a country’s standing and even its
geopolitical clout in global affairs.
The evidence is compelling that when soft power is deployed as an integral part of a
country’s diplomatic strategy, it pays rich dividends by building trust and influence.
This, in turn, helps that country to more effectively promote its foreign policy goals.
States that earn respect from their conduct benefit from a soft-power effect that
enhances their global reputation.
In a recent article in the Financial Times, the well-respected journalist Janan Ganesh
disputed this and claimed that the “once influential concept looks dated in a world
where hard power counts ever more”.
He cited the example of countries such as Australia and South Korea, who had long
relied on the projection of cultural attraction to build their reputation, but were now
turning to hard power as a result of “the exigencies of sharing a region with China.”
That meant returning to increased defence spending and loading up on the “lethal
kit”. From this, he concluded that the world today is witnessing “if not the end of
soft power as a useful concept, then a brutal exposure of its limits”.Softassets, he
also wrote, can neither replace nor rival hard ones.
But soft power was never envisaged to replace hard power. It was always seen as
supplementing hard power in a country’s strategy. It is, after all, one among a range
of tools for a country to deploy in pursuit of its goals. It is not an either-or choice.
American scholar Joseph Nye, who introduced the notion of soft power, defined it as
the ability to shape the preferences of others and achieve outcomes through
“attraction” rather than coercion or economic incentives. True that he counterposed
soft power, “the power of persuasion and co-option,” with the “power of coercion”
represented by the hard power of military and economic strength. But by
introducing the concept of “smart power”, he sought to correct the misperception
that soft power was enough on its own to produce a successful foreign policy.
For Nye, smart power is the capacity to combine the resources of hard and soft
power and deploy whichever one is judged more effective in a specific context.
Arguing that a rigid approach can be counterproductive, he offered the example of
several countries that successfully followed smart strategies. In his influential book,
The Future of Power, he cited the case of China, where leaders invested in soft
power and efforts to make the country more appealing to accompany the increase
in its military and economic power.
International perceptions are consequential for a country’s reputation and standing.
In fact, the conduct of big, middle and small powers today indicates that they all
seek to complement their hard power resources by deploying soft power assets,
which together help to enhance their clout and enable them to engage more
effectively in international diplomacy.
This doesn’t at all signify “the end of soft power.” A country’s reputation and
positive image continues to count and play a key role in the battle for influence.
Global powers that possess substantial military and economic strength integrate
soft power in their strategies, and spend generous resources on this as it helps to
expand their influence.
China today is engaging in vigorous soft power projection. Its recent mediation of
rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran has increased its soft power. It is also
stepping up efforts to shape the global narrative. Western nations have of course
been successfully doing this for a much longer time.
Countries such as Singapore and Qatar have also used soft power to secure
significant weight at the global level; this has helped reinforce their economic
strength. In fact, soft power assets are especially useful for small and middle
countries, providing them the means to project their influence and increase their
international outreach and standing in a crowded global environment.
For them, being ‘liked’ becomes a force multiplier, encouraging cooperation from
the international community and often enabling them to punch above their weight.
The Global Soft Power Index 2023, put together by the London-based company,
Brand Finance, places Singapore and Qatar at number 21 and 24 out of 121
countries evaluated in several metrics of soft power. The US is ranked number one
(although it slipped in rankings during Donald Trump’s presidency due to his
unilateralist and disruptive policies). China is at number five and Canada at number
seven.
Pakistan has consistently figured among the bottom half of countries in these
rankings, and is at 84 in the latest report.
Pakistan incurs reputational damage by being seen to be perpetually in crisis, which
hardly creates positive international perceptions of the country. But crisis isn’t all
there is to Pakistan. Every country has strengths and weaknesses. So does Pakistan.
In fact, the country has many soft power resources. But successive governments
have paid little, if any, attention to identifying them, much less incorporating them
systematically into its international diplomacy.
Given Pakistan’s longstanding international ‘image’ problem, in part due to
mischaracterisations but also because of on-ground realities, it is all the more
essential for it to undertake soft power efforts to correct misperceptions, and, more
importantly, to project its positive socioeconomic attributes and rich heritage of
arts, civilisation, music and culture. This involves the country defining itself so that
others, including its adversaries, do not misrepresent it or seize the narrative to its
disadvantage.
Today, narratives at the international level are shaped in large part by soft power
strategies, especially as a hyperconnected and multipolar world offers
unprecedented opportunities to influence multiple actors across the world — beyond
governments. But our policymakers remain shy of changing how we conduct our
diplomacy when ‘nation branding’ is deemed to be so essential.
There is no reason for Pakistan not to do better in the Global Soft Power League by
raising its diplomatic game. For this, it is necessary in the first instance for our
officials to acknowledge the importance of soft power, identify the country’s soft
power resources, and then imaginatively incorporate them in our foreign policy
strategy and diplomacy.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2023