Soft Power

Researchers trace the first use of the term “soft power” to Joseph Nye, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs for U.S. President Bill Clinton and chairman of the National Intelligence Council. He published a book on the subject that described the rise of new guidelines for U.S. foreign policy and the decline of “hard force,” i.e., the use of tanks guns, battleships and aircraft carriers for achieving goals.

Soft power, in his opinion, serves as an influential weapon to achieve goals by leverage and persuasion, rather than by coercion and handing out money. The resources of soft power include its culture, which represents its least influential force. Thus, he does not believe that culture alone can provide leverage. Soft drinks and fast food will not necessarily attract the Muslim world to America, any more than French cheese and liquor will to France or Pokemon and video games to Japan.

Many people do not approach this lightly, including Michel Foucault, who said that soft power includes indirect coercion and binding. Because of coarse or hard force, many are unable to make soft power work and so implement hard power to achieve their goals.

The thinker Tzvetan Todorov attempted to address this concept and its humanitarian implications in his book, “The Fear of Barbarians.” He maintained that the strength of any state or organization is determined not by military force but rather the integration of a variety of factors including its ability to influence and promote values, attract strength and demonstrate persuasion rather than compulsion, dialogue rather than coercion, and attraction rather than incitement.

Soft power, in Todorov’s opinion, is political values that develop constructive cooperation policies of multipolarity. Fundamentally, soft power projects a universal message based on global moral authority through cooperation on policies, preventive diplomacy and help in development. Its influence relies on production standards, globalization organization and approaching international relations so that law and order triumph, rather than imposing policy as a fait accompli.

These suggestions did not lead to a retreat from soft power to hard power. However, diplomacy, inherently soft, has proven to be more aggressive than hard power, with the political protection that Zionists secured from the West proving the most aggressive.