In Reply to: That's not exactly what soft power is posted by Dr.J on May 27, 2025 at 13:46:29
In the 1980s, political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. coined the term soft power, defining it as a country’s ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure. In practice, that process entails countries projecting their values, ideals, and culture across borders to foster goodwill and strengthen partnerships.
Soft power usually originates outside government in places like schools, religious institutions, and charitable groups. It’s also formed through music, sports, media, and major industries like Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
But that doesn’t mean governments are absent from cultivating and wielding soft power.
Look at the United States and the Soviet Union, for example. During the Cold War, the two superpowers used that form of influence as a nonviolent method of promoting their cultural, economic, and political values. Respective displays of soft power undercut opposing ideologies in the process.
Soviet leaders, for instance, went to great lengths to build communism’s following abroad by investing heavily in propaganda campaigns and socialist youth movements. They also supported scientific ventures such as the Soviet space program, which launched the world’s first satellite into orbit in 1957.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government created a national space program that landed a man on the moon. Washington also helped make Hollywood movies like Patton and Top Gun that portrayed the American military, and funded sports programs aimed at toppling Soviet champs. Even former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger personally called chess grandmaster Bobby Fischer to encourage him in his 1972 match against the Soviet world champion.
But why take the trouble to call a chess player, get involved in the film industry, or exert soft power in its many forms? For governments, the rationale is simple: it's easier to work with others when you are admired and respected. Plus, advancing a foreign policy issue—whether it be combating climate change or curbing drug trafficking—with willing partners is often far cheaper than pressuring others through more coercive means.
Let’s again consider the Cold War. Say the United States wanted to fortify a European country against communism. Supporting the production of a film that sings the praises of personal freedom, entrepreneurship, and other American values, combined with other soft power initiatives, could limit the ideology’s spread more effectively than invading the country to stamp out a communist insurgency. Such a forceful and coercive response could cost billions of dollars, lead to military and civilian casualties, and spark anti-American backlash.
But, Later on, CFR gives The Peace Corp as one of its many examples of Soft Power. So, ya, "Cultural" was an oversimplification. My bad.
But, imo, China doesn't do anything w/o a clearly stated quid pro quo. Belt and Roads being the clear example. Australia gets nervous any time Chinese aid to west Pacific island is mentioned, b/c that essentially means that island nation ceding an element of sovereignty to China.
Trump is leaving the door wiiiiiiiiiide open for China to jump in and provide pure aid, for the sake of providing aid. Like AIDE. But, my guess is that anything China does wrt that will have a clear and obvious quid pro quo. Not like AIDE. If you receive aid from China, it will not be like the Peace Corp or AIDE.
This is only a guess. Thanks to Trump, we will certainly find out.