“Soft” rather than “hard power” will call the shots in the 21st century, unlike in the past two hundred years, believes Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Distinguished Service Professor, former Dean of the Kennedy School, ex-Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and author of the non-fiction bestseller Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Recently he presented this book during a teleconference as part of the project “Ukraine: Soft Power,” which involved Ukrainian experts.
Nye said that the soft power of the protesters in Cairo’s Tahir Square trounced the authorities’ hard power. The younger generation had shown that narrative — telling people about their human rights, democracy — was important in achieving success. This noted US political scientist reminded his audience that any government is, by definition, capable of influencing any given situation and obtaining the desired results; that such results can be received by way bullying or by using the good old stick-and-carrot method. In contrast, the soft power method means an ability to reach a goal by making it publicly attractive, rather than by coercion or corruption. Clever governance would know how to combine soft and hard power, along with the narrative approach, to secure unifying values.
Nye explained the soft-power approach, saying that, traditionally, it stems from culture. Any country, any individual, any community has a soft power potential. He believes that this is particularly true of Ukraine, with its old, enviable historical and cultural traditions; that this country has a special soft-power-generating potential. He said Ukraine is an attractive country for the United States; that the Americans are aware of its democracy, which is on a higher level compared to any other country in its region, and adding that Ukraine should apply a soft-power approach to Russia, considering both countries’ shared history and cultural priorities.
Nye warned against an indiscriminate approach to the attractiveness of Ukraine’s soft power to Russia’s man in the street and those “upstairs,” considering that all major decisions are made there. He also pointed out that some of Ukraine’s soft power arguments may be attractive for Poland, but not for Belarus. Hence the varying degree of influence on these countries.
The scholar believes that Turkey, among other countries, has been applying this soft-power foreign political approach more effectively, and that this attitude is fostering good political relations within the neighborhood. Conversely, Russia has done poorly in terms of using the soft power policy.
