Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Soft power diplomacy has played a major role in geopolitics in the global age. Soft power diplomacy refers to the application of techniques of diplomacy by diplomats as a means of exercising soft power in the pursuit of foreign policy or other national objectives.

The term soft power was popularized by Joseph Nye in his eponymous book. Contrasted with hard power, which connotes the use or threat of force by governments of nation-states to achieve policy objectives, soft power refers to the use of attraction, persuasion, and influence to win the support of an interlocutor or adversary for one's own objectives. Also known as indirect power, soft power was described by Nye as the power to get others not to do what you want but to want what you want. Soft power is closely related to Susan Strange's conception of structural power, which refers to a capacity to shape the decision horizons and rewards matrices of others. In his 1990 book, Bound to Lead, Nye argued that a hegemonic power such as the United States must rely on soft power to persuade other governments at least to acquiesce in, if not to support, its leadership of the global economy and the international system. Nye's idea of soft power evokes a dialogic process that involves listening to one's interlocutors as well as communicating to them, a process that can generate a feedback loop for the broader process of making foreign policy. Winning the support of other governments for one's objectives and policies may be undertaken through a variety of direct and indirect means. When direct appeal to another government is unsuccessful, influencing that government indirectly by winning the support of its people can be an attractive alternative. Soft power implies the ability to develop such influence.

Approaches

Precisely because military force is not an instrument of soft power, one of the primary means for a government to exercise soft power is through diplomacy. The core diplomatic functions of representation and communication are ideal tools for governments seeking to win support for their policies. Diplomats, whether permanent representatives accredited to another state or envoys sent on a specific mission, are able to explain their home government's policies, values, and core philosophical outlook. They are able to seek common ground through informal discussion, to engage in persuasion by argument, and, when required, to negotiate on their government's behalf. Governments of states that possess a measure of soft power can serve as credible facilitators in the resolution of conflicts and disputes between third parties. The Norwegian government's sponsorship of the Oslo peace process for Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the early 1990s is a good example of this sort of facilitation. Both sides viewed Norway as a credible and trustworthy interlocutor as they sought to establish new channels of communication in hopes of resolving a long-running and intractable conflict.

Track II Diplomacy

So-called Track II diplomacy is one specific approach that falls under this rubric. When conditions are suitable for it, Track II diplomacy operates in parallel with conventional, Track I diplomatic negotiations between high-level envoys. Track II diplomacy involves bringing together a range of civil society stakeholders, such as business leaders, academics, religious and cultural figures, from two or more sides in a dispute in a series of facilitated discussions. In the discussions, the facilitators encourage representatives from the different sides to get to know one another in an informal, congenial venue and then to seek ideas for imaginative solutions to the dispute or problem at hand. If the participants are able to agree on potentially useful proposals, the facilitators feed them back to the official diplomats engaging in the Track I negotiations. An interesting example of Track II diplomacy is the series of discussions between Iraqi political party and civil society leaders on the future of Iraq held in Helsinki, Finland, in 2007. The talks were co-hosted by senior politicians from Northern Ireland and South Africa, who were regarded as credible facilitators owing to their own past experience at confronting sectarian divisions in the course of making peace and building viable structures for peaceful coexistence.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading