Soft Power in a Hard World

Last weekend, my phone buzzed with a message from a friend who is involved in diplomacy. It was a Facebook link to a British embassy event that was showcasing the soft power hegemony that is Paddington Bear and Tyrrell’s crisps. We have a running joke about Paddington and his influence on British diplomatic overtures; wherever you go, some British embassy has found a Paddington Bear to wheel out to the amusement and vague confusion of locals around the world. 

In a recent Instagram post by the Foreign Office, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that soft power is the ‘power of attraction, it’s the stuff that you just find yourself going towards. Culture, art, music. University, where you’ve got to be… that’s what our country has a lot of’. He is then followed by Lisa Nandy who adds that ‘Soft power is about the connections we make with other countries and the people in them around the world. At a time when the world feels incredibly divided, [it’s about] building those people-to-people connections, those country-to-country connections and working together to make the world a better, more prosperous, safer place’. The term was originally coined by Joseph Nye who defined it as ‘the ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment’. 

It is not an arrogant comment to say that British TV shows are instantly recognisable, our sarcastic humour is appreciated, and our cities and landscapes are iconic. Yet, in a world that, as Nandy points out, seems increasingly divided and violent, what does this influence really achieve? Does soft power really have any value?

What Soft Power Can Achieve

The UK set out in its Strategic Framework 2021, under Boris Johnson, to become a ‘Soft power superpower’. Indeed, Britain has never dipped below 3rd place in the Brand Finance Soft Power Index with the British Council similarly finding in soft power surveys that the UK ranks first in overall attractiveness and second in trust across G20 countries. Soft power usually manifests itself in others recognising iconic cultural products such as our aforementioned furry model-immigrant Paddington Bear, British Tik Toks and Vines, or in your holiday taxi driver asking whether you support United or City. 

In reality, soft power is felt in sectors like education with more than half a million international students choosing to study in the UK. The BBC is also the most trusted broadcaster worldwide which is a significant feat considering it reaches around 468 million people each year across 42 languages. Beyond the economic benefits of so many international students and the tourism generated by so many iconic cultural features, it is often argued that such strengths also have a role to play in fighting back against disinformation and in shaping the views of future foreign leaders. When the elites of other countries are sent to St Andrews, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and elsewhere, they’re not just provided a world-class education but are also – it is hoped – charmed into appreciating the United Kingdom. 

The other week, I was at a Euro’s final watch-party hosted by the British Embassy. Amongst the guests was the Chief of Staff of the Mayor of Pristina. During our conversation, he was emphatic about sharing his experience of living in the UK during and after the conflict with Serbia. Here, he was able to study and build a life before returning to Kosovo and ultimately join the Mayor’s staff. When I told my colleagues about this, they pointed out that the Mayor also studied in the UK (they studied together) and that the Mayor regularly references his time studying in the UK. Such stories are insights into the reputation the UK holds abroad, but do they materially translate into achieving preferred outcomes?

What Soft Power Cannot Achieve

Soft power does not shoot down cruise missiles. It does not bring credible, actionable coalitions together. It does not seem to define bilateral relations or trade deals, and the people we educate do not necessarily work to British interests. Famous strategist Edward Luttwak is predictably energetic in his assertion that soft power cannot replace hard power, and with good reason. 

Take recent European history, for example. When the US began to withdraw its support from Ukraine, the UK was able to step up and lead a ‘Coalition of the Willing’. Yet, it is clear that our ability to initiate and lead such a coalition does not come down to the fact that we produced ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ but rather that we are a P5 state with formidable diplomatic and military experience to ensure that such a coalition can achieve desired results. Some might look to Ukraine and Israel and how much support they have received from European allies and the US respectively, and argue that this stems from shared liberal democratic values. Nonetheless, Ukraine was forced into signing a minerals deal with the US, Israel has spent decades pouring financial resources into shaping American politics through AIPAC, and ultimately Russia has been able to receive material support from China, Iran, and North Korea. All of this is either because of the commitment of either economic or coercive tools or shared interests, but not values. 

I have been fortunate to befriend a range of international students who have attended our top educational institutions on various scholarships. Anecdotal as it is, my experience is that such students are either ambivalent towards the UK or have a very well-argued position for how and why Britain has done harm to the world. Individuals, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may well have personal experience of the consequences of British imperialism, do not attend a lecture theatre or a Nando’s and suddenly vow to champion British values when they make it to positions of high office. I find, however, that they do gain an appreciation for our way of life, our dry humour, our insistence on finding a reason to drink, and our relative tolerance (a trait more easily found at universities). These benefits are of a political and perhaps moral quality and are worth promoting, but their strategic value is unconvincing.

The Meek Might Inherit the Earth but the Soft Will Not

There is a famous passage in the Bible that goes: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’. One translation of ‘meek’ suggests that an accurate definition is ‘those who have a sword but choose not to use it’. Britain’s continued insistence, across different parties and their governments, that it should pursue the mantle of soft power superpower might feel noble, but it is weak instead of meek. It is not a credible niche to pursue because it is not a viable method for substantively transforming world politics for the better. Rather, it is an attempt to hide the results of budget cuts and our deteriorating ability to materially affect international relations. 

In the face of Netanyahu’s escalation of military activity in Gaza, the UK government put out a joint diplomatic statement condemning Israel. We can pat ourselves on the back for trying to do the right thing, but with an overemphasis on soft power, we leave ourselves helpless to make the hard decisions. 

I believe that much of this mentality comes from a sheltered perspective that, however bad things might get, events are unlikely to truly threaten us at home. Prices might rise a bit, problems elsewhere might elicit our sympathy, foreign leaders may earn our condemnation, but, at the end of the day, we are still able to head to the Winchester and simply wait for it to all blow over. For the last 80 years, those in the UK have been safe from most threats besides terrorism. But will we be ready when the largest challenge in 100 years arrives?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *