Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.

8, July 08, 2008

SOFT POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY MAKING PROCESS

MOONIS AHMAR

1. INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of ‘soft power’ has gained currency in the annals of
International Relations in the last two decades. When global power structure began to
undergo transformation in late 1980s, it was realized that behind a cycle of change
influencing the minds of people and witnessing the non-Western world gradually
conforming to the U.S. led values and norms was the application of ‘soft power.’ Coined
by Joseph Nye, Professor at Harvard University in his book, Bound to Lead: the
changing nature of American Power published in 1990, the term soft power primarily
means an ability possessed by a state and non-state actor to establish its influence through
attraction and persuasion. First presented in the backdrop of qualitative change in global
order, the term ‘soft power’ explained the conditions whereby, United States can ensure
its influence in global affairs by using techniques contrary to ‘hard power.’
Almost two decades since the term ‘soft power’ was coined, it is time to analyze
how it has impacted on the paradigms of global affairs and why the preeminence of the
United States in world order is based on a combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft power.’ One
also needs to examine why in the realm of foreign policy, the Bush administration relied
on ‘hard’ instead of ‘soft’ power and how the European Union (EU) has successfully
practiced ‘soft power’ to an extent that the steady expansion of EU has been made
possible because of ‘attraction’ which the European and non-European countries see
while joining its fold. Yet, if the United States is pursuing a dual policy of ‘hard’ and
‘soft’ power, European Union lacks two of Joseph Nye’s attributes of power, unity and
military capability.1
In the foreign policy making process, the term ‘soft power’ has significant
relevance because of the failure of coercion, brinkmanship, sanctions, threats and military
means to establish influence. While ‘hard power’ is no doubt an important technique used
by various countries to seek domination and has been in practice since centuries, it has its
own fault lines. Modern history is replete with the examples of how those who pursued
military option and other coercive methods to subdue other nations but failed to achieve
their objectives. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are examples to prove the
failure of ‘hard power.’
‘Soft power’ is not only referred now as American centric approach in foreign
policy making process but over a period of two decades when this term was coined, it has
a wide constituency not only in the West but also in the non-Western world. While it was
defined and applied in the context of American foreign policy, its scope has broadened as
other countries like Russia and China are also attracted and other pivotal states 2 like
Pakistan and India can also think in terms of knowing how ‘soft power’ endured the
influence of the United States and the West and why these two countries are still a
captive of a traditional approach of power which revolves around ‘hard power.’ From any
account, thinking beyond the realm of hard power seems to be a fundamental challenge

1
Alvaro de Vasconcelos, Multilateralizing multipolarity Chaillot Paper, No. 109, May 2006, European
Union Institute for Security Studies (Paris), 14.
2
Robert Chase, Emily Hill, Paul Kennedy (eds.), The Pivotal States (New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 1999).

1
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

for New Delhi and Islamabad because unless the ‘captive mentality’ of the two sides is
changed and transforms in terms of diplomacy, persuasion and good behavior for each
other, there is a remote possibility that the two erstwhile neighbors can make a difference
in their meager contribution in global markets, information and technology.
This paper will examine soft power in the context of foreign policy making
process. Following questions will be responded in this paper.
1. What is ‘soft power’ and what are its important features?
2. What is the relevance of ‘soft power’ in the foreign policy making process?
3. What are the fault lines of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power and how an alternate
paradigm could be created as far as the use of power in state policies is
concerned?
4. What is the relevance of ‘soft power’ in the pursuance of external policies by
India and Pakistan?
5. What is the future of ‘soft power’ and can it shape global affairs in the days to
come?
It is certain that the only way to prevent further chaos and disorder in global order is by
preventing the use of ‘hard power’ and pursuance of policies by international and
regional actors in such a manner that a positive use of power is ensured. Pakistan foreign
policy making process may have a smooth sailing if lessons are learned from the
application of ‘soft power’ and the occurrence of positive results to enhance one’s
cultural, economic and political objectives.

II. WHY SOFT POWER?

There can be numerous justifications for using soft power as a fundamental
technique in the making of foreign policy but two things should be taken into account in
this regard. First, with the modernization of information and technology, it makes sense
for countries with significant power ambitions to utilize techniques which can make a
positive image and impact on the rest of the world. Second, the durability of influence
and subtle domination is more because of the application of soft power than in hard
power. What is soft power and how it has gained prominence in global power politics in
the recent past?
Power is the oldest technique used by individuals, groups and states to establish
their influence at various levels. Clash of interests, competition, lust for resources and the
aggressive-expansionist traits in the human mind results into the acquisition,
consolidation and demonstration of power. With the unleashing of the process of
industrialization, modernization, advancement of technology, means of communication
and transportation, the degree and use of power also began to change. From colonial to
the post-colonial eras, the instrument of power underwent a significant transformation.
While hard power in the form of the use of force and weapons remained a major reality in
global affairs, the use of techniques in the form of incentives, persuasion, diplomacy, aid
and rewards also impacted on foreign relations and global power structure. Therefore, the
term soft power may be new but its application in different forms has been going on since
centuries. Soft power has been defined in a book written by Charles W. Kegley and
Eugene R. Rittakopf as, “soft power is the ability to exercise influence in world politics

2
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

due to intangible resources such as culture and ideas.” 3 If culture is the yardstick to
separate it from hard and soft power, economic policies may also augment a positive
image of a particular state. As stated by Joshua S. Goldstein that, “if a state’s own values
become widely shared among other states, it will easily influence others. For example,
the United States has influenced many other states to accept the value of free markets and
free trade. This has been called soft power.” 4 Soft power is defined in a strategic sense by
Mark R. Amstutz who argues that, “it is the ability to influence international affairs
through cooptive strategies involving political ideas, cultural values and economic and
social norms.”5 Therefore, “soft power is a term used in International Relations theory to
describe the ability of a political body, such as state to indirectly influence the behavior
or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means.” 6 A
comprehensive definition of soft power holds that,

The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible power

resources such as culture, ideology and institutions. These intangible resources
constitute soft power, in contrast with the hard power usually associated with
tangible resources like military and economic strength. If soft power grows in
relative importance, military force ratios will no longer translate into potential in
the way they once did.7
Sometimes, states wouldn’t like to use intangible resources which can prevent the use of
hard power because the interests of the ruling elite are such that the use of force seems to
be a dominant approach. On the issue of direct and indirect strategy of the use of power,
Joseph Nye is of the opinion that,
Power can be differentiated in terms of methods used to exert control. Two
fundamentally different approaches are available. The direct strategy sometimes
defined as command or “hard power” seeks to influence behavior through
coercive threats or positive inducements. Examples of hard power include war,
the threat of military intervention, and economic sanctions. The indirect strategy
called co-optive or “soft power” seeks to achieve behavioral outcomes by
establishing environmental preconditions that facilitate and encourage desired
results. The aim of soft power is to get foreign actors to pursue the goals and
behaviors of the home state to get others to want what you want. Some resources
that are important in co-optive behavioral power include political ideas and
ideologies, cultural patterns, and global and regional and economic political
structures8
While examining Nye’s explanation of direct and indirect strategy based on ‘hard’ and
‘soft’ power, it depends on the nature of leadership and to what extent people at the helm
of affairs are convinced in using soft power for seeking better and durable results.

3
Charles W. Kegley, Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics Trend and Transformation (New York: St.
Martins Press, 1999), p. 388.
4
Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations, Sixth Edition (New York: Pearson, 2005), p. 58
5
Mark Amstutz International Conflict and Cooperation. An Introduction Politics (Boston: Mc Graw-Hill
College, 1999), p. 131.
6
http://ed.wikipedia.org
7
Charles W. Kegley, Eugene R. Wittkopf, Op.cit.,
8
Quoted from Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead. The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic
Books, 1990) in Mark Amstutz , Op.cit., p. 151.

3
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

Charisma, appeal, vision and imagination of leaders while pursuing policies vis-à-vis
other countries determine their approach on applying direct or indirect strategies for
gaining and enhancing their countries influence. Further substantiating different features
of soft power, Nye argue that, “a country’s soft power can come from three resources: its
culture (in place where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to
them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and
having moral authority). 9 A combination of the three features, if present in a country’s
policy and approach vis-à-vis other countries can be called as soft power. The question is
what are the impediments for the pursuance of a policy of soft power and why major
powers are reluctant to follow a road which can earn good reputation, prestige, respect
and goodwill? Two reasons could be given to find out an element of aggression,
imposition and domination in the realm of foreign policy. First, the absence of a viable
mechanism which can put a check on the misuse of hard power and second, the
prevalence of a dominant approach among some world leaders to find a short cut for the
pursuance of their so-called power ambitions. But, while following the road of hard
power they undermine the fact that the outcome of such policies may erode their
country’s image, credibility, respect and goodwill. Following table will depict the
dynamics of hard and soft power in the realm of foreign policy.

TABLE-1

HARD POWER SOFT POWER

Use of force Diplomacy
Sanctions Engagement
Threats Persuasion
Coercion Incentive
Brinkmanship Dialogue
Aggression Coexistence
Containment Co-option
Regime change Tolerance

Joseph Nye describes the linkage between hard and soft power by arguing that,
“hard and soft power are related because they are both aspects of the ability to achieve
one’s purpose by affecting the behavior of others.” 10 He further says that, “the distinction
between then is one of degree, both in the nature of the behavior and is the tangibility of
the resources. Soft power resources tend to be associated with the co-optive end of the
spectrum of behavior, whereas, hard power resources are usually associated with
command behavior. Hard and soft power sometimes reinforces and sometimes interferes
with each other.”11
It the dynamics of hard and soft power are analyzed in today world, it becomes
quite clear that there has been a consistent pattern in American foreign policy during the
Bush administration since it took over in January 2001 of following hard power.
Following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the
9
See “Think Again: Soft Power” Foreign Policy, ( 1 March 2006) cited from htt-://yaleglobal.yale.edu
10
http://.www.hks.harward .edu/net/gov/files/doc
11
Joseph Nye, “The Benefits of Soft power” http://hbswk.edu.archivel/4290.html

4
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

use of hard power by the United States under the pretext of war on terror became a
reality. Terms like “regime change” “collateral damage” “shock and awe” “crusades”
became common by the Bush administration. As a result, America’s image and
credibility at the international level sharply deteriorated and anti-Americanism,
particularly in the Muslim world reached its peak. It is yet to be seen, to what extent, the
American pursuance of ‘hard power’ will change if the Republican Party loses elections
due in November 2008. Will the Democratic Party, if it takes control of White House,
bring a qualitative change in American Foreign Policy and ensures a shift from hard to
soft power? From the speeches and statement of both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama,
it becomes clear that the two contestants of Democratic Party ticket for the U.S. president
are against pursuing a policy of hard power and want to take America out of the vicious
cycle of overseas interventions.
Unlike the United States, Russia and China seems to have picked the ‘attraction’
of ‘soft power.’ Earning billions of dollars of petro dollars in view of rising oil prices and
successful economic and political policies pursued under President Vladimir Putin,
Russia is venturing into a policy of gaining influence in different countries by persuasion,
diplomacy, aid, investments and trade. Similarly, China, with world’s largest foreign
exchange reserves formulates its foreign policy in lines of coexistence, incentives and
dialogue. Although, both Russia and China have a reputation of misusing hard power
domestically, both countries in the last two decades have a reputation of not resorting to
aggression, occupation, use of force and sanctions.

III. SOFT POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY MAKING PROCESS

Although, foreign policy is a reflection of its domestic politics, yet the application
of some clear ideas and norms in the foreign policy making process are quite essential.
The relevance of soft power and foreign policy making process is because of four
important reasons. First, a successful foreign policy in terms of building a positive global
image and credibility requires good leadership, pursuance of a high moral ground on
critical issues, influencing the mindset of people of other countries by providing
economic incentives, sharing of knowledge and resources. By providing attraction of
their society before the world, the leadership of a particular state can easily develop a pro
constituency in a state where in the past relations were not so friendly. Second, the
statements, speeches and other policy oriented actions of a state which are not aimed to
establish military, political, economic and cultural superiority over other nations can go a
long way in establishing influence in a particular country. The usage of positive
vocabulary in the pursuance of foreign policy goals and objectives by major powers helps
in reducing mistrust and suspicion among weak and small states about the intentions of
those who matter in global politics. Third, by promoting viable cultural, educational,
scientific and commercial exchange programs may help in developing a soft image
among countries about each other. Such type of a strategy aims to invest among the youth
of the country which can go a long way in establishing stakes for mutual cooperation.
Finally, by applying the channels of media and technology, foreign policy makers can
help gather information about those areas which if explored can help establish foothold in
various countries. It is not an easy task because this is the age of competition and
whosoever applies the most successful techniques in expanding the sphere the influence
in different countries may win.

5
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

Four case studies could be examined in terms of the relevance of soft power in
foreign policy making process. First, the United States lost an important opportunity to
create a soft image in world affairs when it decided to use hard power in order to respond
to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. While no one can condone acts of terror
targeting innocent people, the ‘behavioral pattern’ of Bush administration in the
aftermath of September 11 depicted an approach aiming to use military power to deal
with the challenge of terrorism. The images of serious human rights violations by the
U.S. military against the suspected Al-Qaeda arrested persons in Guantanomo Bay and
Abu-Ghairab prison centers tarnished American image and eroded the high moral ground
which the United States had caused as a result of terrorist attacks of September 11. The
attack and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the pursuance of an aggressive policy
unleashed by the neo-conservative Republican Party leaders in different parts of the
world only rested on hard power. Had Washington used soft power to deal with the
threats of terrorism, not only it would have been possible to effectively neutralize various
terrorist groups but also helped better American image at the international level.
Furthermore, with the application of hard power, not only the U.S. defense budget
sharply increased, it also augmented its debt.
Second, unlike the United States, European Union deals with the issue of
terrorism not by sheer use of hard power, but it countered the threat with a combination
of diplomacy and tact. Britain reacted with coolness and prudence when it was struck by
the terrorist attacks in London in July 7, 2005. Unlike the United States where the
homeland security encroached on the human rights of American people, there was no
such policy adopted by the EU. When Joseph Nye was asked a question that, “Europe
Counts Too Much on Soft Power and the Untied States Too Much on Hard Power” he
responded in an affirmative manner by arguing that, “Europe has successfully used the
attraction of the successful political and economic integration to obtain outcomes it
wants, and the United State has often acted as thought its military preeminence can solve
all problems.”12 This is the key difference between the two power blocs, Europe and
America. The former has used attraction, incentives, persuasion, diplomacy, engagement,
dialogue and coexistence in order to expand its influence not only in the non-EU
countries but throughout the world. Whereas, the latter is isolated globally despite its
superpower status because of its too much focus on hard power. Every country has a self-
esteem and self-respect and the dilemma of American foreign policy is in the recent past
it has been too arrogant and aggressive. As a result, majority of the countries may be
fearful of U.S. power, but few possess genuine liking for the American way of doing
things. Whereas, the diversified but prudent leadership of European Union is cognizant of
the threats of terrorism but has not resorted to crude tactics as done by the United States
primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The foreign policy mechanism of EU is very
pragmatic as it focuses on dealing with issues in a non-military manner. Third, Russia
and China, as pointed earlier are criticized for the use of hard power in dealing with their
domestic issues, but both the powers, have now learnt the usage of soft power in order to
attract countries so as to establish their influence. Soviet Union, the predecessor of Russia
had practiced hard power by carrying out military intervention but present day Russia, is
venturing on applying the techniques of soft power. Same is the case with China, as
Beijing in view of its enormous economic progress has become a source of attraction for
12
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu

6
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

other countries of the world. China is not required to use hard power in order to seek its
foreign policy objectives because it is applying soft power to lure foreign countries,
particularly those belonging to Africa. The ‘economic miracle’ of China has gone a long
way in establishing Chinese influence particularly in developing countries.
Finally, the case of India and Pakistan in terms of hard and soft power is different.
Both neighbors have a history of using hard power in shape of military interventions,
threats, brinkmanship and coercion in their relations. But, unfortunately, both India and
Pakistan are unable to formulate their foreign policy by giving priority to diplomacy,
coexistence, inducements, attraction, engagement, persuasion and tolerance. As a result,
both countries are unable to attract other countries who can consider India and Pakistan
as role models of good neighborly relations, economic progress and development. The
biggest impediment which is in a way for applying soft power in their foreign relations is
the failure of their leadership to pursue an approach which is based on vision and sharing
of common interests. India’s role in the context of soft power is however more
reprehensible than Pakistan because of New Delhi obsession with establishing its tutelage
in the South Asian region.
Can India and Pakistan, in view of past animosity and hostility forge a new
relationship based on the application of soft power? How the use of hard power in Indo-
Pak ties has caused enormous damage to the past and present of the people of two
countries? Some of the missing elements of soft power which one can figure out in Indo-
Pak relations are as follows:-
1. Visionary leadership
2. Attraction to establish influence
3. Co-existence
4. Tolerance
5. Persuasion
It is not only Pakistan of which India has a consistent track record of mistrust and
hostility, other South Asian countries are also not an exception to New Delhi’s drive to
pre-eminence in the region by the application of hard power in the form of threats,
coercion, brinkmanship, use of force, aggression, occupation and containment. As a
largest and the biggest country of South Asia, India’s consistent track record while
dealing with its neighbors is based on more coercion than attraction. Otherwise, if New
Delhi had pursued a policy of winning the support of the people of other regional
countries, its image as an aggressive and dominating country in the region wouldn’t have
persisted.
Of lately, the Indian leadership seem to have thought seriously of ‘image
building’ in the South Asian region by pursuing a policy of engagement and incentives.
But, such a policy is perceived to be in the context of its relations with Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka than with Pakistan. As far as Pakistan is concerned,
there still exists enormous mistrust and paranoia from both sides with the unresolved
Kashmir conflict as a major source of tension between India and Pakistan.
The application of Soft power is also a useful technique to deal with domestic
crises and conflicts. By pursuing a policy of co-option in the power structure,
engagement, persuasion, negotiations, dialogue and coexistence, state actors can deal
with centrifugal forces and other marginalized groups in a better manner. The use of hard
power by state against what it calls miscreants and militant/terrorist groups is always

7
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

counter productive because of two reasons. First, the opposition, centrifugal, militant and
terrorist groups cannot be just eliminated by the use of force in the form of military
operation. History proves the fact that no state has been successful in crushing the
popular sentiments by the use of force. Second, the use of hard power by the state against
various groups can externalize a conflict and result into the outbreak of hostilities. For
instance, the 1971 East Pakistan crisis was initially a domestic issue, but the use of hard
power to deal with the Bengali nationalist forces resulted into the externalization of that
crisis and the outbreak of Indo-Pak wars in December 1971. Centrifugal forces can be
effectively dealt with the use of soft power as political matters can best be resolved
politically and not by military means. The following table will depict the use of hard and
soft power in various international issues since the end of the cold war.

TABLE-2

ISSUES NATURE OF POWER RESULTS

Bosnia-Herzegovina Initially hard power followed Dayton peace accord
by soft power
Northern Ireland Initially hard power followed Good Friday agreement
by soft power
East Timor Soft power Independence from
Indonesia
Palestinian-Israeli Hard power Violence and bloodshed
conflict
Iraq Hard power Violence, civil war,
terrorism and bloodshed
Afghanistan Hard power Violence, civil war,
terrorism and bloodshed
Kashmir Hard power Alienation of local
population, violence and
bloodshed
Tamil-Sinhala conflict More hard power than soft Sustenance of civil strife
power
Tibet Combination of soft and hard Dialogue and resistance
power
Darfur More hard than soft power Violence and civil strife

From the above table it appears that the use of hard power is common than soft power. As
a result of non-political handling of various conflicts, one can observe the sustenance of
violence and civil strife. Hard power is easy to use in the form of military hardware,
whereas, the use of soft power is resisted because of the perceived price which the state
needs to pay because of being weak.

IV. FAULTLINES
What are the fault lines in hard and soft power and how these can be removed?
Joseph Nye in his article “U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq” published in July/August

8
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

1993 issue of Foreign Affairs gives a vivid account of hard and soft power in the
following words:
Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce. It means
that others want what the United States wants, and there is less need to use carrots
and sticks. Hard power, the ability to coerce, grows out of a country’s military
and economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s
culture, political ideals, and policies. When U.S. policies appear legitimate in the
eyes of others, American soft power is enhanced. Hard power will always remain
crucial in a world of nation-states guarding their independence, but soft power
will become increasingly important in dealing with the transnational issues that
require multilateral cooperation for their solution.13
While the characteristics of hard and soft power are different, their main thrust is same,
i.e. to establish influence. Sometimes hard power, if applied prudently, can serve the
interest of the concerned state. For instance, in times of crisis and emergency when state
authorities are primarily concerned with the maintenance of law and order in society, the
demonstration of hard power can deter such elements who want to create chaos and
instability. The crude application of hard power can however aggravate the situation
instead of preventing anarchy. Whereas, it needs to be made clear that sometimes, soft
power can be counter productive as the forces on the other side may take advantage of
concessions, incentives, persuasion and engagement and resort to a high degree of
blackmailing and bargaining. Some of the fault lines of hard power are as follows:-
 Deepening of crisis and conflict
 Escalation of violence
 Erosion of image and prestige
 Terrorism
Whereas, the fault lines of soft power are:-
 Chaos and disorder
 Erosion of power
 Predictable loss of morale
 Loss of control
There is no perfect use of hard or soft power because states while pursuing their foreign
policy have their own interests and considerations which are sometimes contradictory in
nature. Sometimes, the excessive use of hard power by a state actor instead of fulfilling
the objectives causes enormous loss of face. History is replete with examples of how the
excessive use of force made things worse and resulted into either military defeat or
withdrawal. The use of hard power by the United States in Vietnam and the Soviet Union
in Afghanistan proved to be counter productive as in both these cases, the outcome was
humiliation and setback because of local resistance against foreign invasion and
occupation. Furthermore, the use of excessive force to deal with a political issue
emanating from discontent prevailing among the majority of Bengali population of the
then East Pakistan led to the military defeat of Pakistan and the dismemberment of the
country. Presently, the U.S. use of superior military force to quell local resistance in Iraq
and in Afghanistan is not only a cause of enormous economic loss but also human
casualties and loss of image.

13
Joseph Nye, “U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq,” Foreign Affairs (New York) July/August 2008, p. 66.

9
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

In case of soft power, its imprudent use can further aggravate the situation as the
group or state at the other end may consider such a policy as a sign of weakness. The
Carter administration was blamed by its opponent to be too soft on issues which require
at that time ‘quick fixes.’ But, more than the applicant of soft power in case Nicaragua
and Iran, it was the political mismanagement of the two issues by the Carter
administration which led to the assumption of power by anti-American forces. If soft
power is considered as a sign of weakness, then other steps should be thought about
instead of resorting to the use of hard power. Such steps may be investment in human
development, education, empowerment of women, infrastructural development and in all
those areas which promote militancy, extremism, authoritarian tendencies and terrorism.
As far as creating an alternate paradigm of power is concerned, the ideal solution
is the wise and prudent use of hard and soft power, which is put by Joseph Nye as ‘smart
power.’ Every state wants to pursue its foreign relations while securing its ‘national
interests’ and with the use of ‘smart power’ it may become possible to create stability and
peace in global order.

V. INDIA AND PAKISTAN

How hard and soft power are relevant in case of policies pursued by India and
Pakistan and to what extent both the categories of power are a factor in their bilateral
relations? Traditionally speaking, both India and Pakistan are more prone to the use of
hard rather than soft power because of two reasons. First, the tendency in the power
circles of the two circles to follow short cuts in getting desired results from any crisis or a
conflict by using force, instead of negotiations, diplomacy, persuasion, engagements and
so forth. Whether, it is the case of inter or intra-state conflicts, both India and Pakistan
consider using soft power as a sign of weakness. Second, illiteracy, backwardness,
communal, ethnic, sectarian and other issues which cause underdevelopment and
insecurity in the two countries also established the culture of using hard power. Now, 63
years after seeking independence from the imperial tutelage, it is high time for India and
Pakistan to give serious rethinking as far as the shift from hard to soft power is
concerned. Are there signs which can prove that such a shift is coming or the two
countries are still obsessed with the use of hard power?
Optimism demands that positive thinking is pursued in both domestic and foreign
policy. After 63 years of confrontation, India and Pakistan seem to have understood the
futility of ‘power centric approach’ to deal with issues which require magnanimity,
wisdom and patience. When a realistic approach based on best practices in conflict
management and resolution becomes part of Indian and Pakistan foreign policies, one can
expect a shift in their relations from ‘historical syndrome’ to the ‘sharing of power’
approach in dealing with issues which are a source of grave threat to the people of India
and Pakistan in particular and the South Asian people in general.

VI. FUTURE OF SOFT POWER

While the fluid nature of International Relations puts a limit on the power of
analysts to predict on critical issues, one can however come up with following
assumptions about the future of soft power at different levels.
1. The relevance of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power in the realm of foreign policy cannot be
challenged because of the human nature which to a large extent is primarily

10
Paper on Soft power, Draft Version 6.8, July 08, 2008

power conscious and power centric. In such a scenario, one can expect the misuse
of power and the application of hard power in a blatant manner in future conflicts.
2. There will be a shift from the traditional use of power to the use of power in a
sophisticated manner in which technology, media and resources will play an
important role. Given the fact that the images of ‘Guantanamo Bay’ and “Abu
Gharaib’ are still fresh among the minds of people, the attraction of American soft
power still remains. Therefore, it will not be wrong to argue that powerful states
will try to compensate for the use of hard power by using technology, media and
resources so that ‘enemy images’ and ‘hatred’ against the oppressor are curbed.
3. It is possible that a compromise or a middle way for the application of power in
International Relations could be in the form of ‘elegant’ and ‘graceful’ use of
power but with similar motives of exploitation and domination. By inducting
‘attraction’ in the use of power one can invite minimal backlash and antagonism
at the popular level. Hence, it will be possible to check the abuse of power in a
best possible manner.

11