If we are taking into consideration the relations between international relations (IR) and diplomacy, founded on the contractual relations between the states, it can be argued that soft power in this case mostly depends on the ability of the state authorities to build and maintain international institutions.

From the time after 1945, as consequences of the bloody result of WWII, international, transnational, and supranational multilateral institutions and organizations became valued by the international community more and more primarily as a certain mechanism of the rule of international law for the sake of preserving the stability and functioning of the international system in global policy and IR. State authority can achieve soft power within the framework of institutional power, by designing institutions, agenda-setting, or creating the will of the coalition as a whole – like the policy of the USA within NATO, for instance.

In principle, there are five focal factors on which the soft power of the state authority directly depends within the framework of the international, transnational, and supranational institutions:

1.  The state authority has to be familiar with the norms and rules of multilateral international, transnational, and supranational institutions. Most of those institutions are today still indispensable factors for the sake of the operation of international communication and IR, even though some of them are unfair, corrupted, and unequal.
2. The state authority has to learn to set agendas not merely and visibly for its selfish interest, but also for a broader public interest, at least concerning the target group of the countries for the very practical reason that only the agenda that represents the greater number of public interest and political aims has real chances to be accepted by others. Nevertheless, the process of setting the agenda surely reflects a certain power of discourse, but at the same time, it also requires a state authority to have strong communication skills to create consensus in a group, especially in cases where divergent and/or diametrically opposite views exist.[i]
3. The workable, attractive, and finally successful design solution for a problematic issue that is created by a state authority during the discussion, usually attracts the representatives of other states or institutions/organizations to follow it and, consequently, increases its soft power.[ii] 
4. Credibility-saving is also of extreme significance to the soft power of the state authority in any kind of multilateral international institution, as the national image in IR is a crucial element or factor of soft power. In practice, for instance, if state authorities adhere more to international rules and norms, the reputation of their countries usually rises and, therefore consequently, they can create stronger social and political capital, which can enhance the soft power of their governments in the international society. 
5. Any action taken by the state authority founded on inclusive interests rather than self-interest increases its soft power in IR. Meanwhile, selfish patriotic nationalism is usually a disadvantage concerning the accumulation of soft power.[iii] 

The soft power of any state government depends mostly on three fundamental resources: 1) The culture of the state, i.e., its people; 2) The political system of the state; and 3) The foreign policy of the government. All these resources can be more or less attractive or not attractive for others for different political, ethnonational, confessional, or ideological reasons. For instance, soft power founded on the attractiveness of the government’s foreign policy can be fruitful only if others see it as legitimate according to the norms and rules of international law and having moral authority. 

Nevertheless, there are parenthetical conditions that are the focal factors in determining whether the resources of soft power are going to be translated into the behavior of attraction that can influence others and direct their policies toward favorable outcomes. It has to be noticed that with soft power, what the target thinks is of extreme importance followed by the target matters as much as the agents.

In many practical cases, culture is an important resource of soft power, but usually and especially by the countries of Great Powers (GP). Culture, in general, is the pattern of social behaviors by which certain groups transmit knowledge and values to other groups, and it functions on multiple levels.[v] However, though many cultural aspects are universal, some of them are national or very particular to social strata or small groups (for example, ethnocultural minorities). One of the crucial features of culture is that it is never static, and different cultures are interacting in different ways.

Related News

Siberianisation and the pursuit of a new civilisational platform

For Western policymakers, one of the cardinal questions in this matter is: Can Western cultural attraction reduce current extremist appeals in Islamic societies? Many researchers, especially Americans, see in this case an unbridgeable cultural and civilizational divide. However, in Iran, for instance, Western music and films are popular with many youngsters like in some other Islamic states. That is a way how the Western cultural soft power is promulgated in Islamic culture and society. 

However, culture, political values, and foreign policies are not the only resources that are producing soft power but they are cardinal. Military resources can produce soft power too like hard power policy. The same is true in many practical cases around the world, and is true in economic resources which are used to attract the policy of a certain state. A successful economy is a highly significant and powerful asset of attraction within the realm of soft power, as both Japan and China have discovered in the case of the Asia-Pacific region. The economic power is able, at the same time, to provide the resources that are proper to be used as hard power inducements in the form of aid or coercive sanctions. In reality, however, it is very difficult to make a difference in what part of an economic or financial relationship are hard and soft power involved. The centralized bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels of the European Union (EU) is keen to describe the desire of other (East European) states to join the EU as a sign of the EU’s soft power (primarily seen in financial aid).[vi]

Many realists argue that the difference between hard and soft power is a contrast between realism and idealism, but, in essence, there is no contradiction between realism and soft power. In other words, soft power cannot be considered as a form of liberalism or idealism as it is essentially, a form of power or one way of getting desired results in politics. Nevertheless, legitimacy is a powerful reality and, consequently, competitive struggles over international legitimacy became a significant part of enhancing or depriving actors of soft power. 

In soft power policy, the non-state authorities involved in diplomacy, in our time, include a variety of non-state actors like different corporations, organizations, institutions, NGOs, etc. all of whom have, to a certain degree, soft power of their own. In practice, even individual celebrities can use their soft power.

References:

[i] The 39th President of the USA, James Earl (“Jimmy”) Carter (1977−1981) increased the American soft power and, in general, the image of the USA in IR when in 1978 he achieved the Camp David agreement which established peace between Israel and the leading Arab nation – Egypt. That was the most enduring diplomatic act of reconciliation in the Middle East since the 1940s.  

[ii] For example, Chinese authority’s constructive role in the 1955 Bandung Conference in seeking common ground while reserving differences to meetings of participants, became a key factor of conference’s success and, consequently, the reputation of China and its soft power expanded in the countries of the third world (mainly Africa). 

[iii] For instance, today’s Chinese very positive and attractive influence in the African continent is partially due to the accumulated soft power in the 1960s as many African nations did not forget China’s timely and disinterested aid to them at that time. Nevertheless, the soft power of China in the African emerging market countries is as well as originating in Chinese business activities which are naturally guided mainly by narrow self-interest.  

[iv] About this issue, see more in [Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books: New York, 1973].

[v] See more in [Martin Wolf, “Soft Power: The EU’s Greatest Gift”, Financial Times, 2005-02-02].