America’s perceived soft power on decline
By Gholamreza Mansouri
Political expert
After decades of domination, challenges facing liberalism gave rise to a new school in international relations in recent decades: neoliberalism. However, a critical issue that liberalism and even neoliberalism could never solve was war. Despite the terrible results of World Wars I and II, liberal experts predicted that the world would experience long-lasting peace and joyous days, but surprisingly, wars spread across the world.
Although the two main blocs, the West and the East, were in a Cold War situation, wars were still raging in various parts of the world. One of the most long-standing of them was the war imposed by Iraq on Iran in the 1980s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government won the Cold War. Neoliberals predicted that global interdependence would permanently put an end to wars. But the prediction was wrong, and the world once again witnessed various wars. At least war now seems inevitable.
In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, America’s superior political position generated both strategic advantages and social capital—a hegemonic ability to govern the world or regulate international relations whenever and wherever it wanted. While it did not mean that America was able to do what it wanted, it fostered a global perception that America had the power to resolve any conflict at will. It is worth noting that America projects the ideals of liberalism and neoliberalism more in rhetoric than in practice.
This is the core of the concept of soft power, formulated by Joseph Nye, who introduced this concept in 1998, distinguishing between two types of power. As mentioned above, neither liberals nor neoliberals have been able to offer a solution to the problem of war in the modern world. As both schools declared, no democracy will fight another. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown that this claim was wrong, too.
Soft or hard power?
Nye, born in 1937, differentiates between two types of power. Hard power is “the ability to get others to act in ways that are contrary to their initial preferences and strategies.” This is the ability to coerce through threats and inducements. Also, soft power is the ability to get “others to want the outcomes that you want.” In other words, soft power relies on a leadership position in the minds of nations.
Although the United States is the self-proclaimed leader of the world, under Donald Trump, the White House appears unwilling to lead the world, instead using its position to secure American national interests.
Other nations would find such an approach hypocritical and categorically reject America’s so-called leadership. This might erode the hegemonic power of America in the minds of nations. On the other hand, Trump has repeatedly emphasized that he will keep the United States out of war due to its high costs.
It has become evident that the statements made by international relations experts about America’s ability to prevent wars through its soft power are unfounded, and the reality is that today, the whole world suffers from wars. One of the reasons for this is that the US government benefits from the proliferation of global conflicts. This is the best way for America to sell weapons and exploit other nations’ wealth for its own benefit. Trump’s solution, peace through power, is not to secure global peace but to secure America’s national interests.
This situation illustrates the decline of America’s perceived soft power on the global stage.