In his contribution to the ANNALS, “Public Diplomacy and
Soft Power,” Joseph Nye presents public diplomacy as a strategic tool in “the
arsenal of smart power,” one that is capable of defeating “transnational
terrorism[by] . . . . winning hearts and minds” (108).
The use of public diplomacy to promote a positive image of
one’s country is not a new practice. As Nye notes: “The soft power of a country
rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places 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)” (97). These three criteria that support soft power
have not changed; however, the global landscape and, to use Nye’s term,
“conditions for projecting soft power,” have shifted dramatically since the end
of the Cold War (99). In our current “Information Age,” Nye explains, the incredible
about of information available at our fingertips has resulted in Simon’s
“paradox of plenty,” an explosion of information and scarcity of attention to
follow-up.
Therefore, nation-states today must grapple with the
challenge of attracting people’s attention while maintaining absolute
credibility, Nye argues. The pressure is high, for if a nation is perceived as
jingoistic or propagandizing, it won’t be able to supplement its hard power to
win hearts and minds. This is difficult
to disagree with. Nye is, after all, the father of soft power.
In light of one particular point Nye makes ("Why pour money
into VOA when CNN, MSNBC, or Fox can do the work for free? But such a
conclusion is too facile. Market forces portray only the profitable mass
dimensions of American culture, thus reinforcing foreign images of a
one-dimensional country." Page 205), it would be interesting to see how he
would contend with Shashi Tharoor’s arguments that private industries such as
MTV, McDonald’s, and Bollywood have powerful and instrumental role in exporting
culture and supporting a country’s soft power.
