GREG NOTT | Soft power is not dead, but its faces may be changing

I had been thinking about the changing nature of global political relations and how a transactional style of international relations and economic coercion has overtaken “soft power” relations in the world when I read an article in the Financial Times that confirmed my suspicions.

Gideon Rachman’s article, headlined “China is building soft power as Trump burns bridges”, argues that “China’s emergence as a snooker superpower is a small sign that the country is beginning to develop ‘soft power’” — what Rachman refers to as “the cultural cachet that can burnish a nation’s global image”.

“Soft power” was a term first coined by prominent political scientist Joseph Nye in his 1990 book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Nye defined it as the ability to get others to want the outcomes you want, primarily through appeal and attraction rather than coercion.

Nye argued that soft power is derived from a country’s culture, political values and foreign policies, particularly when these are seen as legitimate and morally authoritative by others. The US has historically wielded the charm offensive of soft power very successfully.

America and the West prevailed in the Cold War in the 1980s, not least because American society seemed so much more appealing, vibrant and free than the Soviet Union. The longing to wear jeans, use expensive perfume, grow long hair and listen to rock music created strong cultural pull factors towards the West.

While the US seems to have exchanged soft power for transactional economics and tariff tit-for-tats, it seems that China may be working on improving its global image by using a milder cultural and economic approach to build global goodwill. Not just through infrastructure investments, but also at the snooker table and on TikTok, apparently.

Soft power alone would never have overcome Hitler and freed the world out of the clutches of Nazi Germany. However, I believe soft power is critical for building lasting international partnerships. Soft power has its place in building the relational currency when tough decisions are required down the line.

Britain’s King Charles used his soft power skills with wit and elegance during his recent US state visit, which some argue has worked to realign the UK more closely to the US, recementing relational capital and arguably mitigating further military and economic fallouts.

Hard power on the rise

You only need to think of Germany’s rise in World War 2 to recall the dangers of extreme “hard power”. It’s the use of military and economic force to influence and coerce other nations, and apparently it’s very much the current state of the world.

Amnesty International’s 2026 edition of “The State of the World’s Human Rights” report (released last month) documented human rights developments in 144 countries during 2025. It highlighted that hard power is thriving in the world today. (The report separates the world into predators and appeasers).

It notes that human rights protections are under increasing strain, with widespread restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly due to the world being polarised between predators and cowards, with authoritarian (“hard power”) practices intensifying worldwide.

“No longer are we warning of an imminent breakdown; we are reporting the advent of what we have previously feared,” says the report.

(Interestingly, South Africa was rebuked in the report for its selective human rights advocacy. Soft power is cultural and relational openness towards other countries; it’s not the absence of political courage. But I digress.)

China’s charm offensive in Africa

For decades the US has mastered a cultural form of influence through the marketing of the “American Dream”, which has been aspirational worldwide, with families from India, China, Asia and Africa sacrificing everything to send their children to American universities in pursuit of “the dream”.

The soft power of USAID built enormous goodwill in Africa and supported the continent’s development milestones, saved millions of lives and raised the quality of life across multiple African nations. That goodwill has taken a few knocks since the dismantling of the initiative and, in some cases, put a strain on relations between Africa and the US.

While this has happened, China seems to have taken a page out of the US’s diplomatic history book. It recently scrapped tariffs for all African countries except one. It has already implemented a duty-free policy for 33 least-developed African nations, but the policy now covers 53 countries and will be in place until April 30 2028.

Beijing boasted that it is the first major economy to offer unilateral zero-tariff treatment to Africa, but analysts say while China is seizing the chance to enhance its soft power, tariffs are rarely the main obstacle for exporters in Africa, which has a huge trade deficit with China.

“China is positioning itself as the trade liberaliser and Africa-friendly economic partner,” Lauren Johnston, a senior research fellow at the AustChina Institute, told the BBC.

Is China using soft power? It seems so, but it has introduced its own model. It is not a soft power in the way America has historically done it, but nor is it the same aggressive and purely transactional stance African nations have previously lamented.

While China’s application of soft power is decidedly its own, there’s no doubt that it is increasingly building influence through economic partnerships and infrastructure investment.

It’s not soft power in the classical sense, but it is building relational capital, influence and an improved reputation of China in an Africa that is hungry for investment and opportunity.

• Nott is head of Africa at Deneys.