YPS - Review

Role of Soft Power in International Conflict Mediation

Eunjin Huh

November 8th, 2024

Reflecting on the concept of soft power and its application in international conflict mediation has fundamentally reshaped my understanding of how nations can engage in conflict resolution without resorting to military or economic coercion. The notion of influencing others through attraction rather than compulsion is not only compelling but, to me, represents a more enduring and ethically sound approach to diplomacy. In a world where hard power—through military might, economic sanctions, and political leverage—often dominates, the idea that cultural influence and trust-building can foster lasting peace offers a refreshing and hopeful alternative.

One element of soft power that I find particularly striking is its potential to cultivate genuine trust, which is an essential foundation in mediation. Unlike hard power, which often leaves deep wounds and residual animosity, soft power enables conflicting parties to find common ground with minimal relational damage. Norway’s role in facilitating the Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine serves as a poignant example. The fact that a relatively small, militarily neutral country could successfully act as a trusted intermediary between two adversarial nations underscores the unique potency of soft power. This case made me realize that, in the pursuit of peace, qualities like neutrality and trustworthiness can sometimes outweigh sheer strength or economic influence.

Another dimension of soft power that resonates with me profoundly is the role of culture as a conduit for connection between nations. Cultural diplomacy—exemplified through media, music, and art—can subtly yet powerfully ease tensions and foster mutual understanding.

South Korea’s strategic use of K-pop and media content, for example, has had an unexpectedly profound impact on softening North-South relations. Through these cultural exchanges, individuals on both sides have discovered shared interests and, over time, developed a degree of mutual respect, even amid longstanding political and military divides. This example has shown me that soft power is far more than an abstract theory; it is a pragmatic tool for reshaping perceptions and opening channels of dialogue where traditional means may falter.

While I am drawn to the ideals of soft power, I am also cognizant of its limitations. Soft power alone may not suffice to resolve deeply entrenched conflicts where compromise is elusive or in situations that demand swift intervention. In such cases, soft power must be strategically employed alongside hard power to create a balanced approach. Nevertheless, I am convinced that hard power, without the stabilizing influence of soft power, often exacerbates conflicts rather than resolving them. Soft power may lack the immediate, forceful impact of military intervention, but its effects are often more enduring, laying a critical foundation for sustainable peace.

Writing this reflection has deepened my appreciation for the delicate balance between soft and hard power. In an era marked by complex geopolitical relationships and escalating tensions, the integration of soft power into diplomatic strategies seems more essential than ever. I hope that more nations and leaders will embrace this approach, prioritizing dialogue, mutual respect, and cultural exchange over displays of force or intimidation.

In conclusion, soft power embodies an optimistic vision for conflict resolution—one rooted in mutual understanding, respect, and long-term cooperation. While it may not entirely replace hard power, I firmly believe that soft power should serve as the cornerstone of any diplomatic strategy. By fostering genuine empathy and building bridges of trust, nations can achieve not only temporary solutions but lay the groundwork for lasting peace.