Soft power of the United Nations

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: power resources to leverage the hard power of governments. For example, Dag Hammarskjold seized the opportunity of the Suez Crisis created by Britain and France’s invasion of Egypt in 1956 to persuade governments to create peacekeeping forces. In the wake of the UN’s failures to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s, Kofi Annan worked with others to persuade governments to recognise a new responsibility to protect endangered peoples.

But such innovations have their limits. In the aftermath of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, states turned once again to UN peacekeepers. But, while there are currently more than 100,000 troops from various nations serving in UN peacekeeping missions around the world, member states are not providing adequate resources, training, and equipment. While the General Assembly may have agreed that states have a “responsibility to protect”, many members agreed only in a very limited sense. Many developing countries are keen to guard their sovereignty and fear that the new principle could infringe it.

The UN has impressive power—both hard and soft—when states agree on policies under Chapter 7 of the Charter. It has modest but useful soft power when great powers disagree but are willing to acquiesce in a course of action. And it has very little power when the great powers oppose an action. In such cases, it makes no sense to blame the UN. Soft power is real, but it has its limits. The fault lies not with the UN, but with the lack of consensus among member states.

—Joseph S. Nye is a professor at Harvard