ظل الرئيس الأمريكي دونالد ترمب يتبنى مقاربة مغايرة تماماً لمفهوم «القوة الناعمة» كما صاغه المفكر جوزيف ناي، حيث مال بقوة نحو تعظيم أدوات «القوة الصلبة»؛ ممثلةً في التفوق العسكري والضغوط الاقتصادية، على حساب الأدوات الدبلوماسية والثقافية التي تشكِّل جوهر القوة الناعمة.
وقد لخّص ناي هذا التحول في مقال له بمجلة «فورين أفيرز» (2018) حين أشار إلى أن سياسات ترمب القومية ومواقفه تجاه الحلفاء أسهمت في تراجع القوة الناعمة الأمريكية.
كما أكد في كتابه «The Future of Power» أن المزج المتوازن بين القوة الصلبة والناعمة يبقى ضرورياً للقيادة العالمية، الأمر الذي تهمله بعض الإدارات الأمريكية.
يتمثّل هذا الإهمال في سياسة «أمريكا أولاً» التي قادت إلى انسحابات متتالية من تحالفات ومؤسسات دولية كبرى مثل منظمة الصحة العالمية، واتفاقية باريس للمناخ، مما يضعف الأدوات الدبلوماسية الأمريكية. كما تجلّى في القرارات المالية التي استهدفت تقليص برامج التبادل الثقافي مثل «فولبرايت» وهيئات الإعلام الدولي مثل «صوت أمريكا»، ناهيك عن خطط خفض ميزانية الخارجية بنسبة 50% التي كشفت عنها «رويترز» والتي كانت ستؤدي إلى إغلاق عشرات البعثات الدبلوماسية.
في المقابل، يذهب بعض المؤيدين للرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترمب إلى أن أساليبه المباشرة في التواصل عبر وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي يشكّل نوعاً من القوة الناعمة، إذ نجح في استقطاب قاعدة شعبية عريضة في العديد من الدول عبر خطابه المعادي للنُخب التقليدية. في حين يرى بعض الخبراء أن هذا الأسلوب زاد من حدة الاستقطاب الدولي أكثر مما ساهم في تعزيز الجذب الثقافي أو السياسي الأمريكي.
في الواقع، يبدو أن ترمب -بعيداً عن الانطباع السائد- كان يمتلك وعياً حاداً بمحدودية تأثير القوة الناعمة في ظل التحولات الجذرية التي يشهدها النظام الدولي. لقد أدرك باكراً أن زمن الهيمنة الأمريكية الأحادية قد ولّى، وأن العالم يشهد صعود قوى جديدة تتحدى الثنائية الصلبة/ الناعمة التقليدية. تصريحاته الأخيرة في الرياض، حيث انتقد «بناة الأمم» ومحاولات فرض الثقافة الأمريكية، تعكس فهماً عميقاً لتحولات العصر: فالشعوب اليوم ترفض الهيمنة الثقافية كما ترفض الهيمنة السياسية، وهي تصنع نهضتها معتمدة على مقوماتها الحضارية الخاصة.
لقد اختار ترمب عن قصد التركيز على القوة الصلبة ليس لأنه يجهل أهمية القوة الناعمة، بل لأنه رأى أن زمن القوة الناعمة التقليدية -بآلياتها وخطابها- قد ضعف. في عالم تتصارع فيه الحضارات أكثر من أي وقت مضى، وتتنافس فيه النماذج التنموية قبل أن تتنافس الرؤى الثقافية، كان ترمب يقدم قراءة واقعية -وإن كانت قاسية- لطبيعة المرحلة الانتقالية التي يعيشها النظام العالمي. ربما يكون التاريخ هو الحكم الأفضل على مدى صحة هذه الرؤية من عدمها.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
President Donald Trump adopted a completely different approach to the concept of "soft power" as articulated by scholar Joseph Nye, leaning heavily towards maximizing the tools of "hard power," represented in military superiority and economic pressures, at the expense of the diplomatic and cultural tools that form the essence of soft power.
Nye summarized this shift in an article for "Foreign Affairs" (2018) when he noted that Trump's nationalist policies and his stance towards allies contributed to the decline of American soft power.
He also emphasized in his book "The Future of Power" that a balanced mix of hard and soft power remains essential for global leadership, a fact that some U.S. administrations overlook.
This neglect is evident in the "America First" policy, which led to successive withdrawals from major international alliances and institutions such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, thereby weakening American diplomatic tools. It was also reflected in financial decisions aimed at reducing cultural exchange programs like "Fulbright" and international media entities like "Voice of America," not to mention the plans to cut the foreign budget by 50%, as revealed by Reuters, which would have led to the closure of dozens of diplomatic missions.
Conversely, some supporters of President Trump argue that his direct communication methods via social media represent a form of soft power, as he successfully attracted a broad popular base in many countries through his anti-establishment rhetoric. Meanwhile, some experts believe that this approach has intensified international polarization more than it has contributed to enhancing American cultural or political appeal.
In reality, it seems that Trump—contrary to the prevailing impression—had a sharp awareness of the limitations of soft power amid the radical transformations occurring in the international system. He recognized early on that the era of unilateral American dominance had passed and that the world is witnessing the rise of new powers that challenge the traditional hard/soft binary. His recent statements in Riyadh, where he criticized "nation builders" and attempts to impose American culture, reflect a deep understanding of the transformations of the age: today, peoples reject cultural hegemony just as they reject political hegemony, and they are forging their own renaissance based on their unique civilizational components.
Trump intentionally chose to focus on hard power not because he is unaware of the importance of soft power, but because he saw that the era of traditional soft power—with its mechanisms and discourse—had weakened. In a world where civilizations are clashing more than ever and developmental models compete before cultural visions do, Trump presented a realistic—if harsh—reading of the transitional nature of the global system. Perhaps history will be the best judge of the validity of this perspective.
Nye summarized this shift in an article for "Foreign Affairs" (2018) when he noted that Trump's nationalist policies and his stance towards allies contributed to the decline of American soft power.
He also emphasized in his book "The Future of Power" that a balanced mix of hard and soft power remains essential for global leadership, a fact that some U.S. administrations overlook.
This neglect is evident in the "America First" policy, which led to successive withdrawals from major international alliances and institutions such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, thereby weakening American diplomatic tools. It was also reflected in financial decisions aimed at reducing cultural exchange programs like "Fulbright" and international media entities like "Voice of America," not to mention the plans to cut the foreign budget by 50%, as revealed by Reuters, which would have led to the closure of dozens of diplomatic missions.
Conversely, some supporters of President Trump argue that his direct communication methods via social media represent a form of soft power, as he successfully attracted a broad popular base in many countries through his anti-establishment rhetoric. Meanwhile, some experts believe that this approach has intensified international polarization more than it has contributed to enhancing American cultural or political appeal.
In reality, it seems that Trump—contrary to the prevailing impression—had a sharp awareness of the limitations of soft power amid the radical transformations occurring in the international system. He recognized early on that the era of unilateral American dominance had passed and that the world is witnessing the rise of new powers that challenge the traditional hard/soft binary. His recent statements in Riyadh, where he criticized "nation builders" and attempts to impose American culture, reflect a deep understanding of the transformations of the age: today, peoples reject cultural hegemony just as they reject political hegemony, and they are forging their own renaissance based on their unique civilizational components.
Trump intentionally chose to focus on hard power not because he is unaware of the importance of soft power, but because he saw that the era of traditional soft power—with its mechanisms and discourse—had weakened. In a world where civilizations are clashing more than ever and developmental models compete before cultural visions do, Trump presented a realistic—if harsh—reading of the transitional nature of the global system. Perhaps history will be the best judge of the validity of this perspective.
