19 Mar A huge opportunity: Britain as a ‘subtle power’ superpower

“The currency of the age.”  With those words at the Munich Security Conference, Prime Minister Keir Starmer framed hard power – military strength and deterrence – as a defining measure of national effort.  “We must build our hard power,” he argued, insisting that states must be prepared not only to deter aggression but, if necessary, to fight.

His speech reflected a geopolitical moment shaped by war in Europe, intensifying great-power competition, and mounting security anxieties – trends underscored still further by the latest flare of conflict in the Middle East and the stark visibility of hard power in action.

Yet it is precisely at such moments that the quieter instruments of influence – persuasion, legitimacy, culture and values – become decisive, shaping how power is interpreted, supported and ultimately sustained.

Across much of the Western world, the language of power has hardened.  Defence budgets are rising and strategic competition dominates headlines.  Hard power is visible, measurable and politically saleable.

Yet, almost quietly, many of the institutions that shape long-term influence are being constrained.  In Britain, our soft power anchors – the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the BBC (particularly the World Service), the British Council and the GREAT Britain Campaign – all operate under sustained financial pressure.

Meanwhile, many other aspects of our extraordinary society struggle to see how they fit into a coherent national endeavour.  How best to contribute?  The recently established Soft Power Council represents a welcome recognition of the issue, but its public footprint has so far been rather restrained and a clearly articulated national strategy has yet to emerge.

The paradox is clear.  While we seek to strengthen our shield in the face of perceived threat, we risk allowing the quieter foundations of influence – those that sustain balanced, constructive and trusted relationships – to diminish.

Discussions of soft and hard power do not accurately capture Britain’s advantage

Far from being ‘broken’, the United Kingdom retains an extraordinary density of knowledge, institutions, cultural assets, heritage, energy and global relationships.  The strategic question is not whether Britain possesses influence.  It is whether we are sufficiently deliberate in integrating and encouraging the assets we already hold.

In recent years, much commentary has described ‘soft power’ in terms of what countries “project” – projecting culture, projecting values, projecting influence.  It is an appealing description, but a misleading one.

Soft power is not projected.  It is ambient.  It is perceived by others and, if judged credible or beneficial, it is absorbed. This distinction matters.  Influence of this kind does not reside with the sender; it lives in the judgement of the receiver.  A country may invest in culture, diplomacy, education or communications, but none of these automatically generate influence.  They only become powerful when external audiences regard them as legitimate, consistent and worth embracing into their own preferences and mental maps.

Understanding this reshapes how we think about power.

Hard power is readily understood: military strength, economic leverage, coercive tools.  It is visible, measurable and immediate.  It shapes events through pressure and generally delivers some sort of short-term effect.

Soft power, defined by the late Joseph Nye as the ability to influence through attraction rather than coercion, flows principally from three sources: a country’s values, its political system and its foreign policy – when these are seen as legitimate and worthy of respect.  Culture, institutions and education matter most when they align with how a country behaves and what it represents.

We also hear of ‘smart power’ – the deliberate combination of hard and soft power in coordinated strategy.  Capability reinforced by legitimacy.  This became central to US thinking under Barack Obama, when policymakers recognised that force without legitimacy breeds resistance, while attraction without leverage lacks weight.  Yet smart power depends upon maintaining scale in both domains.  For countries that are not superpowers, this blend is often constrained by capacity.

Yet even this framework does not fully capture Britain’s comparative advantage.

‘Subtle power’ offers a new frame for understanding Britain’s role in the world

There is a form of influence less discussed but potentially decisive: ‘Subtle Power’.

In a world defined by great power rivalry, information overload and political polarisation, the states that matter most are not only those that can coerce or attract.  They are those that shape the context in which others think, decide and align. This is where the United Kingdom presents a remarkable case – and a significant opportunity.

The UK is seldom pre-eminent in any single category of influence.  It does not dominate global manufacturing, population size, military mass or technological scale.  But it is consistently strong across a remarkable range of domains: our businesses, culture and creative industries, education and research, media reach, diplomatic networks, legal traditions, sport, civil society and institutional credibility.

This breadth is itself strategic.  Britain’s influence does not depend on being the best in any one field.  It depends on being reliably strong across many fields at once.  Trust built in one domain reinforces credibility in another.  Few countries combine so many globally connected institutions with such depth of historical and contemporary relationships.

Subtle power operates below the level of overt persuasion.  It shapes what feels legitimate, normal, trustworthy or professional.  It works through tone, networks, norms, institutions and relationships.  It influences the environment in which decisions are made, often without participants consciously noticing the influence at work.

The United Kingdom’s advantage lies in aggregation, credibility, continuity, familiarity and trust.  Through history and habit, British influence often feels familiar rather than imposed.  It is encountered before it is noticed.  It operates through norms, language, formats, rules, humour and understatement.  It rarely demands alignment; it encourages participation.  That makes it less dramatic and less measurable – but potentially more durable.

A nation’s brand – intrinsic to its soft power – is carried through a layered web of communication.  It appears in political statements, foreign policy decisions and in our individual and collective approach in the round.  It is reflected in media narratives but perhaps most influential of all is the person-to-person level.  For many around the world, perceptions of the UK are shaped less by official messaging than by relationships with British visitors, colleagues, teachers, partners, friends and neighbours.  Reputation travels through experience.  In this sense, influence is lived as much as it is broadcast.  Everyone becomes part of the signal.  Everyone is, in effect, an ambassador.

These assets matter because they are inseparable from conduct.  When British politics, institutions and foreign policy are seen as principled and predictable, cultural and institutional reach carries greater weight.  When credibility falters, attraction weakens.  Soft power, in Nye’s sense, cannot be separated from behaviour.

For generations, Britain has functioned not primarily as a power of domination, nor solely as a power of attraction, but as a Subtle power nation.  Through its universities, legal frameworks, language, cultural reach, diplomatic habits and media presence, the UK has helped shape the mental and institutional architecture within which international life operates.

That influence rarely announces itself.  It is not spectacular.  But it is embedded, widely trusted and globally connected.

Effort must be made to maintain Britain’s subtle power advantage

In a more fragmented world, this matters more, not less.  As louder forms of power generate friction, influence rooted in credibility and familiarity becomes more valuable.  The ability to convene, connect, translate and frame legitimacy is itself a strategic asset.

This advantage is not self-sustaining.  It depends upon continued investment in trust, culture, institutions and international engagement.  It also requires national confidence and cohesion; a country that persistently undervalues itself risks weakening the credibility on which its influence rests.  Where these foundations are neglected, Britain’s influence does not collapse dramatically – it quietly erodes.

Soft power, in the British case, is not a legacy to be spent but a capability to be maintained.  Its strength lies in accumulation.  Its vulnerability lies in complacency.

This now demands intent rather than nostalgia.

If soft power flows from values, politics and foreign policy, it cannot be delegated to culture alone or assumed to run on historical memory.  It requires coherence between what the UK says, what it does and what its institutions and people represent.  It asks policymakers, institutional leaders, educators, diplomats and cultural actors to see themselves not as separate actors but as contributors to a single national ecosystem of trust – to embrace and exhibit unity of purpose.

The opportunity is not to add more noise to an already crowded world.  It is to reinforce credibility, coherence and connection – to ensure that the UK remains a place where others want to study, partner, invest, collaborate and align because it is seen as serious, fair, creative and dependable.

In an age of sharper power, faster narratives and rising distrust, the countries that will matter most are those others feel able to work with.  By fortune and effort, the United Kingdom has spent generations building that position.

This is no sentimental plea for soft power, nor an argument for privileging it over credible defence and other priorities.  Hard power underwrites security.  But strategy is incomplete if it assumes that deterrence alone secures long-term advantage.  Influence accumulates in universities, media, diplomacy, science, business networks, culture and values – often long before it manifests in policy alignment or alliance cohesion.

Britain’s advantage lies precisely in this depth and breadth.  The challenge is not national decline, but national coordination.  If cultural, educational and diplomatic institutions are treated as peripheral luxuries, they will erode quietly.  If, however, they are recognised as strategic infrastructure and integrated deliberately alongside defence, Britain’s influence does not need to be rebuilt.  It simply needs to be encouraged, aligned and sustained.

The task now is to recognise what we have, protect it, speak of it with confidence, and use it deliberately.

This is the huge opportunity in Britain’s wealth of subtle power.