The first problem is that a country has diverse individuals who can either choose to like the attraction or not. In addition, whether the appeal will result to the capacity to influence the country’s policy depends on the groups in the country who deem it attractive and not forgetting. In addition, the level of authority in policymaking is equally important. Secondly, policy making at national level proves to be more intricate compared to the personal level. It has diverse dynamics that emphasize mainly on coherent deliberations (Fan 150). The situation gives little space for emotional elements and consequently minimizes the soft power effect. Fan (150) affirms that since soft power proves to be both uncontrollable and impulsive, it would be difficult to exercise it in an organized and synchronized manner.
Soft power implies the ability to shape the inclination of others. Whether power can operate effectively at state level will remain questionable. This is true because soft power exercised by a certain country may have a positive impact on the partisan elite and have undesirable influence on the public in another country (Szczudlik 46). Several complicating factors are responsible for shaping the association amid countries. The situation leaves soft power playing a minimal role towards such a relationship. Ultimately, strategic interests determine the relationship amid countries as opposed to soft power. In addition, one cannot envision a country having enormous soft power without the back up of hard power. It is not strange that the United States is a superpower that possesses immense hard and soft power.
The situation implies that countries may share a common agenda or cultural affiliations and still create some form of distance regarding matters of national relationships. The association amid China and Japan proves to be a good example to attest this occurrence. Szczudlik (46) argues that regardless of the historical cultural affiliations and