The recent inaugural alumni gathering co-hosted by the Malaysian Institute of Defence and Security (MiDAS) and the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies (DKI APCSS) was, on its face, a modest affair.
No treaty was signed and no communiqué issued. Yet it pointed to something headline diplomacy often obscures: the slow, cumulative work through which states build trust.
In a region where strategic competition is intensifying, that work deserves more attention than it receives. This is soft power in its practical form.
Joseph Nye coined the term for influence exercised through attraction rather than coercion, and Malaysia has long pursued it through sustained, unglamorous channels.
The Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme shares our development experience with fellow developing nations, while the Malaysian Defence Cooperation Programme remains a key pillar of our defence diplomacy.
Since 1996, 564 Malaysian officials have benefited from programmes at the Hawaii-based DKI APCSS. That is a network spanning a generation of officers and civil servants. The gathering sought to recognise their career achievements, strengthen professional ties and plan future joint programmes.
As Robert Keohane and Nye have argued, when specialised bureaucrats and military officers interact directly across borders, they form transgovernmental networks that alter professional perspectives and generate lasting organisational linkages.
Sceptics may dismiss such convenings as ceremonial. Keohane and Nye themselves insisted that "our task is to analyse the politics of interdependence, not to celebrate it", and a sober assessment concedes that these gatherings rarely produce sudden breakthroughs.
Their value lies elsewhere. Sustained face-to-face contact reshapes how elites perceive one another across generations, replacing suspicion with genuine institutional confidence.
That confidence is a strategic asset. Contacts spanning the defence and civilian sectors build resilience that cushions relationships when political winds turn, and they do so long before a crisis demands it.
Trust of this kind cannot be improvised in the middle of a dispute; it must be accumulated in quieter times, one programme and one relationship at a time.
For a middle power such as Malaysia, which depends on dialogue rather than leverage, this is not a peripheral concern but a core instrument of national security.
Soft power also helps states manage divergence. As Keohane and Nye candidly noted, "baking a larger pie does not stop disputes over the size of the slices".
It cannot eliminate competing national interests, but it enlarges the "pie" of confidence, allowing states to agree on some matters and agree to disagree on others, yet each side would welcome the other into their houses at any time.
The implication for policy is practical. Modest and steady investment of this kind costs little against the value of a trusted contact in a difficult moment.
In an era of complex interdependence, these quiet dividends remain among the most enduring assets of modern statecraft.
AHMAD TAJUDDIN MOHD SAID,
Malaysian Institute of Defence and Security (MiDAS)
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd