ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT -CHINA AND AMERICA- PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET – February 15th 2011

This is a recent report for the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate. As a whole the report is rather adolescent towards China’s public diplomacy. It recognises that China has started using public diplomacy in their foreign relations but see them as stealing yet another Western idea. It is highly critical of the one way exchange, feeling hard done by, that while the Chinese are able to use public diplomacy in the US they give the US less routes in China in return.

The report tries to down play the use of China’s public diplomacy initiatives, accusing it of attempting to portray a message whilst acting on another. It is true that many Westerners are appalled by China’s human rights records but there are still plenty of other areas where China appear to excel and they are playing these strengths to their advantage having studied the use of public diplomacy by other nations. China’s Confucius Institutes, China’s version of the British Council, are currently located in 96 countries spanning every continent and continuing to grow steadily.(1)
• China currently has 71 Confucius Centres in the U.S., while the Untied States has five Public Diplomacy spaces in China – for a country of some 1.3 billion.(2)
China is internationally recognised as an economic hub and they continue to increase their influence worldwide through new business ventures and trade. China has been using these tools within their own borders for years, and although it can be seen as a kind of propaganda, i.e. limited internet and regulated birth control, they have been steadily rising as a super power and opening outwards. China has invested heavily in parts of Africa and South America and their role in the United Nations have been expanding, with an increasing presence in peacekeeping.(3)

The report recommends the US increase its public diplomacy initiatives in the region to counteract the rising dominance of China but it plays largely on scaremongering tactics, referring to China as the new Soviet Union under ‘repressive Communist government’(4) and base much of the report on China’s internet control uses. It barely tackles how the US will neutralize China’s upsurge through their own initiatives, instead relying heavily on criticising China’s domestic issues and untactfully accusing it of wishing to return to its Ancient past as the Worlds hegemonic power(5), suggesting it will bypass any country that stands in its way. The report advises that Chinas internet control makes it difficult for the US to communicate freely with Chinese citizens, making it difficult to utilize Public Diplomacy in the region. Is this not the same nation that is cutting back on their news broadcastings throughout Asia and the Middle East while China is developing and expanded their influence in these regions? This important fact is barely mentioned; instead the focus is on censorship in China itself making it difficult for the US. The report mentions the Google-ization of internet freedom(6) where Google shut down their pages in 2010. It may seem unjust for such controlled censorship in this day and age but don’t all countries operate some level of censorship? The case was ultimately between an American company and the Chinese government.

The two advantageous platforms that the report highlights for the US in China are the Expos and Peace Corps. It admits neglecting expos in recent years, where the rest of the world continued using them, and is now taking a fresh look at using these to there benefit again. The US Peace Corps are also considered to be a great tool for people to people diplomacy and the report highlights they are a great tool on the ground interacting within China. As we’ve learnt in class word of mouth is much more influential and trustworthy than any other interaction and this is an area where the US is keen to keep investing.

China has been steadily growing inwardly but now their output is becoming substantial and the US still continues to criticise their domestic policies instead of addressing their international aims. As long as they continue to do it would seem they will only harm their own international image whilst China continues to expand.

Overall without wanting to come across pro-Chinese I think the report channels too much time criticising a nation that has generally always been inward thinking but innovative. It is true to say that many would consider the nation and governance ‘authoritarian’ but there is also growing respect for the nation who set to re-introduce itself to the world using the Beijing Olympics as their platform. It may be tougher for the US to win over the hearts and minds of the Chinese people with internet restrictions in the country but by channelling and following a bad rhetoric about China, accessible to everyone else, they are focussing too much negative energy on China instead of positive energy on themselves, ironically somehow hindering their own Public Diplomacy inventiveness if anything.

Please also take a look at this blog by Joseph Nye on the rocky Chinese-American relations - http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye80/English

(1) http://www.chinese.cn/college/en/node_1979.htm
(2) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.19
(3) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.30
(4) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.18
(5) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.15
(6) http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/ChinaInternet.pdf p.45