Based on our readings and class discussions it seems that Chinese public diplomats have failed to read Cull's categorization of public diplomacy actions. If they had they would understand that listening to foreign publics is the "foundation" of all successful PD campaigns (Cull, 18).
China is relentlessly promoting its admirable culture and history, however not always in ways that will resonate with its audiences. As we saw in class at the beginning of the semester, one of China's attempts to promote itself in the United States involved rather boring video screens depicting accomplished Chinese citizens. While this would have caught my eye had I been in Times Square, it would not have held my attention and I doubt it would have much improved my knowledge or opinions of China.
If China were to elicit more feedback from its audiences it would have a much better idea of what programs will succeed and which will fail. In addition, as Professor Hayden said in class "They need to read audience analysis studies since the 1970's." China is aggressively pursuing international broadcasting operations in the US and around the world. However, much of its programming seems disingenuous and reeks of propaganda. If it listened to its audiences, China would find that they are a bit more perceptive than the country believes and are turned off by these types of messages. It is telling that opinions of China are plummeting in the West, where it is attempting to implement these types of informational campaigns, but skyrocketing in the global south where it has invested in development aid. Clearly China is cultivating the soft power it desires through development actions, but loosing it based on unidirectional broadcasting.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Confucius Institutes and Chinese Soft Power
The topic of Chinese soft power has become popular among academics and policymakers in recent years. The following article looks specifically at Confucius Institutes (CIs) and how they are related to a broader Chinese soft power strategy.
Paradise (2009) discusses Confucius Institutes (CIs) and soft power in China and International Harmony: The Role of Confucius Institutes in Bolstering Beijing’s Soft Power. He looks at China’s soft power initiatives as strategies for the country to assure foreign publics of its benign intentions in a time where there is much anxiety over the country’s increasing economic and military power. CIs are presented as one such way to win hearts and minds abroad. Paradise notes that little has been published on the impact of these programs on foreign perceptions of China, likely due to the relatively recent nature of the subject (the first was established in 2004).
In this article, he seeks to answer the following questions: What are the CIs doing? How do they fit into China’s “grand strategy,” if in fact there is such a strategy? How is soft power viewed in China? How are the Confucius Institutes thought of outside China? What impact, if any, are they having on China’s standing in the world?
In addition to funding and providing educational resources, Hanban’s (CI Headquarters, affiliated with the Ministry of Education) role in the CI initiative includes evaluation of instruction, management performance, and impact on society. Chinese embassies and consulates tend to support the initiative and occasionally act as intermediaries between applicants and Hanban.
An important finding was that some Chinese educators reject the idea of CIs as part of a larger soft power offensive, seeing it as an academic endeavor and less politically motivated. In fact, the notion of power as motivation is sometimes seen as negative and even aggressive. However, soft power has been described by President Hu Jintao as necessary for national strength.
Paradise goes on to explain the concern over CIs as a Trojan horse, and finds that CIs are forbidden from involvement in any activities that are inconsistent with the missions of the CI, and that they may not breach any Chinese laws and regulations. These and other regulations contribute to the general feeling of many American academics: that with the CIs, China is making the key decisions, not the university. However, there are many who welcome the assistance provided by the program. In terms of impact, it is difficult to determine whether or not the CI initiative affects perceptions of China, particularly because it is too soon to tell. (And increasing soft power is a long-term strategy.)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Working on the Railroad, or the railroad working on YOU?
It is China week!
For all of the thousands of you that subscribe to my commentaries both here and on Provincial Supertramp, you already know that I am a novice railroad historian and rail advocate. Yet, sadly, I had yet to find the occasion to incorporate my railfandom into my Public Diplomacy discussions, until now. In a near miraculous confluence of various seemingly unassociated subjects, I have managed to find a Mark Twain quotation that deals with the Chinese, the railroad, and can even be applied to the modern development of Chinese public diplomacy strategies. It is from a news commentary called "CHINESE RAILROAD OBSTRUCTIONS," from The San Francisco Daily Morning Call, on August 30, 1864.
This may seem like it does not have so much to do with public diplomacy, until you read about a recent project that has been dubbed by Western journalists as "Chinese railway diplomacy." This concept interested me because of two historic comparisons:
1. The role of the Chinese in helping to build the Transcontinental Railroad in the US, as unskilled, underpaid, and abused immigrant laborers, and
2. The striking difference between the way that the US has used the railroad to exert dominance over its region and the way that China is attempting to do so now.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the United States and the UK both took on railroad projects in Latin America as a way to control transit and commerce in the region, and these projects were viewed as imperialist and exploitative, and were often poorly run. Now, very few railroads exist south of the US, and the ones that do are generally inefficient and in a state of disrepair. Contrastingly, the high-speed rail projects that China is sponsoring in Thailand, Laos, and now Kazakhstan are seen almost as goodwill offerings to neighbors, and generally believed to be relatively inexpensive and technologically advanced projects with a high potential for success. This is a part of the Chinese public diplomacy philosophy striving for "a good-neighborly and friendly surrounding environment, and environment for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation, and an objective and friendly publicity environment," as President Hu Jintao explained in 2004.
Perhaps this is an example of meddlesome Westerm entrepreneurial endeavors that, through translation to a Chinese environment, have actually been improved and made more benevolent. Though I am certain the US will not be exporting any competitive rail technologies via Amtrak any time soon. Ahem.
For all of the thousands of you that subscribe to my commentaries both here and on Provincial Supertramp, you already know that I am a novice railroad historian and rail advocate. Yet, sadly, I had yet to find the occasion to incorporate my railfandom into my Public Diplomacy discussions, until now. In a near miraculous confluence of various seemingly unassociated subjects, I have managed to find a Mark Twain quotation that deals with the Chinese, the railroad, and can even be applied to the modern development of Chinese public diplomacy strategies. It is from a news commentary called "CHINESE RAILROAD OBSTRUCTIONS," from The San Francisco Daily Morning Call, on August 30, 1864.
"The Chinese in this State are becoming civilized to a fearful extent. One of them was arrested the other day, in the act of preparing for a grand railroad disaster on the Sacramento Valley Railroad. If these people continue to imbibe American ideas of progress, they will be turning their attention to highway robbery, and other enlightened pursuits. They are industrious."
This may seem like it does not have so much to do with public diplomacy, until you read about a recent project that has been dubbed by Western journalists as "Chinese railway diplomacy." This concept interested me because of two historic comparisons:
1. The role of the Chinese in helping to build the Transcontinental Railroad in the US, as unskilled, underpaid, and abused immigrant laborers, and
2. The striking difference between the way that the US has used the railroad to exert dominance over its region and the way that China is attempting to do so now.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the United States and the UK both took on railroad projects in Latin America as a way to control transit and commerce in the region, and these projects were viewed as imperialist and exploitative, and were often poorly run. Now, very few railroads exist south of the US, and the ones that do are generally inefficient and in a state of disrepair. Contrastingly, the high-speed rail projects that China is sponsoring in Thailand, Laos, and now Kazakhstan are seen almost as goodwill offerings to neighbors, and generally believed to be relatively inexpensive and technologically advanced projects with a high potential for success. This is a part of the Chinese public diplomacy philosophy striving for "a good-neighborly and friendly surrounding environment, and environment for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation, and an objective and friendly publicity environment," as President Hu Jintao explained in 2004.
Perhaps this is an example of meddlesome Westerm entrepreneurial endeavors that, through translation to a Chinese environment, have actually been improved and made more benevolent. Though I am certain the US will not be exporting any competitive rail technologies via Amtrak any time soon. Ahem.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Sport Diplomacy: Quelling tensions between India and Pakistan, but not Boston and New York
Even though I don't understand a thing about cricket, I've actually been pretty interested in it for the past week. Last Monday I started an internship, and one of my co-workers has been talking about the India-Pakistan match, and how it's a monumental occasion. Being an avid baseball fan (I don't even want to talk about the Red Sox right now, I'm not going there, it's not starting off well), I'm interested. I mean, cricket is theoretically comparable to baseball....kind of...no, no, not really.
Sport diplomacy. It's a concept that I think is brilliant and I want to learn more about. Every two years during the Olympics there's a sense of international warmth and goodwill for a few weeks - it's hard not to notice. Sports transcend language, culture, and politics and can bring together enemies and/or those with whom a society may have nothing in common - save for the love of a sport and the common experience that goes with it, whether participating or just being a fan.
Obviously, sport diplomacy can ease tensions and put more lighthearted spirit on serious disagreements between nations. But, as mentioned in the blog post I linked to, it can be an effective tool of public diplomacy on a grassroots level as well, by putting people on an even playing field (pun very much intended). Instinct says that sport diplomacy would place more emphasis on competition, but in reality it's the simpler things in life that serve to bond people across borders and cultures.
Nation Branding: Where to Begin?
The idea of nation-branding was not an easy concept for me to understand. With anything, albeit is a product or a nation, there is that one word that pops into your mind, and is most likely to influence your perception. For example, Switzerland evokes "neutral", which leads me to see them as peaceful moderators. And even though world perception of America is not at its highest, many wouldn't argue the concepts of "freedom" or "democracy" that might come to mind as being a bad thing.
So how does a nation form its brand? That seems to be the hard part. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone. In "The Importance of National Reputation," Simon Anholt pretty much debunks the myth that private-sector marketing techniques can influence brands. This creates a kind of conundrum, because isn't that the point of marketing, to brand? But Anholt describes nation brands as something much more stable, and something that must be earned. He states that this can be difficult, since we like to keep to stereotypes at all costs and resist change.
Anholt proposes what he calls "Competitive Identity", which is pretty much a plan of nation branding that goes beyond just communication to encompass both the private and government sectors, including foreign policy, cultural products, exchanges, the media, and tourism. Anholt believes it is important for the country to promote a "clear, truthful narrative" of what the country is about. This is ideal, but sounds rather difficult to implement.
What seems to be at the root of the nation branding phenomenon is the "acting what you preach" in the name of your desired brand. A brand is only enforced by the actions behind it, what the world percieves of said country. While this seems a daunting task, it's not impossible. However it does entail cooperation between various sectors to enforce specific values, and to ensure that these are communicated in the intended way to foreign audiences. Which as we all know, is a daunting task.
So how does a nation form its brand? That seems to be the hard part. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone. In "The Importance of National Reputation," Simon Anholt pretty much debunks the myth that private-sector marketing techniques can influence brands. This creates a kind of conundrum, because isn't that the point of marketing, to brand? But Anholt describes nation brands as something much more stable, and something that must be earned. He states that this can be difficult, since we like to keep to stereotypes at all costs and resist change.
Anholt proposes what he calls "Competitive Identity", which is pretty much a plan of nation branding that goes beyond just communication to encompass both the private and government sectors, including foreign policy, cultural products, exchanges, the media, and tourism. Anholt believes it is important for the country to promote a "clear, truthful narrative" of what the country is about. This is ideal, but sounds rather difficult to implement.
What seems to be at the root of the nation branding phenomenon is the "acting what you preach" in the name of your desired brand. A brand is only enforced by the actions behind it, what the world percieves of said country. While this seems a daunting task, it's not impossible. However it does entail cooperation between various sectors to enforce specific values, and to ensure that these are communicated in the intended way to foreign audiences. Which as we all know, is a daunting task.
Monday, March 28, 2011
When Diplomacy Fails
On Monday night, President Barack Obama addressed the country on the coalition military campaign in Libya. Although the US is working in coordination with other nations to enforce a UN Security Council authorized no-fly zone and will transfer control of the mission to NATO Wednesday, Obama, and the US in general, have come under much criticism for getting involved in yet another military campaign in yet another Arab country. The president's speech was intended to to quell public and Congressional concerns over the military action. Any presidential speech of the sort is a monologue, or one-way communication from the Commander-in-Chief to the people, foreign and/or domestic. As we have discussed in class, there is a place for monologue in diplomacy, however it cannot be the only form of diplomacy. Dialogue and collaboration help round out diplomatic efforts and create more understanding and better partnerships.
This speech was intended to be a "soft power" response to the "hard power" action the US and its NATO allies have recently begun in Libya. It acknowledged that "publics" matter and "public opinions" matter as Obama outlined the case for intervention in Libya. The president reaffirmed the American values that led the country into this fight, stating, "To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." (source: NPR transcript) He also emphasized that the allies had only turned to military hard power after traditional diplomatic measures of intervention had failed and especially stressed that the US was working in collaboration with the other NATO forces.
This entire situation seems to have been brought about by globalization, as Copeland outlines in his article. He says "By subverting repressive, authoritarian structures, it [globalization] contributes to liberating political change, even as its tendency to sharpen economic inequalities undermines the delicate social contract upon which all representative institutions ultimately depend,” (100). This would be the impetus for the uprisings in Libya. In addition he states that dialogue "cannot flourish in the absence of a commitment to development or in a violent climate where large-scale and generalized insecurity is treated mainly by the application of force," (101). This would be consistent with Ghadafi's reaction toward any sort of rebellion. Progress for both (or really either) side cannot be achieved until non-violent means of change and development are adopted.
However, Copeland does not provide much hope for traditional diplomacy. While he states that historically diplomacy has at times been effective in preventing these incidents, "The widespread presence of conflict, a reliance on hard power and threats, the militarization of international policy and the growing number of unresolved global issues all testify to diplomacy's failings," (98), which is what has occurred in Libya. Ghadafi's continued defiance of the international community have led to NATO's military involvement in Libya's crisis.
Despite these arguments maligning hard power and traditional diplomatic efforts, it is difficult to see what else (if anything) could have been done in the diplomatic realm or through public diplomacy in order to quell this conflict. In spite of the progress made in diplomatic theory and practice, including building up soft power and sustainability, sometimes it seems there is no alternative to hard power interventions as had occurred in Libya (other than just doing nothing). At least this time the US acted collaboratively.
This speech was intended to be a "soft power" response to the "hard power" action the US and its NATO allies have recently begun in Libya. It acknowledged that "publics" matter and "public opinions" matter as Obama outlined the case for intervention in Libya. The president reaffirmed the American values that led the country into this fight, stating, "To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." (source: NPR transcript) He also emphasized that the allies had only turned to military hard power after traditional diplomatic measures of intervention had failed and especially stressed that the US was working in collaboration with the other NATO forces.
This entire situation seems to have been brought about by globalization, as Copeland outlines in his article. He says "By subverting repressive, authoritarian structures, it [globalization] contributes to liberating political change, even as its tendency to sharpen economic inequalities undermines the delicate social contract upon which all representative institutions ultimately depend,” (100). This would be the impetus for the uprisings in Libya. In addition he states that dialogue "cannot flourish in the absence of a commitment to development or in a violent climate where large-scale and generalized insecurity is treated mainly by the application of force," (101). This would be consistent with Ghadafi's reaction toward any sort of rebellion. Progress for both (or really either) side cannot be achieved until non-violent means of change and development are adopted.
However, Copeland does not provide much hope for traditional diplomacy. While he states that historically diplomacy has at times been effective in preventing these incidents, "The widespread presence of conflict, a reliance on hard power and threats, the militarization of international policy and the growing number of unresolved global issues all testify to diplomacy's failings," (98), which is what has occurred in Libya. Ghadafi's continued defiance of the international community have led to NATO's military involvement in Libya's crisis.
Despite these arguments maligning hard power and traditional diplomatic efforts, it is difficult to see what else (if anything) could have been done in the diplomatic realm or through public diplomacy in order to quell this conflict. In spite of the progress made in diplomatic theory and practice, including building up soft power and sustainability, sometimes it seems there is no alternative to hard power interventions as had occurred in Libya (other than just doing nothing). At least this time the US acted collaboratively.
Dance dance revolution?
I do not claim to be a connoisseur of folk dances of the world, or even a regular partaker in dance related activities, but even I was unable to fuse an invitation to see a pan-Turkic dance exposition last night at the Lincoln Theater. Türksoy, the International Organization of Turkic Culture*, was hosting a very interesting celebration of Nevruz, a 5,000 year old festival celebrated in Eurasia each year to commemorate the coming of spring "as well as the values love, fraternity, sharing, peace and friendship."** What does dance have to do with public diplomacy and competitive identity? Let us ask our dear friend Mark Twain. In 1862 he said that dancing "has a charming and bewildering effect. You catch glimpses of a confused and whirling multitude of people, and above them a row of distracted fiddlers extending entirely around the room. The waltz and the polka are very exhilarating--to use a mild term--amazingly exhilarating." Virtually every culture on this planet can boast of their charming folk dances, which, when performed, fill one with awe over the talent of the dancers, the intricacy and individuality of the costumes, and the traditional societal roles that they exemplify. A mesmerizing show of the traditional dances of a culture that you have either negative inclinations toward or have simply never heard of take important steps toward reshaping your views toward that country.
Anholt described the six aspects of competitive identity as tourism, brands, culture, investment, policy, and people. While a cultural expo may not relate directly to brands and investment, it does a great job of highlighting the attractive aspects of a culture and people, and paves the way for increased tourism. These effects are especially important for many of the countries that participated in the exposition last night, as many are newly independent, unknown, and have rarely benefitted from positive publicity. As Socrates observed, ‘the way to achieve a better reputation is to endeavour to be what you desire to appear’ and what better way to improve your reputation than to show the world a celebration of the rich, diverse cultures within your region? There were over twenty performances, but the following were some of the most impressive to me:
One dance was a solo performed by a woman in an ethereal white costume that made her look like a swan with two heads. She used an indescribable technique that made it appear as if her arms had hundreds of tiny joints, and wowed the audience with her seemingly effortless wrist-flicking and fluttering.
By far the weirdest number involved five women in long, shiny brocade robes with sleeves twice as long as the arms within them. They swayed about to thunderous techno accompaniment, pointing at all corners of the theater with their ridiculous sleeves and looking smugly at the audience and each other. I did not like these dancers, nor the country from whence they came.***
My favorite performance was a breathtaking instrumental piece. Three young women in strange feathered hats played wooden guitars that combines strumming, plucking, and slapping techniques, and also employed very dramatic hand and arm flourishes, including one point where they all played the instrument of the girl beside them!
Many of the performers came from countries or regions to which I had never given a single thought, and now that the only thing I know of them is that they create complex and beautiful sounds and move their bodies in unbelievable ways, and now I want to visit all of these places and learn about more of their folk festivals and ancient traditions. And, if I ever meet someone from Uzbekistan, I will instantly be able to make a connection with them based on the fancy footwork of her countrypeople. And when I go abroad, I will be sure to dance a rousing waltz or polka.
NOTES:
*The organization was founded in 1992 with the lofty goals of promoting friendship among Turkic speaking nations, developing common culture, and transmitting histories, languages, and cultures to future generations. As Turkey is the host country and Türksoy's official language is Turkish, it seems to be a great tool for reinforcing Turkish influence in the region.
**According to the three Architectural Digest sized informative brochures we were given when we arrived, which offered us technicolor spreads about the performers from Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey, as well as fantastic sounding places like Bashkortostan, Gaugazia, and Tatarstan.
***For the sake of international friendship and diplomacy, I will not name the country in question here, not only because I cannot remember which it was.
Anholt described the six aspects of competitive identity as tourism, brands, culture, investment, policy, and people. While a cultural expo may not relate directly to brands and investment, it does a great job of highlighting the attractive aspects of a culture and people, and paves the way for increased tourism. These effects are especially important for many of the countries that participated in the exposition last night, as many are newly independent, unknown, and have rarely benefitted from positive publicity. As Socrates observed, ‘the way to achieve a better reputation is to endeavour to be what you desire to appear’ and what better way to improve your reputation than to show the world a celebration of the rich, diverse cultures within your region? There were over twenty performances, but the following were some of the most impressive to me:
One dance was a solo performed by a woman in an ethereal white costume that made her look like a swan with two heads. She used an indescribable technique that made it appear as if her arms had hundreds of tiny joints, and wowed the audience with her seemingly effortless wrist-flicking and fluttering.
By far the weirdest number involved five women in long, shiny brocade robes with sleeves twice as long as the arms within them. They swayed about to thunderous techno accompaniment, pointing at all corners of the theater with their ridiculous sleeves and looking smugly at the audience and each other. I did not like these dancers, nor the country from whence they came.***
My favorite performance was a breathtaking instrumental piece. Three young women in strange feathered hats played wooden guitars that combines strumming, plucking, and slapping techniques, and also employed very dramatic hand and arm flourishes, including one point where they all played the instrument of the girl beside them!
Many of the performers came from countries or regions to which I had never given a single thought, and now that the only thing I know of them is that they create complex and beautiful sounds and move their bodies in unbelievable ways, and now I want to visit all of these places and learn about more of their folk festivals and ancient traditions. And, if I ever meet someone from Uzbekistan, I will instantly be able to make a connection with them based on the fancy footwork of her countrypeople. And when I go abroad, I will be sure to dance a rousing waltz or polka.
NOTES:
*The organization was founded in 1992 with the lofty goals of promoting friendship among Turkic speaking nations, developing common culture, and transmitting histories, languages, and cultures to future generations. As Turkey is the host country and Türksoy's official language is Turkish, it seems to be a great tool for reinforcing Turkish influence in the region.
**According to the three Architectural Digest sized informative brochures we were given when we arrived, which offered us technicolor spreads about the performers from Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey, as well as fantastic sounding places like Bashkortostan, Gaugazia, and Tatarstan.
***For the sake of international friendship and diplomacy, I will not name the country in question here, not only because I cannot remember which it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)