There is no question over Chinas embracing of public diplomacy and soft power specifically. As a rapidly developing country, they are resource dependent and their image and then relationship with other countries is extremely important.
Therefore, I’m curious if aid can be considered a source soft power. Rising donor China interrupted the Wests’ game plan in the developing world. China has engaged not only within Asia but has sought after Africa as well as Latin America. China became a new alternative for developing countries instead of always turning to the west.
Chinas opening of its doors and economic rise lead them to be the worlds second-largest economy, has allowed for China to interact within the developing world and challenge so called “donor actions”. China has become a new source of finance in developing countries especially those in Africa.
And just like any other donor nations, Chinas engagement in Africa and other developing countries has been condemned by some and looked up to by others. Leaders of developing nations like those in Africa were almost uniformly positive about the benefits of Chinas embrace. For example, the Zambian President has noted that the Chinese government has brought a lot of development to their countries. Chinese aid and economic cooperation programs emphasized mutual benefit.
In my opinion, aid does seem like a form of soft power. One of the problems noted by Yiwei Wang in Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power, is that Chinese culture is too specific to be understood correctly by foreigners , hence aid (money) could be argued to be understood by all(258). Thoughts??
I highly recommend checking out Professor Deborah Brautigam's blog
ReplyDelete(http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/) and reading her recent book, The Dragon's Gift, for an engaging and thorough examination of this topic. I'm in her class this semester in addition to Public Diplomacy. The blending of the lines between China's public diplomacy and aid development policies are important and warrant careful attention. As I've commented in my own blog postings, China gets such bad press due to cultural misunderstanding. But it does seem very apparent that by conducting aid and development projects in Africa and Latin America, China is (literally) banking on the fact that it will increase its soft power and improve its public diplomacy strategies for the long-term.
Good suggestions Jessica. I was actually in her class last semester and did read The Dragon's Gift. My opinion of the situation did change after reading her book, however I continue to change my mind about what I think about the situation. You are right, China gets such a bad rep for their aid or how some people note it 'rouge aid.' But I think aid is proving to be a good form of public diplomacy and it is helping some communities.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
Though I have not taken Professor Brautigam's course, I agree that China's aid can be a form of soft power and contribute to what they aspire to be a "peaceful rise," but only from the point of view of countries receiving the aid. However, when discussing China's aid and considering the implications of what it all means, those who are perhaps the least involved in the discussion are the receiving countries themselves. After all, the discourse on public diplomacy and soft power is dominated by the West, so China's aid resonates beyond the countries receiving it, and not necessarily in a positive way. This is reflective of the Chinese misconception that national strength is positively correlated to national image. Where China thinks its actions will engender respect, Wang notes that "ironically, the world, for its part, has now broadened its concern over the rise of China to focus on its mounting soft, as well as hard, power" (Wang, 2008, p. 158).
ReplyDeleteA country that uses foreign aid to improve its image needs to mindful of the image it portrays to the international community, and not just the country receiving it. For South Korea (our group's country case study), being perceived as a giver of development aid is a positive improvement for its image, as it was historically a recipient of aid. Korea wants to be recognized as a development success story, to the point where they are now on the giving end, making them a peer of developed industrialized nations, and being perceived as a legitimate world power. I would argue that aid is not necessarily conducive to a grand strategy of public diplomacy for China, or other countries that already have strong hard power reputations, because it only renders the international community more suspicious of possible ulterior motives through soft power tactics.
It seems like a double edged sword in China's case; where aid is helping China's image in developing Africa and Latin America, but at the same time it comes off as suspicious and manipulative from the US or international point of view. To counter the "China threat" and hegemonic discourse, China should expand on its cultural exchange programs and improve media diplomacy, which will also serve to foster a better understanding of Chinese culture.