The Diplomat speaks with Joshua Kurlantzick, author of ‘Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World’, about Chinese soft power diplomacy.
What kind of national image has China sought to project to the world through its cultural diplomacy that distinguishes it against other Asian nations?
I’m not sure China is trying to portray itself against other Asian nations, but I think it has used its soft power to boost its image compared to its own image of the past—its image in the 1970s and 80s and early 90s—as either disinterested in regional affairs or difficult and aggressive to deal with. Also, I think China has utilized its soft power and cultural diplomacy to try to create the idea, at least regionally, that it’s truly a good neighbour—that it shares values and heritage with its neighbours—and that the United States, in contrast, doesn’t.
What are the limits of China's soft power projections?
I think the limits of China’s soft power are where either they run up against China’s hard power ambitions—it can use its cultural diplomacy to try to win over Vietnam or the Philippines, but if Beijing then claims nearly the entire South China Sea, all the soft power in the world isn’t going to help—or when the soft power initiative runs up against its own limitations. For example, China’s ability to project its culture or its media is limited by the constraints on free expression within China itself.
How is China’s ‘no strings attached’ investment in Africa changing the way other states provide aid to Africa?
I think that, at times, China’s strategy of aid toward Africa, or other places like Cambodia, has pushed other donors to lessen their own standards on governance. I think Cambodia is a good example of this. That said, at times China also has worked with other donors and the broader international community.
Will the ‘legitimacy’ of China’s soft power be constrained by its policies toward Sudan, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea and Taiwan?
I think the ‘legitimacy’ of China’s soft power is constrained more by its own successes and failures at home, economically and politically, rather than by its relations with other nations. So, to the extent that its policies toward Tibet could be considered a failure at home, that may matter.
What type of rapprochement can China and Japan build through soft power mechanisms?
Obviously, the Sino-Japanese relationship is highly complex and fraught with all sorts of tensions, including economic tensions, political tensions, and tensions over history. Cultural diplomacy, person-to-person diplomacy, soft power—all of these things can help smooth over the Sino-Japanese relationship at times of trouble. That said, cultural diplomacy also at times has actually heightened tensions in the Sino-Japanese relationship, since both sides are very sensitive about certain issues related to cultural diplomacy, including issues related to history.
Joshua Kurlantzick is the author of 'Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World.' His work has appeared in publications including The New Republic, Time, The Atlantic and The New York Times. This interview was conducted by Sally Herd.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Leonard R.
There is no such thing as ’soft power’.
Soft-power is predicated on the potential use of force.
The necessary precondition is ‘fear’.
That is true of every example cited by the author.
For China to reconcile with its neighbors, they must fear
something worse than they fear China.
I think rapprochement between Japan & China is very possible,
if the PRC is willing to drop its paranoid grudge against the
Japanese people. Todays’ Japan is very different from what it was
in 1939.
But yesterday I read a fascinating story about Russia’s President
Mevedev welcoming the idea of disaster-affected Japanese moving into Siberia
to start over. That would be a brilliant stroke if it were to happen.
I wish America’s leaders had that kind of far-sighted vision.
Frank
Read some history book before commenting.
Chinese people has more problem with the behavior of Japanese in 1937.
In 1939, realizing they cannot win the war through troops, Japan was trying to win the hearts and minds of Chinese people like Americans are doing today.
Zheng Wei
I think it’s misguiding talk about China’s policies to Tibet and Taiwan as if China considers those as foreign countires. Especially in the case of Tibet, where China theoretically and practically controls.
Johnny
Interesting read. Though I find it amusing that “it can use its cultural diplomacy to try to win over Vietnam or the Philippines” Ahhhh, so by cultural diplomacy they mean arm twisting and warships?
“That said, cultural diplomacy also at times has actually heightened tensions in the Sino-Japanese relationship, since both sides are very sensitive about certain issues related to cultural diplomacy, including issues related to history.”
OR in layman’s words they aren’t going to let begone be bygones and act hostile toward Japan for what happened in WW-II and even WW-1 ! Japan, I agree with Leonard, is an very different country now and this type of attitude just shows immaturity of Chinese diplomats. They need to move on and focus on mutual growth rather than picking fights/disputes with every adjacent country.
Frank
As an Indian yourself, would you agree that Indians should also need to move on and focus on mutual growth rather than picking fights/disputes with every adjacent country?
You are right about warship is also part of the cultural diplomacy. Vietnamese sailors are actually on board of Chinese warships during every month “joint patrols” today.
The key point is that Chinese do not look down upon weaker players like Indians do.
China will treat all countries the same regardless if they are powerful or weak, large or small. China dare to fight larger countries and spare the smaller ones.
Ed
@Johnny and Leonard:
So a rape victim sees his/her assailant go free and after 40 years the assailant dies peacefully and the best advice you can give to the victim is to say “get over it”???
Rapproachment is very possible between China and Japan but it is an immature understanding of the Sino-Japanse relationship if you think that all that needs to happen is that China “gets over” WWII. There must also be a movement on the part of the Japanese people to recognize the atrocities done by the Japanese military during WWII (which to be fair has been accomplished in part) and more importantly some manner of concrete recompensation on the part of the Japanese government (that by definition is able to represent the governmental legacy of past regimes good or bad). Unlike in Germany, issues HAVE been left unresolved. Some examples are recognition of and compensation to the thousands if not tens or hundred of thousands “Comfort women” impressed by the Japanesse military, the recognition of the Nanjing massacre and the fact that such atrocities were replicateed all over China. Additional examples involve the use of prisoners of war as guinea pigs in biological warfare experiments. Post WWII, the perpetrators of these experiments escaped punishment and lived a comforatable life in Japan and died peacefully without any consequences.
To say that such events can best be forgotten and all should be forgiven is to have a serious misunderstanding of the power of memory particularly those that are comprised of sins unrepented. It also displays an appalling ignorance and an incomprehensible callousness toward Asia’s fast-dying victims (something certain elements of Japanese society and government would just love).
John Chan
India and Vietnam invaded China for their imperial aspiration; both of them were taught a lesson on how to behave properly in a peaceful neighbourhood, at the same time neither one of them has lost lands nor been occupied; I just wondered why Johnny and Leonard cannot advice Indian and Vietnamese bloggers “get over it” for the China’s punishment of their bad behaviour. Indian and Vietnamese bloggers whine and complain non-stop, don’t they realise that the punishment is a lesson they asked for it themselves?
Observer
@ John Chan
You said “……….India and Vietnam invaded China for their imperial aspiration”
Do you have any unbiased history sources to back your statement about Vietnam invaded China?
I do have several sources that say otherwise. Shall we make a deal, the loser in this debate will stop posting in this website forever?
John Chan
@Observer, your challenge is a disrespect of this site. This site raises important issues that need attention from this global community, bloggers from the world put in their two cents worth of thoughts to let people in different parts of the world know their points of view on the issues. Chinese bloggers are presenting their thoughts based on the history, and their background and experience. Chinese bloggers are here to expose the lies told about China, clear smear painted on China, and correct twisted facts about China. Your challenge is questioning the editorial integrity of this site; I cannot allow you to do that by treating this site as gambling pit. The editor of this site routinely removes comments they deemed beyond their criteria.
All western documentation about China (particular after 1949) needs to be taken with a grain of salt; citing your source is akin to using fabricated facts to prove that lies are truth. The heated arguments in this site are caused by those misleading western documentation about China.
After Vietnam-US war, the victorious and overconfident Vietnam, encouraged by the USSR, embarked on expansive military adventurism on the border between Vietnam and China; Vietnam claimed to recover lands illegally occupied by Chinese border villagers. China struck back after attempts had failed to persuade Vietnam to stop aggression. This is the documented fact in China.
Observer
China attacked Vietnam in 1979 and beaten by a much smaller Vietnam, again.
Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
rabauldevil
@Observer
“China attacked Vietnam in 1979 and beaten by a much smaller Vietnam, again.
Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
Do you even read your own URL posts? Because if you do then you would know that the wikipedia site doesn’t really support your statements.
Yes, China invaded Vietnam but it was not a situation of an unprovoked agression. The site clearly states that following Vietnam’s victory over the Americans (and their South Vietnamese allies) in 1975, the new Vietnamese regime became increasingly belligerent and started invading its neighbours in Laos and Cambodia. In addition they embarked upon a racially motivated policy of expelling their ethnic Chinese citizens (hence the origen of the “Boat People”) and also invaded the Sprately Islands (which was claimed by the PRC).
The Chinese invasion into Vietnam was a move to check these advances. True the war was bloody for the Chinese but it was also equally damaging to the Vietnamese (who had the advantage of superior Soviet equipment and recent war experience).
I don’t think in strict military terms, either side could claim victory.
However 20 years afterwards, Vietnam did accede to Chinese demands and the country did eventually withdraw from Cambodia. Plus, the Chinese forced the Soviets’ hand by demonstrating that the Russions would not lift a finger for their Vietnamese surrogates. I’d say the website is putting the ball firmly in China’s court.
Tim Teng
….I think the ‘legitimacy’ of China’s soft power is constrained more by its own successes and failures at home, economically and politically, rather than by its relations with other nations…
So true. For example,
1. MGM(i.e. Red Dawn 2) swapping out its movie ‘villains’ w/o China’s urging.
2. Google’s inability to divest itself from China.
3. Renault’s dropping of Chinese industrial-spying charge to protect its market.
Tian An
The memory of China’s Cultural Revolution and screaming mad Red Guards is still quite fresh in the minds of China’s neighbors, so the communist charm offensive isn’t gonna work anytime soon.