Throughout the 2000s, China emphasised soft power in its interactions and relations with the world. This manifested in numerous international festivals, art exhibitions and cultural performances, a network of Confucius Institutes, the popularity of Chinese language and culture classes, and an expansion of international television and radio broadcasting, among other initiatives. Amid growing concerns that China is pursuing its interests more assertively and becoming less tolerant of critical voices abroad, however, we may wonder whether China has abandoned its soft power strategy. Answering this question requires an understanding of the nature of power and China’s view of it.
The nature of power
Each country has a range of tangible and intangible power resources that it can use to pursue its goals in world politics. This can be done through coercion, inducement or attraction. Coercion means using power resources to force or threaten others, inducement means using power resources to reward or pay others, and attraction means using power resources to charm, persuade or co-opt others to act in ways that result in a country’s goals being achieved. Joseph Nye coined the term soft power to describe the use of attraction in world politics, defining it as “getting others to want the outcomes that you want.” Any power resource, ranging from the military to culture, can conceivably be used in this manner.
China’s view of power
A key to understanding China’s view of power and its use is the concept of comprehensive national power. This is the idea that a country must possess a full spectrum of power resources – economic, military, scientific, technological, political, cultural, natural – if it is to become a truly great power. Having comprehensive national power allows a country to choose which resource(s) to use in a particular situation and whether to use them for coercion, inducement or attraction.
China’s focus on soft power
Soft power received much attention because it was seen as an area where China was lagging behind. Former president Hu Jintao, for example, said at the 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that China needed to build its soft power to become a powerful and successful country, and highlighted culture as an important resource for doing so. Later, in 2014, president Xi Jinping said, “We should increase China’s soft power, give a good Chinese narrative, and better communicate China’s message to the world.” China’s soft power strategy also encompasses trade, aid and investment activities intended to make it more attractive. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an obvious example.
Soft power is not suitable for all purposes and any country would be foolish to rely solely on it
Today, investment in soft power continues apace, with China expert David Shambaugh estimating China spends US$10 billion per year on its various initiatives. Official support for soft power remains high, too, with the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020) stating that China needs to continue to grow its soft power.
However, as the concept of comprehensive national power shows, it is just one tool in China’s toolkit. After all, soft power is not suitable for all purposes and any country would be foolish to rely solely on it. As Nye says in his book The Future of Power, “soft power is not the solution to all problems.” China’s interests are rapidly expanding across the world and it is to be expected that China will encounter situations in which it determines soft power is not the solution. In other words, just because China does some things which are decidedly in the realms of coercion and inducement, doesn’t mean it has given up on soft power altogether.
Pushback against China
This is not to say China’s choices about how it uses its power resources are always legitimate or well-received by other countries. Indeed, China needs to be mindful that relying too heavily on coercion and inducement can easily undermine its efforts to build and use soft power. Some of China’s recent activities fall into this category, including attempts to influence policy and public opinion in Australia through donations to political parties and grooming candidates for local elections, island building in the South China Sea, and naval deployments in the Indian Ocean.
Such activities have resulted in negative reactions to China in various parts of the world. Australia has proposed foreign interference laws and is reviving the quadrilateral security dialogue together with the US, Japan and India. Japan is considering expanding the capabilities of its defense force and the US’s National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy are largely aimed at curtailing and countering China’s influence. At the recent Munich Security Conference, several prominent European leaders were also critical of the BRI, seeing it as a challenge to the Western liberal world order.
Ironically, the failure of coercive means to achieve China’s goals and concerns over the detrimental effects of negative views of China, were important factors in China’s decision to pursue soft power. China may well come to the same conclusion again.
"To flourish as a successful global power, China will have to first learn global responsibilities"
Agreed. One of such global responsibility is to foster sovereign independence on behalf of smaller nations under the dominance of regional hegemons, such as the small South Asia nations living in fear of India.
With Xi making himself a permanent/ indefinite leader China will further go down with their economically harebrained Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the complete lack of economic analyses and looks far less grounded in economic or political reality. Being a global actor and global power is different. China is a global actor as it is but not yet fully influential on the events of other nations. It has a wide presence but a shallow global impact including in south asia. China is only one of the emerging powers of the world and its power is partial. To flourish as a successful global power, China will have to first learn global responsibilities. China must not to forget, the harder the authoritarianism, the closer its decline.
Ever since Mao declared "the rise of Chinese on their feet" in 1949, the campaign of derogation in the media against China started in the US, urbanizing names such as "chicom", "Red China Monsters", etc. in the minds of people wherever US media has sway, which in those days were of course everywhere. This is classical ‘demonization’; it rendered millions of ill-informed common folks to despise or even ‘hate’ Chinese albeit most of them can’t even point to China on a map. Political events within China in the 50’s and 60’s, with added westerm exaggerations and spins, further enhanced China’s nefarious image in people’s consciousness.
After Mao’s passing, China felt it has a ‘soft power’ deficit. When China’s economic strength rose to a level that it wanted to reach out to the rest of the world, in trades as well as in economic aids, it thought a ‘charm offensive’ was necessary to offset the prevailing negative sentiment against it and thus tried to introduce the pleasant side of its culture to the world, in addition to heaping hospitalities upon counterparts they interact with. Confucius Institutes are meant to be friendship bridges, not brainwashing tools. Cultural gifts and pleasantries are meant to please, not to bribe. However, perhaps they executed poorly or perhaps the set-minds are not so easily reverted, China’s efforts are now viewed as sinister manipulations of an evil entity, at least so in the minds of people such as Mr. Gil. !
I wish China’s leadership be less insecure. Apiori mindsets are ingrained over time, and it would take time to revert. China dosen’t have to bent over backwards to please the world. The world will see China’s nature in contrast to that of the west (as the USA examplies) over time. Just do what is right, which are ‘charming in and of themselves’, and let the world appreciate the end results on their own.
The day China abandons soft power is the day it goes rogue like the US, changing regimes that it doesn’t like, promoting colour revolutions, sowing discord in the Middle East, imposing trade sanctions, setting up hundreds of bases around the world and demanding that its system of government be replicated. Till then, let’s pay more attention to that rogue country in the here and now that can’t stop going to war over ersatz humanitarian causes. The more they war, the more humane they feel.
Jeffrey, an interesting article but I think there is quite a bit of hubris in Australia about just how important Australia is in the scheme of things. Your PM (well mine as well even though I am no longer eligible to vote) has greatly exaggerated the current Government’s attempt to facilitate relations between China and Australia.
However, your point about "soft power" is relevant but let me provide one example: My friend – a deputy mayor of a moderately sized NZ city – related to me how the Chinese wooed elected representatives, community leaders, the business community, and some academics – with a very well scripted evening (fine food, excllent wine, and cultural troupe from Shanghai (although the latter were fairly "creative" with their appearance) – compared to a visitation from Trump’s newly appointed ambasssador who went on ad-infinitum about New Zealand not pulling its weight and hiding behind Australia and the US (except for the "Five Eyes" arrangements) and had nothing to offer except stale sandwiches and medicoce filter coffee. The conclusion: the Chinese "outpissed" the Americans by a long way.
I think it would be prudent to see China through the eyes of those people who reside in countries other than Australia and then compare and contrast with the US and its erstwhile alies, including of course Australia.