As the unassuming title to this post conveys, China's soft power has taken yet another hit as we've moved from toys to formula to pet food to housing. I guess people really aren't joking when they say that EVERYTHING is made in China, eh?
Here's the retort from the article linked above, unfortunately for the company based in Tianjin (which has Knaupf in the title, but I guess we won't blame certain countries located in Europe who seem to be operating in China under the relaxed regulations...I wonder if that figures in the profit margin at all...yes, I am laying it on pretty thick here), this retort comes after several paragraphs of product bashing and complaints from Americans in the Southeast U.S.:
Dr. Phillip Goad, a toxicologist hired by Knaupf Plasterboard Tianjin, sampled drywall from 25 homes, some that contained the company's wallboard and some that did not.
"The studies we have performed to date have identified very low levels of naturally occurring compounds," Goad said. "The levels we have detected do not present a public health concern. The chemicals are naturally occurring. They're produced in ocean water, in salt marsh air, in estuaries."
I want to make two points on China's soft power here:
First, this is an excellent example of how China is actually where U.S. and other "developed" countries were during their phases of rapid industrialization - in both cases the countries grew bigger than their breeches. One can look up many an article/book by the likes of Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis, Ida Tarbell, and Ray Stannard Baker to see this point. So, long-term, they'll be fine as the pressures increase due to the soft power goals - they can also turn this into a positive domestically by citing it as an instance of outsiders trying to degrade and berate China - push them to greater regulation as they become weary of these instances.
Second, there are many countries where the external efforts of China's soft power strategy have back-fired significantly. In Africa, for instance, there are instances where governments have signed deals with the Chinese government for loans and other assistance to expand information communication technologies, build roads and other infrastructure, and even to build soccer stadiums and other higher profile building projects. This often plays out in the press coverage as China making in-roads that are under-cutting the U.S. and other power players. On the flip side, though, I would venture for discussion that the domestic reception of China is not very positive in many of these places. In Sierra Leone, the Chinese employers are widely criticized for poor treatment of local employees. Further, there are several shady aspects to many deals that give Chinese interests advantages in the local economy that are not mutually beneficial at face value or after digging through the weeds of some of the deals.
Concluding Remarks:
In sum, China is where the U.S. used to be in many ways and has a lot of promise for being a major power on the international stage. I would caution, though, that the Chinese, for better or for worse, are not taking many lessons learned from how the U.S. arrived where it is today to avoid ending up in many of the same predicaments. I predict a significant say-do gap for China (already there in many ways) and an immense set of population pressures that the U.S. does not have to deal with. China is rising, but it will have a longer way to fall when it trips up. Speculating, just speculating.
Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan recently unveiled the new Japanese economic stimulus plan and said that one area he wants to focus on is in capitalizing on Japan's soft power and hopes to create a large number of jobs in the anime and manga industry.
TOKYO (AFP) — Japan's manga and anime heroes could come to the rescue of the recession-hit economy, Prime Minister Taro Aso, an avid fan of the country's cartoons, said in a speech Thursday.
"The word 'manga' has entered the global lexicon... Japan has materials that attract consumers around the world such as animation, games, fashion -- so-called 'Japan Cool'," the conservative premier told a press conference.
As the world's number two economy is struggling with its deepest post-war recession, Aso said the government could facilitate overseas exports of manga, video games, fashion and other "soft power" cultural products.
"Many Japan-based fashion magazines enjoy top-level popularity" in the Chinese market, said the 68-year-old premier.
"By linking the popularity of Japan's 'soft power' with business, we wish to grow it into a major industry worth 20-30 trillion yen (200-300 billion dollars) and create 500,000 new jobs by 2020," he said in a speech.
Known for his sometimes gruff manner, Aso has sought to soften his image in recent years by casting himself as a Japanese "otaku" -- someone whose hobby borders on obsession -- by praising manga.
While this may seem like a good idea, it also runs counter to the trends that are occurring in the industry. Increased domestic production does not mean increased foreign consumption as you have to deal with licensing and distribution issues in your foreign markets.
The new Quentin Tarantino movie “Inglorious Basterds” will start in theaters in August 2009. The film sets in Nazi-occupied France during World War II. A group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis.
While watching the trailer I started thinking about the impact this Hollywood movie can have on the German public. Given the sharp tone throughout the film, I am sure that some, if not many, Germans will be offended by the way the film depicts the German culture.
Please don’t get me wrong, I do not intend to downplay any aspect of the cruel genocide. However, I feel that the film does not make a clear distinction between the Germans in general and “Nazis.” To my impression both terms are used interchangeably throughout the trailer and I am sure that the German audience will not respond well to this fact.
The film was already a great deal of discussion in 2008 when Quentin Tarantino and his Hollywood actors including Brad Pitt were in Berlin shooting the film and a part of the script leaked. The media were debating whether today’s Germany is already ready for this kind of depiction of the past. I don’t think so. Even the youngest generation, who only learns about the Third Reich in history class, still is confronted with prejudices and stereotypes when traveling to other countries. A film like Tarantino’s reinforces these stereotypes and helps them to survive.
From a public diplomacy perspective, I think that Hollywood movies, no matter how praised the directors are, definitely impact the way foreign audiences think about the US, especially if they are dealing with such a delicate issue. The impacts might not inverse a positive impression into a negative one; however, the images remain in the heads of the public – at least for a short period of time. Of course, Germans will still look up to the US and dream about Route 66, New York and San Francisco, but there will be a damper on the positive image. Cultural sensibility might be the way out of this dilemma. And yet, it is questionable to what extend this is applicable, given that first and foremost Hollywood movies are tailored to the American culture.
I am interested in what you think. Do you think this film can impact the image Germany has of the US?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said that “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art.” It is only reasonable for nation states all around the globe to use art to engage in cultural diplomacy and promote intercultural understanding and long-term relationships.
The overwhelming potential of art as a means to build relationships lies in the medium itself. It is an innate way to express ideas in an universally-spoken language that enables every country to build a bridge to another country and exchange ideas.
China provides a recent example of how a country can take advantage of art in the context of cultural diplomacy. On March 25, METROPOLIS NOW! -- an exhibition by the Meridian International Center, in partnership with the National Art Museum of China (NAMOC) in Beijing, and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China -- will open in Washington, DC.
"METROPOLIS NOW! is a compelling selection of 52 paintings, sculptures, mixed media, and video installations by 31 artists. Their works address the enormous changes taking place in China’s cities – specifically, the major art centers of Beijing and Shanghai. Visitors to the exhibition will experience the implications of urbanization and globalization as seen through the eyes of these extraordinary artists." (Meridian International Center)
For the Chinese artists this exhibition is a tremendous opportunity to shape the image of the country as cultural diplomats and underscore the urban and modern facets of their country. At the same time the exhibition offers US citizens to experience first-hand Chinese culture.
The image or word that many have when Pakistan is mentioned is “terrorism.” That is due to the past and recent terrorist attacks that have been associated with the country ranging from the Mumbai attacks last year to the recent attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket players on Tuesday, March 3. The Guardian’s"Pakistan needs to take responsibility"raised cricket as a form of “soft power” in the South Asian region.
In a region where terror has tainted virtually everything, cricket has retained an enviable immunity, making the stadium an unlikely but reliable venue for what became known as "cricket diplomacy" between India and Pakistan.
Even in a region where discord is prevalent, cricket has allowed for cooperation among countries through the medium of sport competition.
Matches can turn ugly, but very often seemingly insurmountable tensions melt away by the time trophies are handed out, and touring spectators marvel at the hospitality of their hosts.
Due to other internal and external factors, cricket diplomacy is failing in Pakistan. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team will have a negative effect for future cricket matches.
This is a huge blow to Pakistan, because cricket was the one area where Pakistan engaged with the world on equal terms; it was the strongest weapon in Pakistan's soft power arsenal.
While this statement may be somewhat exaggerated, in the case of Pakistan, it demonstrates that external and internal factors can influence their soft power. This makes me wonder, what can a country turn to if its core soft power turns on itself? This case will likely depend on the government’s effort to find alternative forms of soft power, but some countries do not have that option. And if they do find alternatives, they might not produce the desired results. What, therefore, can Pakistan now turn to in its arsenal of soft power to engage meaningfully with its neighbors?
She says that “medical diplomacy presents the United States with the chance to reaffirm its commitment to humanitarianism and reawaken the spirit that once spawned the Peace Corps and USAID.”
Wexler outlines some of the advantages of medical diplomacy:
it can be applied both as a short-term or long-term strategy
it can help both to prevent conflict and assist in post-conflict reconstruction
"Healthy populations are able to work, cultivate food, and earn wages—all of which contribute to economic productivity and a functioning society. Conversely, disease is often born in conditions of poverty, festering in unsanitary sewage systems, overcrowded living quarters, and dilapidated housing structures."
But what exactly is medical diplomacy? Former health and human services secretary and chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, Tommy G. Thompson defines it in his 2005 Op-Ed for the Boston Globe:
Medical diplomacy is "the winning of hearts and minds of people in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere by exporting medical care, expertise, and personnel to help those who need it most."
Arguing that in the fight to end tyranny and the effort to spread democracy, Thompson states it is important that States such as the US apply all “weapons of freedom” to win. Medical diplomacy is one of those weapons.
Clinton remarked that she and her delegation had engaged in both government-to-government relations as well attending civil society gatherings and appearing on television shows.
And I really believe that it's that kind of outreach that we've got to do everywhere. Some settings are more susceptible than others, but there's a real hunger for the United States to be present again. I was so struck when the Secretary General at ASEAN said that he thought that the United States had just been absent. And showing up is not all of life, but it counts for a lot. And especially when you are the most powerful country in the world, if you're not paying attention, people are going to feel like somehow they're not important to you.
Her use of the term "susceptible" strikes me as a bit of wanting to have it both ways. To describe places as more susceptible than others seems to indicate a monologue, rather than dialogue, approach to public diplomacy which the target is to full or trick the receiving country into accepting the accepting US outreach. Yet, she goes on to remark how the US needs to rejoin the world table, pay attention to what the rest of the world's countries have to say, and general show the world that we care.
At the end of the remarks is where she really gets into her perception of soft power and the use of public diplomacy by the US.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Indira, I think that every one of those events had a much broader audience. Obviously, the Tokyo town hall was on Tokyo television. The program this morning is one of the most popular programs in Indonesia. And so everything that I do, which does connect with people who are receptive has ripple effects. And Andrea said something about public diplomacy. We haven't done a very good job. And we have such a great story to tell about who we are as Americans and what we believe in and our desire to help other people be empowered.
Some of you walked through that neighborhood with me, I mean the United States aid programs, paid for by American taxpayers, are hooking people up to clean water, for example. And it's the kind of incremental change that if properly explained and highlighted, can give meaning to what America is to people who may have no opinion or a slightly negative opinion. We are in a struggle over ideas. And one of the points that the civil society people were making to me last night is that Indonesia is going to turn into a real battleground for the future of democracy and Islam and women's rights. And we need to be there. We need to be supporting the forces within Indonesia who care deeply about all of those values.
And I think our failure to engage on that level going back years, partly because we didn't realize it was going on right underneath our noses, and then when we did, we didn't exactly connect with the right messages for people in a way that they accepted. So we've got a lot of work to do. I mean, I have no illusions about how high a hill we have to climb here to inspire confidence and respect in people's minds again.
But I have found that in not only my personal encounters, but in every public research survey I've ever read that anybody's ever done, that people still really want to like America and they want to know what we're doing and what we stand for.
And take Indonesia; because of the war in Iraq and some other things, the attitude of people in Indonesia toward the United States was very negative. And then the tsunami hit, and we helped. You know, the United States showed up. The Navy showed up with supplies. President Bush sent my husband and his father, and they were visibly there, and then Bill went back time and again. And all of a sudden, people said, "Oh, well, they don't need to do this, but here they are, they're helping." And favorability toward the United States went up.
I mean, in Africa, in some of the sub-Saharan countries, where the favorability toward the United States has remained high, it's because of President Bush's PEPFAR program, that "the United States is here to actually do something good for us." So this to me is what diplomacy is about, because it doesn't just operate, as I said, government-to-government; it operates people-to-people. And when every single person that I met with said to me they wanted more student exchanges so that Indonesian students could study in the United States, or the President would say, "I studied in the United States, "or the Secretary General of ASEAN said, "I was an AFS student," – you know, for a lot of people those were transformative events. And we kind of cut back on that and we made it very difficult for people to get visas after 9/11, and so instead of coming to the United States, ambitious students went elsewhere.
So we have to rethink this and try to get back on the track of reaching out and being inclusive and giving more people a chance to see who we are.
How do you think of Clinton's explanations of soft power, public diplomacy, and how the US utilized them in the past and should utilize them in the future?
The Correspondent has raised lots of questions which i believe many of us are interested in.
Nye sat down with The Hankyroeh’s Washington correspondent Ryu Jae-hoon after U.S. presidential election for an interview on his thoughts about the importance of “soft power,” a term he is credited for having coined in the late 1980s, and his expectations for Barack Obama’s presidency.
Ryu: I want to begin with Barack Obama’s foreign policy and vision for foreign policy. As I understand, you strongly supported Obama. Originally, you supported Hillary Clinton, but you later switched to supporting Obama. What made you change your mind? Which leadership characteristics and merits of leadership did you find in Obama?
Nye: Well, I originally supported Hillary Clinton during the primary because I knew her personally and I was impressed by her experience, and I worried that Obama did not have as much experience. But the way Obama ran his campaign impressed me and made me think that he would make a good president.
The election of Obama contributed to the elevation of the profile of the United States abroad. What do you think will be different about the Obama administration’s foreign policy?
A: Well, Obama, as the first African-American president, shows that the United States has the ability to overcome some of its deepest problems, like racism. And it’s a society that can recreate itself, the idea the son of an immigrant father could become president is rare in most societies. So I think that by itself will do a great deal to restore American soft power, which was damaged during the Bush administration.
How you met him? I heard you advised Obama
A: Well I’ve been a peripheral adviser. I haven’t been in the center circle of advisers, because I had started out as an adviser to Hillary Clinton. I was invited to be adviser to Obama but I couldn’t because I already told Hillary Clinton I would support her. But after the primaries were over, I did things to help Obama.
What advice did you give to Obama about the use of soft power? How much does he understand about soft power?
A: Well, I think he understands soft power very well without me. I mean, if you look at his behavior, the way he ran his campaign, he was fully knowledgeable about soft power. So I didn’t suggest that he use soft power, he did it himself.
You criticized the decline of soft power during the eight years of the Bush administration. What do you think was the Bush administration’s biggest mistake?
A: The biggest mistake was the Iraq War, which I think was a huge strategic blunder. But I think there was a bigger problem, which is even before the Iraq War, turning to unilateralism and not spending enough time working with our allies and our multilateral institutions.
President-elect Obama faces one of the most difficult foreign policy landscapes in history. For example, the financial crisis, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the war against terrorism, even the nuclear issues in Iran and North Korea. Some say the financial crisis was the start of the decline of American power. What do you think about that?
A: I think that’s not true. If the financial crisis was the start of the decline of American power, we would see the dollar declining, but the dollar has become stronger. I think one has to distinguish between the series of mistakes, which have undercut the particular Wall Street model, and the question of whether the American economy itself remains competitive and productive. I think the financial crisis is driving us into a recession, but after the recession the American economy will remain stronger than ever.
The financial crisis remains a priority for the Obama administration.
A: Well, it will certainly make it more difficult to have funds for some of the things that he wants, but it is worth noticing that, in the short run, the fact that you have a recession is going to mean you’re going to want deficit spending, which will relieve some of the pressure on the fiscal side. Because if there had been no recession, then the money spent on the financial crisis would mean there’s not much money for anything else. Because of the recession, you want deficit spending and that will free up some money.
What do you think the effects of the financial crisis on foreign policy will be?
A: Well, the effects will be complex. In some areas that require extra expenditure, that will become difficult. With the recession there is some danger that as unemployment increases, it will give rise to protectionism. On the other hand, one of the effects of the recession is the decline in the price of oil. The decline in the price of oil means less power for Russia, Iran and Venezuela. So there are mixed effects on foreign policy. Take, for example, Iran. When oil is $150 a barrel, sanctions against Iran do not hurt very much. When oil is $70, sanctions might begin to have more effect.
When we think about the foreign policy of a new administration, the person appointed as secretary of state is key to understanding the foreign policy of that administration. I’d like to know which of the candidates for Obama’s secretary of state has the best understanding of soft power and hard power.
A: Well, nobody knows who the appointee will be at this stage except Obama, but I hope he will make a major Republican appointment for bipartisan purposes. Among the people who’ve been talked about are people like Senator (Chuck) Hagel, or perhaps Secretary (Robert) Gates might stay in his position. I think both of these men have a clear understanding of soft power. For example, Secretary Gates said that the United States needs to spend more time and energy on soft power.
Q: Of the challenges Obama faces, one is the rise of China and the arrogance of Putin’s Russia. How do you expect Obama will manage relations with China and Russia?
A: Well, he’s spoken about the desire to have good relations with China and accepting the importance of Asia. And of course he has direct experience with Asia having lived in Indonesia as a child. So I think he will have interest in Asia and an interest in good relations with not just China, but also Japan and Korea as well. I think the major danger would come if the Chinese currency remains undervalued, and it leads to pressure on the jobs in the United States. That could put pressure on Obama in that direction. But on issues like Taiwan and the six-party talks on North Korea, I think Obama’s policies will look similar to those of the Bush administration.
Q: How about the relationship with Japan? The Bush administration considered the U.S.-Japan alliance the pillar of Asian policy.
A: Well, that’s been true before, that was true even during the Clinton administration. And after the Clinton-Hashimoto Declaration of ’96, the view was that good U.S.-Japan relations were the bedrock for post-Cold War East Asia, and I’ve often said that you have a triangle of relations in East Asia -- between the U.S., China and Japan -- and it’s important to have good relations in each leg of this triangle, but between the U.S. and Japan there is this formal alliance that doesn’t exist with China.
Q: What do you expect for the future of missile defense and the Proliferation Security Initiative, both of which the Bush administration has emphasized during the last eight years?
A: I think those will probably continue, I don’t think there will be a big change in that dimension. I think, for example, the joint research with Japan on AEGIS and regional ballistic missile defense will continue.
Q: On the issue of missile defense, Russia criticized U.S. intentions.
A: That’s different. That’s the European side, putting interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. That was more controversial, but I think in East Asia there will be less controversy about missile defense.
Q: Do you think South Korea has to join MD and the PSI in the future?
A: It’s up to South Korea, if they feel it’s good for them I think they’d be welcomed.
Q: I’d like to ask about the North Korea nuclear issue. It’s likely to be one of the headaches for Obama. The last time you visited South Korea, you recommended that the soft power of South Korea and the hard power of China could be used to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. Could you explain?
A: I think we need to continue the framework of the six-party talks. Within that framework China has a special role, it can cut off food and fuel supplies to North Korea if it needed to, and that gives it a lot of hard power. South Korea can provide an example of a successful society, which could be attractive to many North Koreans when they become more aware of it. So that’s what I meant when I said within the six-party framework, China has hard power and Korea has soft power.
Q: South Korea is medium-sized country, and it is geographically located between China and Japan. I think we Koreans need to encourage the use of soft power to survive. What do you recommend to Korean leaders and people?
A: Well (South) Korea is an enormous success story both economically and politically. The fact that you’ve been able to become the 12th largest economy in the world, and that you have a vibrant democracy, this is a huge success story which can be attractive to many people not just in East Asia, but around the world. And so getting the story out more is important.
Q: Regarding the nation-state as an actor in international politics, this year seems like a special year. In August the Georgian War laid out profound questions about multinational organizations like NATO, and after the financial crisis nation-states intensified the laws regulating banks. So is the increase in the role of the nation-state a temporary phenomenon?
A: Well, technology is giving more power to non-state actors all the time. For example, communications are now so cheap that non-state actors have capacities that were once reserved for governments or even multinational corporations. But government and state remain the most important actors in international politics. Because non-state actors are being empowered by technology, the stage is becoming more crowded. So the non-state actors will not replace the state actors, but will crowd the stage, and the nation-state will continue to be the most important actor.
Q: Even in the 21st century?
A: Yes.
Q: The world has high expectations for Obama. What kind of leader do you expect him to be?
A: I think he will probably try to act more multilaterally, working with other countries and international organizations. But I think he’s also careful to make sure that expectations don’t rise too high. If you look at his acceptance speech last Tuesday (November 4), he was very careful to dampen some expectations, which is a mark of good leadership.
Q: What foreign policy changes do you expect in the next few months?
A: Well, more multilateralism, more attention to global climate change, I think change in the position on the Geneva Conventions and Guantanamo, I think these changes will be the most obvious.
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
Considering that we were talking about soft power last class I find it rather interesting that Prof. Joseph Nye is rumored to be the next Ambassador to Japan. Nye is considered the originator of the term soft power and recently (1/15/09) gave an interview to the Yomiuri Shimbun about the state of the world and what challenges the world will face in the coming year.
Nye believes that the US will start emphasizing soft power more in the international realm.
On the international side, I think Obama will be important for restoring America's soft power, in a sense that his election makes the United States more attractive. But whether he can continue this will depend upon his policies, and his policies I think will be more multilateral than [President George W.] Bush's policies. And I think he will pay more attention to working closely with allies and international institutions.
I find interesting his comment that the US needs to see itself as a provider of global public goods to the entire world. Nye doesn't dismiss hard power, rather seeing the use of hard power as a necessity in certain situations.
[Q] What are the present national interests for the United States and how do you think the Obama administration should design its grand strategy?
[A] I think the U.S. should see itself as a provider of global public goods--things that are good for the U.S. but good for other countries as well.
So if you think about the analogy of Britain in the 19th century when it preserved freedom of the seas, that was good for Britain, but it was [also] good for other countries. And the United States has to play a similar role whether it's keeping open international markets or even taking the lead on issues such as climate change. I think these global public goods are going to be the central issue, or should be the central issue of American foreign policy and how we define our national interests.
It seems to me that to be able to fully provide global public goods, like freedom of the seas, the use of hard power is needed. The global response to the Somalian piracy situation by ramping up military and semi-military patrols in the area would be an example.
Posts
