Public Diplomacy: Is America Outrun by China?
On the afternoon of March 5, during the fourth session of the 11th National Committee meeting, the Committee held a special press conference regarding public diplomacy. Spokesperson Zhao used a self-made diagram to explain China’s “public diplomacy.”
Beijing, Xinhua Web, March 15. According to an article in the Singaporean periodical Zaobao on March 14, Chinese public diplomacy has become a hot topic nationwide. In February, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar published a report entitled “Another U.S. Deficit — China and America — Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet.” During the Chinese Political Consultative Press Conference held in March, spokesperson Zhao interpreted Lugar’s report such that, even though China has made much progress regarding public diplomacy, it has not outrun the U.S. in that area. On the contrary, it still has a long way to go. I am very much of the same opinion.
The article is as follows:
Chinese public diplomacy became a hot topic during the Chinese National Committee meetings. During the meetings, there were many proposals as well as many suggestions from members. The media also made a variety of interpretations regarding China’s public communication skills. In the world’s view, how far has Chinese diplomacy moved forward? On Feb. 15, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar published a report, “Another U.S. Deficit — China and America — Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet,” which attempts to answer that question.
On March 2, at a press conference during the fourth session of the Chinese National Committee, Director of the National Committee Foreign Affairs Zhao Qizheng made an official interpretation of the Lugar report. He mentioned that the report was written by Lugar’s aide after participating in the National Committee foreign affairs meeting. In Zhao’s view, even though Chinese public diplomacy has improved dramatically, it still has a long way to go. Zhao concluded that “Chinese public diplomacy is not better that of the U.S.” and I cannot agree more.
Currently, there is a major gap between U.S. and Chinese public diplomacy. Specifically, China lacks a clear power structure in the public communication arena. It also needs to improve its methods of communicating with Western countries. Moreover, the participation from public and social media is far from adequate.
The biggest difference between Chinese and U.S. public diplomacy is that China’s system lacks a clear power structure in terms of public communication. This can easily lead to a waste of resources. U.S. public diplomacy, on the other hand, emphasizes efficiency. There are designated offices to handle public affairs. During the Cold War, though the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. organizations contributed to the country’s overall communications strategy, the United States Information Agency was responsible for shaping a positive image of the country through television, radio, press, publishing and other means of political propaganda.
In 1999, the Information Agency merged with the U.S. State Department. The State Department then set up a power structure to be responsible for public diplomacy and public affairs. This structure has coordinated between multiple parties, as well as to effectively communicate U.S. policies to the public. In addition, it should also be noted that the U.S. has sufficient funds in public diplomacy. In fiscal year 2010, the budget for public affairs in the U.S. State Department was about $12 billion. Over the years, the budget for U.S. public diplomacy in foreign affairs accounts for more than 10 percent of the total annual budget. It has been proven that in order to succeed in dealing with public affairs, strong economic support is required.
In the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, China used these opportunities to show its modernization. However, it mostly focused on the traditional culture aspects and did not advocate enough for modern Chinese development. It shows that China’s public diplomacy needs a clearer national identity.
The main purpose of China's public diplomacy is to show to the world that even as a large country, it is responsible and successful. China’s most important goal is to be in compliance with international rules. Therefore, Chinese public diplomacy should show the world that it is moving towards its goals. Another problem of Chinese public diplomacy is that input from the public is almost nonexistant. As a communicating activity targeted towards the public, public diplomacy requires a lot of participation from its constituents. As of now, civil society organizations’ involvement in public diplomacy is far from adequate. The input that the government receives is mostly from economic research centers. There are only a handful of research centers whose jobs are based on studying foreign affairs and international relations.
Public diplomacy needs a great deal of participation from the public. Individuals, as an invaluable asset, should take the initiative and become involved in the government’s public affairs. Individuals can provide a good reference for the government to make sound decisions by creating independent reports based on research. Many independent research centers contribute greatly to U.S. public diplomacy. For example, public diplomacy is one of the main focuses of the Brookings Institute’s work. It influences U.S. public diplomacy by inviting members of Congress to speak in seminars, publishing research reports, organizing public diplomacy seminars and establishing channels of communication with public officials, which is another aspect that China needs to learn from the U.S. regarding public diplomacy.
Beijing, Xinhua Web, March 15. According to an article in the Singaporean periodical Zaobao on March 14, Chinese public diplomacy has become a hot topic nationwide. In February, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar published a report entitled “Another U.S. Deficit — China and America — Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet.” During the Chinese Political Consultative Press Conference held in March, spokesperson Zhao interpreted Lugar’s report such that, even though China has made much progress regarding public diplomacy, it has not outrun the U.S. in that area. On the contrary, it still has a long way to go. I am very much of the same opinion.
The article is as follows:
Chinese public diplomacy became a hot topic during the Chinese National Committee meetings. During the meetings, there were many proposals as well as many suggestions from members. The media also made a variety of interpretations regarding China’s public communication skills. In the world’s view, how far has Chinese diplomacy moved forward? On Feb. 15, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar published a report, “Another U.S. Deficit — China and America — Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet,” which attempts to answer that question.
On March 2, at a press conference during the fourth session of the Chinese National Committee, Director of the National Committee Foreign Affairs Zhao Qizheng made an official interpretation of the Lugar report. He mentioned that the report was written by Lugar’s aide after participating in the National Committee foreign affairs meeting. In Zhao’s view, even though Chinese public diplomacy has improved dramatically, it still has a long way to go. Zhao concluded that “Chinese public diplomacy is not better that of the U.S.” and I cannot agree more.
Currently, there is a major gap between U.S. and Chinese public diplomacy. Specifically, China lacks a clear power structure in the public communication arena. It also needs to improve its methods of communicating with Western countries. Moreover, the participation from public and social media is far from adequate.
The biggest difference between Chinese and U.S. public diplomacy is that China’s system lacks a clear power structure in terms of public communication. This can easily lead to a waste of resources. U.S. public diplomacy, on the other hand, emphasizes efficiency. There are designated offices to handle public affairs. During the Cold War, though the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. organizations contributed to the country’s overall communications strategy, the United States Information Agency was responsible for shaping a positive image of the country through television, radio, press, publishing and other means of political propaganda.
In 1999, the Information Agency merged with the U.S. State Department. The State Department then set up a power structure to be responsible for public diplomacy and public affairs. This structure has coordinated between multiple parties, as well as to effectively communicate U.S. policies to the public. In addition, it should also be noted that the U.S. has sufficient funds in public diplomacy. In fiscal year 2010, the budget for public affairs in the U.S. State Department was about $12 billion. Over the years, the budget for U.S. public diplomacy in foreign affairs accounts for more than 10 percent of the total annual budget. It has been proven that in order to succeed in dealing with public affairs, strong economic support is required.
In the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, China used these opportunities to show its modernization. However, it mostly focused on the traditional culture aspects and did not advocate enough for modern Chinese development. It shows that China’s public diplomacy needs a clearer national identity.
The main purpose of China's public diplomacy is to show to the world that even as a large country, it is responsible and successful. China’s most important goal is to be in compliance with international rules. Therefore, Chinese public diplomacy should show the world that it is moving towards its goals. Another problem of Chinese public diplomacy is that input from the public is almost nonexistant. As a communicating activity targeted towards the public, public diplomacy requires a lot of participation from its constituents. As of now, civil society organizations’ involvement in public diplomacy is far from adequate. The input that the government receives is mostly from economic research centers. There are only a handful of research centers whose jobs are based on studying foreign affairs and international relations.
Public diplomacy needs a great deal of participation from the public. Individuals, as an invaluable asset, should take the initiative and become involved in the government’s public affairs. Individuals can provide a good reference for the government to make sound decisions by creating independent reports based on research. Many independent research centers contribute greatly to U.S. public diplomacy. For example, public diplomacy is one of the main focuses of the Brookings Institute’s work. It influences U.S. public diplomacy by inviting members of Congress to speak in seminars, publishing research reports, organizing public diplomacy seminars and establishing channels of communication with public officials, which is another aspect that China needs to learn from the U.S. regarding public diplomacy.