ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT - CHINA AND AMERICA PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET

A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS- FIRST SESSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2011

This is the third report conducted on the Senator Richard Lugar (the Ranking Member of the Committee) initiative to stimulate the US public diplomacy. The first two focused on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (6/2010) and the American Centers (2/2009). (Armstrong, 2011) This paper is devoted to the US- China exchanges and was written by Paul Foldi, senior professional staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Armstrong, 2011) The focal point of the report is on the success of Chinese public diplomacy while pointing out the US declining global engagement and the negligence of the public diplomacy in foreign policy, particularly, in regard to the engagement with Chinese audiences. Overall, this paper constitutes a detail analysis of China’s growing soft power while urging the Congress to rethink America’s current public diplomacy efforts as a matter of national interest and security. (Lugar, 2011)

The report gives an account of a number of imbalances which exists in the US-China public diplomacy initiatives. It is argued that China takes an advantage of American open system to project its soft power effectively while the US is deprived of equal opportunities as its efforts are greatly regulated and limited by the Chinese government restrictions. (Lugar, 2011) The paper gives a number of examples where China’s public diplomacy surpasses American performance. For instance, it is estimated that, yearly, 140,000 Chinese students come to America whereas only 13,000 Americans are send to China for study. (Foldi, 2011, p.12) There are only five American Centers in whole China (population of 1.3 billion) compared to 71 Confucius Institutes based within United States only. (Foldi, 2011, p.7) Moreover, report says that the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are pressured to transmit on Short Wave Radio far from Chinese borders what, evidently, restrains the success of communication with Chinese audience. It has been observed that their signals are jammed and their websites are impossible to access in China. (Foldi, 2011, p.4) The report suggests that China is determined to prevent and restrict American public diplomacy efforts in the country what became obvious when it turned down the proposal to establish the Voice of America’s bureau in Shanghai. (Currently it is a 2 people office) (Lugar, 2011, p.2) The report makes a critical remark when revealing that the State Department, despite substantial funds ($50 million for the period 2008-2010), failed to allocated enough means (only $20 million) to facilitate PD initiatives. Moreover, still very little has been achieved after the speech of the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on the Internet Freedom (January 2010). (Foldi, 2011, p.4) Hitherto, the report notes that the State Department distributed very little funds for the purpose of the Internet Freedom campaign and the development of the Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology (ICCT). (Foldi, 2011)

Generally, the report is an important asset for the review of Chinese government’s engagement in America. Thus, mentioned concerns should be addressed much earlier. Overall, it gives an impression of being too politically motivated. There is an evident stress on the issue of China’s rise and possible repercussions for the USA which arise from China’s new role in the world. The China’s threat seems to be the main motif for improving the US public diplomacy efforts. It could be assumed that this paper, also, aims at gaining more funds for the public diplomacy initiatives. While the report compares and contrasts the US-China PD efforts and tries to highlight America’s manifold PD deficits, an evaluation of PD work of those countries would be an interesting thing to see. Even though, China has 71 Confucius Institutes in the US, this does not mean that all are equally successful. Moreover, it seems questionable whether developing the technology for the Internet censorship circumvention can be considered as a one of the US PD tasks. The spreading of the software targets Chinese sensitive political area (censorship) and this does not fit into PD framework. Indeed, the report specifies the areas of improvement and gives further suggestions on America’s engagement with Chinese audience. Nevertheless, no clear strategy has been proposed and no comprehensive objectives of the PD have been put forward.

Concluding, overall, this report can be a good basis for further investigation and development of an effective American public diplomacy strategy. It, definitely, makes a strong case for motivating American officials to improve and modernize the US efforts in engaging with foreign audiences.

Sources:

Armstrong M., China and American Public Diplomacy: Another US Deficit, February 11, 2011 available online at:
http://mountainrunner.us/2011/02/Senator_Lugar_China_and_US_Public_Diplomacy_Another_Deficit.html (accessed on 28.03.2011)

Foldi P., ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT CHINA AND AMERICA— PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET – Report available online at:
http://foreign.senate.gov/download/?id=208AEC06-D0CF-4EBD-9FCB-BB3CF4AA9181 (accessed on 28.03.2011)