Soft power through connectivity: How do China and the US compare?
Soft power through connectivity: How do China and the US compare?
WRITTEN BY DR DANIELE CARMINATI
5 July 2023
Over the last few years, barely a week passes without some concerning developments in China-US relations. Often, these developments imply growing competition across various areas, including trade, advanced technologies, and strategic and geopolitical interests (such as concerns over Taiwan or Beijing potentially providing assistance to Russia).
Yet, all of these ostensibly ‘hard’ matters overshadow other aspects of this multifaceted competition. Rivalry over ‘softer’ issues, such as prestige, legitimacy, and overall reputation, can be referred to as competition over the hearts and minds of foreign audiences. These ‘soft power’ issues are contested in what American political science scholar Joseph Nye described as “the power of attraction”.
This form of power generally relies on a country’s culture, political values, and foreign policy. Both China and the US are attempting to entice foreign audiences and policymakers by promising advantageous forms of interdependence, like high-speed railways and advanced digital networks. However, both countries need to start talking less and acting more.
Do China and the US understand soft power in the same way?
Soft power is neither inherently American, nor does it pertain to any specific country or ideology. Rather, it depends on the most widely accepted international sentiments and narratives of the time, which until recently appeared to revolve around liberal democracy and the Western economic bloc. China is trying to build its own foreign-policy narrative that signals harmony and win-win solutions, while drawing upon those achievements that it believes may better resonate with the Global South and its developmental needs.
China’s blend of ‘soft’ and economic strategies is arguably becoming one of the most pressing domains of competition with the US, and even includes connectivity initiatives towards other Western allies such as the EU and Japan.
This is where Washington’s and Beijing’s approaches differ. The US generally focuses on intangible assets when advancing soft-power strategies, such as liberal democratic values and human rights. China has a more pragmatic approach, which may feel less patronising and seem more aligned with the Global South’s interests. In other words, China appears to be ‘putting its money where its mouth is’.
David Shambaugh, a prominent China scholar, has even claimed that Beijing’s main tool for strengthening its soft power is financial. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is arguably the most tangible example of China advancing its strategic interests, strengthening Chinese economic interdependence with other economies and enhancing its reputation by providing much-needed infrastructure in developing countries.
Interestingly, both Chinese leaders and scholars favour a narrower understanding of soft power, which is centred on Chinese traditional culture and Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist values, leaving economic attraction (and incentives) out. However, widening Chinese soft power to this broader cultural understanding is easier said than done.
Comparing ‘soft powers’
China’s blend of ‘soft’ and economic strategies is arguably becoming one of the most pressing domains of competition with the US, and even includes connectivity initiatives towards other Western allies such as the EU and Japan. From a cultural perspective, however, China is struggling. An article written several years ago wondering why China was so ‘uncool’ may still resonate today. The major drawback is said to be the government’s coercive attempts to shape the nation’s cultural output in line with the CPC’s ideals and goals.
American culture still resonates with foreign audiences more than its Chinese counterpart, but this status quo should not be taken for granted — especially considering domestic political issues. The American Dream may have lost part of its appeal, with some people blaming Trump for exacerbating the decline. That said, American brands, universities, and cultural products like music and Hollywood movies are still doing well, and are perhaps only facing a relative decline as new actors like South Korea are growing into a pop-culture juggernaut.
However, to what extent the appeal of the US’ cultural realm results in beneficial policy outcomes is up for debate. What most people recognise as soft power — the (pop) cultural appeal of a country — may not actually be an effective resource for securing foreign policy goals, even if trade may benefit.
When considering the attractiveness of political values, democracies around the world seem to be facing a period of reckoning, following a steady decline in democratic standards over the past decade. Following the invasion of Ukraine, ‘Western’ attempts to rally the Global South against Russia did not result in the expected outcomes, as many developing countries took a neutral (or detached) stance.
This does not necessarily mean that these countries would feel more compelled to embrace China’s authoritarianism. However, the soft economic blend of China’s charm offensive through its BRI and related initiatives could be effective for embracing political, economic, and even sociocultural dimensions of connectivity with these countries.
Counteracting initiatives
Over the past few years, the US and its allies have tried to advance several initiatives to counteract the BRI, none of which have delivered yet. The most recent of these, the Build Back Better World (B3W), does not seem to be taking off. The EU’s Global Getaway has announced 18 billion euros worth of investments in climate action and sustainable economies, but it is currently too early to say whether this will truly challenge the BRI. Conversely, Japan is a leader in terms of infrastructure and is almost single-handedly advancing its Partnership for Quality Infrastructure. Due to the results of the latter, perhaps Japan’s Western allies may want to collaborate with the country more closely.
One may wonder where soft power lies within these initiatives since investments are part of a country’s economic power. However, potential goodwill surrounding these initiatives can help bolster soft power, especially across the developing world. For instance, economic power can function as soft power, helping to attract and entice foreign audiences through hopes of shared prosperity. Or, it can be coercive, such as through economic sanctions or weaponised patterns of (over)dependence.
Despite debt trap accusations against China — which are lingering but often debunked — Chinese efforts are often well-received across the developing world, where leaders and citizens alike do not seem to care much about China’s political system when it provides a long-awaited infrastructure boost and economic opportunities.
Tellingly, even if the US is trying to advance some connectivity initiatives, these are rarely covered by international media — unlike China’s BRI, which is highly covered by the media. This coverage offers mixed perspectives, but still results in showing that Beijing is proactive while Washington is struggling to respond, let alone catching up.
Eroding ‘coolness’
The 2023 Global Soft Power Index shows that, after a slump during the pandemic, the US is still recognised as the top global soft power, followed by the UK, Germany, and Japan. China is ‘only’ fifth. However, although the US and its allies may still lead in ‘coolness’ and overall cultural appeal, this advantage may gradually be eroded if more people — particularly from the developing world — eventually opt to study in China, do business with Chinese, and purchase and appreciate Chinese products.
Although this article is too short to investigate all the regional nuances, many of the Index’s analysts have highlighted what has been discussed so far: Chinese strategies characterised by a soft economic blend are generally better received in the developing world, resulting in a more positive image of the BRI and of the country itself.
For China, it may be tricky to promote political values as a form of soft power, but for the US, promoting these values can be seen as patronising or sometimes even as a breach of other countries’ sovereignty. For instance, while Western liberal democracies may have felt that they were obviously the ‘right side’ in their approach to the war in Ukraine, developing countries did not feel compelled to take this same side. The West’s ideological claims are often perceived as hypocritical, and should possibly be toned down in favour of a more pragmatic approach. America’s foreign policy should instead focus on delivering on promises like the B3W.
For the time being, China’s efforts are likely to still rely on economic incentives, as ‘softer’ cultural appeal is overshadowed by more pragmatic and tangible outcomes in the form of connectivity. Only similarly robust initiatives from its Western counterpart(s) would sway more countries in the developing world, which have had enough of condescending talk and want to see actions and results. Let the ‘battle’ for hearts and minds unfold through connectivity. If anything, it would be better than the ones fought with missiles and tanks in Ukraine and other parts of the world.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Daniele Carminati is a lecturer in International Relations and Diplomacy at the Beijing Foreign Studies University and holds a PhD in International Relations from the City University of Hong Kong. His research interest revolves around the sociocultural, economic, and political implications of globalisation in East and Southeast Asia with a particular focus on soft power dynamics and connectivity. Image credit: Unsplash/Joseph Chan.