--By Jan Melissen and Ingrid d'Hooghe, Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael'

Facing growing economic interdependence with all parts of the world and accelerated interconnectedness with nations from many different cultures, the Chinese government prioritizes the country's attractive power and public diplomacy to help deliver it. Based on the notion of international diversity that is cherished by China, this effort will increasingly include the development of Chinese concepts and narratives that are not just meant for domestic consumption. This Chinese drive to start looking beyond Western concepts and expressions reflects that ideational competition is not expected to take place on exclusively Western terms. This trend in Chinese thinking aiming at acceptance abroad should however not be a one-directional effort and be based on the principle of mutuality, the public diplomacy equivalent of reciprocity in diplomatic relations. In this vein, public diplomacy and international cultural relations are ultimately two-way socialization processes and - however small - implying a degree of civilizational convergence. In this paper we argue that meeting the requirements of fulfilling the Chinese Dream requires scrutiny of the conditions for success in public diplomacy outside Chinese society. Diversity implies the translation into policy and public diplomacy of the recognition that foreigners are different. What the world thinks of China is in the eye of the beholder.

This paper briefly touches upon the necessity to come to terms with three main factors directly impacting on China's communication efforts in the global information sphere: i) the transforming structure of international relations, including its critically important societal dimension; ii) the growing presence of sub-state actors inside China as evidence of an emerging multi-layered diplomacy; iii) the profound changes in the nature of publics as both critical consumers and increasingly independent-minded producers of information. Taken together, the impact of these factors on public diplomacy, and indeed diplomacy at large, is unmistakable.

China is taking its international reputation extremely seriously as it is experiencing a more pronounced role at three different levels: in the globalized economy, the world balance of power, and in fast-growing transnational networks. China is spending more time, effort and resources on public diplomacy than any other country in the world. A palpable sense of nervousness about its success in delivering public diplomacy policies is the flip side of China's growing responsibility as a key stakeholder in global stability. In this context the potential role of think tanks and academia conveying new ideas and preparing the ground for rather opaque processes of policy-making is of considerable interest.

The study of public diplomacy in China is extremely vibrant, whilst the terms of the international debate are in the process of being renegotiated. In sync with the conceptual framework underlying the Chinese Dream, intellectual engagement with ideas originating in the West has an opportunity to become more evenhanded. With debates on public diplomacy coming of age in China, opinion-makers in rising powers and Western countries might come to see Chinese concepts and ideas as potentially transferable, importable intellectual merchandise. This would be a symptom of a more two-way process in China's relationship with the world. The balancing out of global relationships on this soft level of ideas - not just economic power or military might – is something to be included in the Chinese Dream. It is ultimately of interest for all in a culturally diverse but more permeable world.

Over the past years there is sufficient evidence in China that innovative thinking on public diplomacy travels from societal elites to government, thus creating an expanding epistemological community around ideas on 'soft power' and 'public diplomacy'. Regarding the validity of such labels, China has demonstrated its preparedness to adopt at least some of the Western idiom. Ironically, at a time when some Western governments appear to shy away from the term public diplomacy to describe their strategic international communication, China now counts 13 city-based 'Public Diplomacy Associations' plus a newly created national Chinese Public Diplomacy Association that was launched as late as 2012. Clearly, within the parameters of the uniqueness of China's national system, a closer understanding of the mechanics and dynamics of government-society relations appear to be essential to get the full picture of the Chinese Dream in the context of public diplomacy.

Meeting the Chinese Dream's necessary conditions in the field of communication requires acceptance of the changing nature of international relations and new practices in diplomacy. The societal dimension of almost everything has for a long time been conspicuously absent in academic accounts on international relations and diplomacy.cy. That omission does first of all constitute a verdict on the study of IR and diplomacy, as well as the kind of world views that inform policy-makers. The growing visibility of 'society' in most corners of the world today is a reminder of the need to redraw mental maps reproducing the idea that we live in a world with unique Westphalian features. In the discussion about the kind of world we live in, China is often called modern rather than post-modern, lumped together with other authoritarian states that privilege state power and a high level of control over society. Reality is probably more complex. Within the frame of discussions about the Chinese Dream it is safe to predict the emergence of a nation with a fast-growing patchwork of formidable post-modern urban niches; whilst China's miraculous economic growth enhances the corporate sector's leverage. Images and experiences of the past have never been good guides for charting the future.

Publics matter. So much is clear to all governments investing in public diplomacy, with China leading. It is important that the Chinese government recognizes, though, that foreign publics' profiles have evolved faster since the widespread use of the Internet than since the creation of the People's Republic of China. Consequently, the conditions for successful public diplomacy have changed. The kinds of official propaganda that were taken for granted in the 1970s and left Western and other foreign publics rather indifferent during most of the 1980s, now meet a transformed international environment. And today Chinese governmental pronouncements targeting the domestic public, often encounter a keen public interest outside China. Policy-makers realize, and sometimes with a shock, that everything said in public is potentially overheard by those other publics - outside of the country. The fact that internal and external legitimacy are not the same thing is one of public diplomacy's major puzzles. Government people from anywhere within China's complex 'national diplomatic system' are however advised not to see the independent-mindedness of foreign publics as a problem or a threat, but as a door opener for creative diplomacy.

Finally, there is a broader picture. A fundamental rethink of diplomacy and diplomatic practices from a Chinese perspective are in order, first of all based on China's growing international role. In the past 5,000 years all leading civilizations and world powers have left their mark on the evolution on diplomacy, and the global village has not reached the end of history. Our contribution to a brainstorm about the Chinese Dream will attempt to conclude that potentially this is the larger narrative underlying the principle of civilizational diversity and the drive to look beyond Western concepts. All this is pointing in the direction of a window of opportunity for China to make a contribution to a new script for global diplomacy, whilst – crucially - necessitating Chinese acquiescence with the changing rules of the game in a less hierarchical global information sphere.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)