China today is a huge and growing economic force, but its government remains a thuggish 3rd world oligarchy that routinely intimidates or arrests dissenters. With no real checks and balances in place, it resorts to the power of fear to keep its people in line. So long as the populace toes the line, China will become stronger economically and militarily, but it will never win the affection of other nations.

However it is highly unlikely to retain this stability for long; visit any part of China outside of the prosperous coastal cities and you will observe a seething anger just below the surface, a sense of helpless rage that could explode at any moment.

So long as China grows economically, this rage will be kept bottled up, but the moment they have a slowdown, as inevitably must happen, this anger is likely to boil over. 800 million people in China have been left out of the prosperity club and they are quite displeased. They lack medical care, the local governments are corrupt and unresponsive, the central government brutally suppresses any protests and censors the media, and the old communist promise of lifetime jobs and social security is dead.

Perhaps the worst crime of the ruling party is simply that it is intolerant of criticism from within and without. This is China's long term downfall.

Pat - New York City says:

"What's happening here? My last two posts were withheld."

American Observer replies:

There were probably too many obscenities. Go back, remove the bad language, and try again.

What's happening here? My last two posts were withheld.

Pencilfish, Pencilfish, Pencilfish...

Pencilfish says:

"Are the Chinese unable to understand complex
material?"

American Observer says:

If you are able to understand complex material, Pencilfish, please show me.

So far, the most you have given to this board is to say 'People say that China is NOTHING but our economy is growing so that proves we are SOMETHING. So there!"

And what I keep saying to you, over and over again, is that nobody ever said that China is nothing, but so far your economy seems to be developing -- well -- much faster than the rest of your society. Go back and read what I actually said. What does China, in the year 2007, offer to the world? I am asking the question as politely and as gently as I can, PencilFish.

I agree with Patrick. This discussion has become
a chest-thumping competition. As I said earlier,
American Observer is sensitive to whom is
perceived as "numero uno".

American Observer says:
Actually, I have enormous personal experience with the Chinese and with China, and I was trying to speak in terms that were simple enough and material enough for the Chinese to understand.

What is your "enormous personal experience with
the Chinese and with China"? You never described
it. Are the Chinese unable to understand complex
material? Is that why you need to keep it simple?
Patronizing words indeed.

To Patrick from NYC:

Thanks for the link.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200709130077.html

Most interesting.

Do you know of similar documents on required diplomatic American initiatives and cooperation, in Asia?

Thanks again.

Anonymous:

Agreed.

Patrick From NYC says:

"American Observer says:
Your use of the term 'Chinese Taipei' strongly implies that you endorse China's colonialist plans against the Republic of China on Taiwan. Do you?

Patrick from NYC replies:
I respect that you have opinions but stop trying to put words in my mouth with loaded questions. "

American Observer says:

You are merely dodging the question, and dodging it in a very obvious way. Why not answer the question? You certainly have enough time to lay down four paragraphs of propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party like you were dumping asphalt; why not use a little more time to create an intelligent answer of your own?

Patrick From NYC says:

"Owing to constraints on my time I'll have to leave it up to others who want to take part in these discussions. I will however make a few comments concerning American Observer posts. His prolific contributions here in other blogs seem to be his raison d'etre and he demands answers off those who disagree with him."

American Observer replies:

'Constraints on your time?' Tell me, did your uncle just die? Did the dog eat your homework? Do you have any other transparent excuses?

Actually, Patrick, the problem is not your time or your lack of it. You have refused to answer my questions, and I believe that you have refused because you have never done enough thinking on your own to answer them. The only thing you have done on this board is to repeat very generic propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party, and I feel confident that you will not be able to do anything more. If we want a better answer from you, we would have to ask Hu Jintao to appoint a committee to compose it for you.

What started out as my commenting on the fact that Boris Johnson and the author of the original post were using the most trivial of non-examples to put down the use of 'Soft Power' by China is turning out to be some chest-thumping competition. I was merely trying to tell the author and others that if a critique of China's alleged use of 'Soft Power' was in order than it should be done in a more professional manner.

Owing to constraints on my time I'll have to leave it up to others who want to take part in these discussions. I will however make a few comments concerning American Observer posts. His prolific contributions here in other blogs seem to be his raison d'etre and he demands answers off those who disagree with him.

American Observer says:
Actually, I have enormous personal experience with the Chinese and with China, and I was trying to speak in terms that were simple enough and material enough for the Chinese to understand.

Patrick from NYC replies:
Don't be bl...y patronizing is all I can say for this one.

American Observer says:
Your use of the term 'Chinese Taipei' strongly implies that you endorse China's colonialist plans against the Republic of China on Taiwan. Do you?

Patrick from NYC replies:
I respect that you have opinions but stop trying to put words in my mouth with loaded questions.

Logical Doubt Of Human Sanity says:
"Which countries have more clout than China in the Southeast Asian region? Which country has more diplomatic power than China, other than the US, in the global setting? Which other country have the power to influence the global economy to the scale of the Chinese, other than the US? Was it like this 20-30 years ago?"

American Observer commented:
The answer, to all questions, is Japan. However, I think we all agree that China's economy is growing, and we all agree that China's economy will continue to grow.

Patrick of NYC says:
Have a look at this recent article, 'Japan-China efforts vital for regional group' by Makoto Taniguchi, president of Iwate Prefectural University, Japan. Read it while the link is good.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200709130077.html

Have a good night, all.

Pencilfish:

I am still baffled. I just cannot see any connection between what you wrote and anything that I have written. Were you trying to post to a different board, and you put your message on this board by mistake? If not, can you quote the part of my writings to which you are responding, and show me how your response connects to what I wrote? Don't just say 'you seem to be saying' or 'you seem to be very sensitive,' but quote the words to which you claim to be responding?

American Observer,

What questions are you talking about? You raised
multiple issues about "soft power". If you are referring to your remarks about Chinese movies,
I suggest you google it. You will find quite a
few have won Western awards for "best foreign film", etc. Anyway, how is that relevant? Soft power is much more than just movies.

Look at where China was in 1949, then in 1976
and now in 2007. Are the Chinese people better
or worse off? Are people more (or less) aware of
China today compared to 1976? Why did Nixon go
to China if it is so irrelevant? Are these
factors part of your definition of "soft power"?

I think Horsham is correct. I don't think the
Chinese are making any special effort to spread
soft power. They are busy helping themselves and
will continue to do for the foreseeable future.
Unlike the Mao-days, China is not actively
preaching to other countries about economic or
political models.

You seem to be very sensitive to who is "numero
uno". America will continue to be #1 for a while.
However, all civilizations rise and fall (China
is an example). America is no different. If it
is any comfort to you, China's climb will be
very slow, and you won't be alive when (and if)
China becomes "numero uno".

JRLR says:

"I don't know and don't care who Naomi Klein is."

American Observer replies:

JRLR, anyone who takes politics seriously always cares about who they are quoting. Otherwise, we could all just quote our favorite barkeeper or our favorite activist or our own mothers. Should I follow your example and disprove your 'source' with a quote from my uncle?

JRLR says:

"All that matters is the content of the quote. Prove it false! "

American Observer replies:

To be honest, most of the quotation is just hyperbole; it cannot be proven or disproven, because it does not contain enough facts to be debatable. Let's look at it line by line:

Naomi Klein says:

"The law that was finally adopted by Iraq's cabinet in February, 2007, was even worse than anticipated: "

American Observer replies:

That is just rhetoric.

Naomi Klein says:

"It placed no limits on the amount of profits that foreign companies can take from the country "

American Observer replies:

And -- so what? America receives more foreign investment than another other country on Earth, and American places no limits on the amount of profits that foreign countries can take from America. China also has enormous foreign investment, and China places places no limits on the amount of profits that foreign countries can take from China. Why would anyone want to limit the profits of investors? That would only discourage investment. A few backward Leftist Third-World countries 'place limits on the amount of profits that foreign countries can take from their economies,' but that is why those countries simply do not grow.

Naomi Klein says:

"...placed no specific requirements about how much or little foreign investors would partner with Iraqi companies ..."

American Observer replies:

Well, China does insist that foreign investors form 'Joint-Ventures,' but America does not, and neither does Japan or the European Union. Only a tiny handful of countries insist on this, and Iraq will be standing with the majority.

Naomi Klein says:

"....or hire Iraqis to work in the oil fields... "

American Observer replies:

Very few nations insist on this. America does not insist on it, and the European Union does not. To tell the truth, I cannot think of a single country that does, though their may be few backward Marxist countries in the Third-World that do. After all, who else are they going to hire, if not Iraqis? When the fighting is over and the danger from spies and sabotage is gone, hiring Iraqis will be far cheaper than hiring people from other countries, so you can bet that Iraqis will be hired.

Naomi Klein says:

"Most brazenly, it excluded Iraq's elected parliamentarians from having any say in the terms for future oil contracts..."

American Observer replies:

This is more crazed rhetoric. All future contracts will be negotiated by the Iraqi government, and that government is voted into power by Iraq's parliament, and that government can be voted out by that parliament when that parliament is dissatisfied with their work, just like in Japan or Europe. If Naomi is saying that each new contract will not get a fresh new vote in Iraq's parliament, well, do you know of a single country in the world where the parliament does vote separately on each contract? I don't.

Naomi Klein says:

"It's hard to overstate the disgrace of this attempted resource grab. "

American Observer replies:

Again, that is just rhetoric.

Naomi Klein says:

"Iraq's oil profits are the country's only hope of financing its own reconstruction when some semblance of peace returns. "

American Observer replies:

Well, of course it is. But, tell me, what is the point of saying something that obvious?

Naomi Klein says:

"To lay claim to that future wealth in a moment of national disintegration was disaster capitalism at its most shameless."

American Observer replies:

Yadda-yadda-yadda. America is not 'laying claim to that future wealth.' Even under the most optimistic projections, foreign companies would only get twenty percent of the revenue from wells which the foreign companies drilled successfully, and the other eighty percent will go to Iraq; and, as I have said before, that twenty percent will never equal the hundreds of billions that America has already spent protecting that wretched nation from its own people.

JRLR says:

"next time, you try "Guevara"!."

American Observer replies:

JRLR, do you notice that you actually KNOW how to spell the last name of that loser and murderer Che Guevara? Do you notice that you actually CARE about how it is spelled? Do you notice that you are so irrational that you DON'T care about the credentials or the motives of the 'experts' that you quote, but you do insist that everyone spell "Guevara" correctly?

I agree, should American Observer be right, Naomi Klein is evidently "on the wrong side of things":

"Naomi Klein is a French-Canadian?" (THAT is bad!)...

"from a family of Leftists?" (THAT is very bad!)...

"she has crusaded against globalization for years?" (THAT is unacceptable!)...

"Naomi Klein is against America's economic relationship with Iraq?" (THAT is unthinkable!)...

"Naomi is against international trade altogether?" (THAT should not be allowed!)...

"quoting her is as quoting Che Gueverra" (NEITHER should be permissible!) -- next time, you try "Guevara"!.

American Observer, I don't know and don't care who Naomi Klein is. All that matters is the content of the quote. Prove it false! As they say: "Get on with it or get off the ... ".

Judging from your first paragraph, neither can you nor will you. People like you would rather attempt to justify the unjustifiable and resort to attacks ad hominem to discredit the messenger.

Honestly, you are no match for the Chinese, only an embarrassment for any decent American, for any decent human being.

I have already asked the people on this board to add up the cost of our war in Iraq against even the greatest possible total profit from Iraq's oil, and I have reminded them that under no circumstances will Iraq's oil be able to repay the hundreds of billions we have already spent defending that nation from its own people. Indeed, all of Iraq's oil revenue would not be enough to repay the amount of money that we will spend in the next five years, and America would be ahead of the game financially just by walking away from Iraq right now and not spending another penny on or receiving another penny from that wretched land.

However, I choose to deal with what JRJL has put on the board. I just looked up Naomi Klein on Wikipedia. You can see the same passage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein Naomi Klein is a French-Canadian from a family of Leftists, and she has crusaded against globalization for years. Naomi Klein is not just against America's economic relationship with Iraq; Naomi is against international trade altogether, and quoting her is as stupid and self-serving as quoting Che Gueverra.

horsham writes: "... in the course of their attempt to better themselves, the Chinese will run into conflict with Western powers’ traditional dominant role (natural resources) and moral perception (Darfur and Burma); in those things, they will defy Western wishes and act in their best perceived interests. Still, their intent here is not to compete or defeat but to self-help."

I concur and see that statement as expressing a dominant, truly Chinese view. As a Westerner, I would put it in the following terms: The world is about to be shared in an unprecedented way, given the role China, India, Brazil, etc. will be playing in tomorrow's world.

Of course, the question then arises: Who, amongst those who currently exercise power in this world, wants to share? Hence the concern, the fear, the terror so deeply felt, as time goes by, in the West. Hence our urgent need for exceptional diplomats who can do better than alienate the whole world in our name.

Darden Cavalcade says:

"China's a great country, it's people are wonderful, and it deserves a place the table with the major powers. But as China's reputation as an economic predator and environmental hooligan spreads, people will think twice about the China model."

As they will with the American model for different significant reasons perhaps..

American Observer and some others missed a crucial point: the ones talking up the “soft power” of China are mostly in the West. Most Chinese don’t see spreading the Chinese soft power as a national priority and will only passively acknowledge it as a by-product of their rising economy. Every Chinese I know knows that, even with 30-year neck-breaking growth, China today is still far behind the western countries especially the U.S. in terms of economic strength and social development, let alone world influence and military power. One thing China is not doing is to run around the world with the purpose of competing with or defeating the developed countries for influence and dominance. However, in the course of their attempt to better themselves, the Chinese will run into conflict with Western powers’ traditional dominant role (natural resources) and moral perception (Darfur and Burma); in those things, they will defy Western wishes and act in their best perceived interests. Still, their intent here is not to compete or defeat but to self-help. The Chinese, having evolved with thousands years of Eastern way of think, are actually very self-aware and conservative in their self-estimation. They know they have mountains of problems and need to focus internally. This is why Deng Xiaoping exhorted the country “development is the hard truth (发展才是硬道理)”. Under this overarching motivation, China will focus on economic growth for a long time and will not be bogged down by the discussions of “soft power” any time soon.
As for Kin-Ming Liu, I doubt he can speak objectively for even only once.

"...as China's reputation as an economic predator and environmental hooligan spreads, people will think twice about the China model."

Does anyone in the world think the following economic rape is the type of "reconstruction" and "nation building" developing nations want, for their people?

"The law that was finally adopted by Iraq's cabinet in February, 2007, was even worse than anticipated: It placed no limits on the amount of profits that foreign companies can take from the country and placed no specific requirements about how much or little foreign investors would partner with Iraqi companies or hire Iraqis to work in the oil fields... Most brazenly, it excluded Iraq's elected parliamentarians from having any say in the terms for future oil contracts... It's hard to overstate the disgrace of this attempted resource grab. Iraq's oil profits are the country's only hope of financing its own reconstruction when some semblance of peace returns. To lay claim to that future wealth in a moment of national disintegration was disaster capitalism at its most shameless." (From "The Shock Doctrine", by Naomi Klein)

Given that 1. we were told so often, on these blogs, the Iraq adventure never had anything to do with oil, everything to do with altruism and humanitarianism; 2. the reasons WHY China's influence in the world is growing matter more than rear-guard "China bashing" and crude anti-socialism/communism, I think this reminder is in order, when discussing the "China model".

I couldn't agree more. Still, Bush has squandered so much of America's soft power. It will take the next president a few years to regain it - but the Americans will regain it.

Although I fully agree that China has yet a long way to go before it gains full respect from the West, there are a few points made by Boris Johnson that I find totally arguable. I will not go into what the author calls "hard power" - I am no politician and hold my own views regarding the need for defence spending (especially in a country with China's per capita GDP) but regarding American "soft power", I find China has entered the scene silently - athletes, opera singers, dancers, sportsmen without necessarily having to build up an appealing international brand in US style. After all, this "soft power" US style is perceived by many Europeans as nothing more than hamburgers, Disneyworld or Paris Hilton - to what extent these things have contributed to make our world a better place is still to be seen. And no, we (or most of us) don't undergo surgery to make our eyes look Eastern - yet - but we do undergo surgery for arguably no less frivolous reasons. China has entered our lives like a giant wearing bed slippers, and I, for one, wouldn't worry too much about sending my children to study Mandarin - Chinese are already learning English.

Logical Doubt Of Human Sanity says:

"Which countries have more clout than China in the Southeast Asian region? Which country has more diplomatic power than China, other than the US, in the global setting? Which other country have the power to influence the global economy to the scale of the Chinese, other than the US? Was it like this 20-30 years ago?"

American Observer replies:

The answer, to all questions, is Japan. However, I think we all agree that China's economy is growing, and we all agree that China's economy will continue to grow.

you know what's interesting? this post tries to compare American influence vs Chinese influence. No one in the world can even compare to US influence currently, thus the barometer of Chinese influence gauged against the US is understandably low.

Lets put this into perspective: Which countries have more clout than China in the Southeast Asian region? Which country has more diplomatic power than China, other than the US, in the global setting? Which other country have the power to influence the global economy to the scale of the Chinese, other than the US? Was it like this 20-30 years ago?

You can't seriously say that the Chinese haven't risen to prominence in the past 25 years. Who cared about Chinese influence pre-1980? Who doesn't care about Chinese influence nowadays? Strict comparison between the biggest superpower in the world compared to a rising power is not a true way of gauging Chinese rising influence

Darden Cavalcade says:

"China's a great country, it's people are wonderful, and it deserves a place the table with the major powers. But as China's reputation as an economic predator and environmental hooligan spreads, people will think twice about the China model."

American Observer replies:

Congratulations, Darden -- I think we agree on most things, but you said that better than I did.

China's rise in importance is impressive, but before states look to Beijing as an example they should calculate the cost of China's rise and so should we.

The most recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine has an article (Elizabeth Economy) about the environmental catastrophe that Chinese industrial rise has been. An organ of the Chinese government was tasked to estimate environmental cost of Chinese industrial growth and those costs negated China's growth rate. China is dismantling its environment to sustain economic growth. Unfortunately we all bear the cost of Chinese economic policy.

Twenty-five to forty per cent of all mercury emissions on earth come from China. A significant amount of the particulate pollution in Los Angeles originates in China. China is the largest pollutor of the Pacific Ocean. The heavy metal content of China's coastal sea is 2000 times higher than allowed by China's official safety standard. China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest contibuter to atmospheric carbon pollution. China is the world's largest importer of illegally-harvested lumber. According to a joint World Bank-Chinese study of public health, 750,000 Chinese die premature deaths each year due to respiratory diseases caused by air pollution.

Social unrest in China is growing due to environmental degradation. There were 51,000 environmental protests in China in 2005, about 1000 per week.

China's a great country, it's people are wonderful, and it deserves a place the table with the major powers. But as China's reputation as an economic predator and environmental hooligan spreads, people will think twice about the China model.

JRLR says:

"China offers the world the outstanding model of a semi-colonial country, profoundly humiliated by the West, having risen, within half a century, to the status of major manufacturer, supplier, as well as political and military power in the world."

American Observer replies:

That does not make even a bit of sense. You sound like Osama Bin-Laden saying 'People will always admire a tall horse more than a small horse.' Yes, power and growth and egotism are easy to notice; but do you think that the people of the developing world will really buy a mythology based on nothing except national power and egotism?

Do you think a person who lives in Vietnam or Pakistan or Nigeria or Brazil will wake up one day and say "Hey, the Chinese offer the world the outstanding model of a semi-colonial country, profoundly humiliated by the West, having risen, within half a century, to the status of major manufacturer, supplier, as well as political and military power in the world; therefore, we should go watch Chinese movies, or listen to Chinese music, or wear Chinese clothes?"

Do you think they will say "Wow, China has risen so quickly -- now let's drive our large mammals to extinction, the way the Chinese have wiped out the Yangtze dolphin?"

Will they say 'Hey, the Chinese love themselves. Therefore, lets do what they do, and build coal mines so unsafe that they kill hundreds of miners every year?'

Do you think the people of the world will say "The Chinese defy the West -- therefore, let's put poison in the cough syrup we sell and kill a hundred children in Panama?"

Do you think they will say "Hey, the Chinese have a big military -- therefore, let's handle our social problems by banning labor unions and shooting thousands of students in the street?"

Will the people of the world say, "Hey, the Chinese love themselves; therefore, let's force all schoolchildren to pay for their own tuition, and then let their schoolteachers force them to assemble fireworks during school hours?"

Will the people of the world say "Hey, the Chinese defy the West -- therefore, let's force millions of women to get abortions that they don't want?"

Will the people of the world say "Hey, the Chinese sing great songs about themselves -- therefore, let's crush all religions and leave our old people without social security?"

Do you think that the people of the world will say, "Hey, China used to be a victim of colonialism, but now China is a colonialist empire -- and the Chinese brutalize the Tibetans and the Uighers and the Mongols! Let's attack our neighbors just like the Chinese Empire does!"

Anybody who reads the newspaper can add to the list. God help the world if the people of the world ever got so messed up that they think like you do.

American Observer asks (for the nth time...): "What does China actually offer the world, as a pattern and as an ideal?"

JRLR answers: with the largest population on the planet, China offers the world the outstanding model of a semi-colonial country, profoundly humiliated by the West, having risen, within half a century, to the status of major manufacturer, supplier, as well as political and military power in the world.

JRLR adds: any country that can achieve so much in such a short period of time is bound to impress most countries in the world and to serve as a model for developing countries (they are the majority) to imitate.

JRLR concludes: such human feats should never be underestimated.

LAO TZU confirms:

"Nothing in the world is softer than water;
But for atacking the hard and stong, there is nothing like it!
For nothing can take its place.
That the weak overcomes the strong, and the soft overcomes the hard,
This is something known by all, but practised by none.
Therefore the Sage says:
...
... Truth sounds like its opposite!"

THEN SILENCE SETS IN.

I'm going to jump in here as a non-Westerner, specifically an Indian. As you may know, Indian relations with China have been based on complex strategic competition (and fear of Chinese intervention in South Asia and irritation over Chinese military assistance to Pakistan) since the 1960s. India also happens to be a longstanding democracy with a fairly decent human rights record, a free press, etc, and we have recently been getting closer to the U.S.

Nevertheless, 66% of Indians view China's growing influence as positive, and 56% even view China's growing military power as positive. India is one of the few countries in the world with a positive opinion of the U.S.'s global role, yet even in India, opinions of China are becoming more favorable. This isn't just about the usual international disgust with American intervention in the Middle East, but also about perceived American double standards on trade (e.g. the attempt to retain agricultural subsidies during the ongoing Doha Round of the WTO, rather than allow American farmers to surrender to the comparative advantage of other nations in free competition) and free movement of labor (i.e. American restrictions on foreign workers, which are essentially a form of protectionism and restraint of trade, and keep American wages artificially higher than they should be). Indians are also looking to China as a model for infrastructure development and manufacturing growth. So Chinese soft power is indeed rising, both in terms of positive perceptions of the country and in terms of the desire to learn from it. Incidentally, I myself began learning Mandarin last year. :)

Sheesh! Did I push all the buttons here?
I'll try to answer all the above comments above. As I have a life I'll have to do it in parts and when I have the time. I'll start in reverse order of commentators with DC Student as his comments were brief.
Please read the names of commentators, it was Logicaldoubtofhumansanity who was talking about Chinese food. But if I were to mention it I would say that there is a lot more to Chinese cuisine than 'carry out'. Try watching some of the cooking programmes on PBS (USA) or the Food Channel (USA) for a better idea. As for Chinese capital investments overseas, the Chinese will go where they are welcome, i.e. Africa, the middle East, etc. There is also the other side of the coin where China is one of the largest recipients on investment money from overseas showing the attractions of its markets.
Corruption is not soley the province of China. Big corruption exists in the West as well as in the developing world (lobbying behind the scenes, 'pay-to-play', bribery, 'arm-twisting', etc). One party systems of any shade may or may not be a good thing. It depends on the competancies and honesty of those in power like it would in a democracy. As for democracy it is relatively new to the West and even then initially it excluded their colonized subjects, blacks, native Americans and others in the USA, the lower classes in Britain, etc.

I'm going to have to agree with American observer on some level. Patrick, chinese food and nice little decorations are not a sign of chinese soft power today...Westerners have been studying and engaging asian cultures since the 18th century, and certainly the local chinese carry out is not a sign of soft power. China does have soft power because of the sheer size and importance of its exports, but with regards to the United States, it is not even close. The amount of capital China uses is tiny compared to that of the United States, which is by far the largest investor world-wide. China offers no other real form of governance compared to the US, especially with the late corruption scandals, as well as the supression of the media and jailing of journalists, I doubt this ineffective one party system could ever catch on again. Communism has been proven through time to be a defunct system, and this government can't stay the same and expect to be the world power it wants to be. The fact is the soft power of the US extends not only through the free trade it promoted in China (which has made it so strong), but also through the cultural attachments of the Chinese people to the US. They watch our movies and TV shows, buy technology invented in the US/Western Europe, even blog like us on the internet, which does subtly influence people. China will someday inevitably be a world power, but as to it being there now, well, I don't see much in the ways of chinese culture influencing the world, minus the american excuse for chinese food.

PencilFish, go back and read what I actually said. If you can answer my questions, go ahead and answer them; and if you can't, no one will think less of you for admitting it.

To American Observer:

The very fact that you and the Western media
are discussing "Chinese soft power" is a
sign of the rising importance of China. If
China is so insignificant, why discuss it?

The article also mentions China's per-capita
income "still only $1000/year" and that China's
defense spending is less than the UK's. How is
it then that other news articles talk about
China overtaking Germany as the 3rd largest
economy in the world and why does the Western
media repeatedly say the true Chinese military
budget is 2-3 times larger than published
values?

Western media (and so-called experts) tend to
over or under emphasize China's rise, probably
out of ignorance. The truth is somewhere in the
middle. Yes, China is increasingly important
and powerful, but it is not yet the pre-eminent
superpower. The most important question is when
(and if) China will ever become that.

Patrick From NYC says:

"I do however find American Observer's choices of cultural benchmarks to be very limited and uninformed. "

American Observer replies:

Actually, I have enormous personal experience with the Chinese and with China, and I was trying to speak in terms that were simple enough and material enough for the Chinese to understand.

Patrick from NYC says:

"My own personal opinion about most of Hollywood output is not that high. Screen writers and producers very often depart from the source material (if any) to output their formulaic junk to cater to the LCD."

American Observer replies:

"Oh, really? And what kind of movies do they make in China? As I recall, Chinese movies mostly run to 'Evil-Landlord' movies about poor suffering peasants under 'fuedalism', 'Lei Feng' movies about joyful soldiers who love their tractors, and war movies about Chinese soldiers who slaughter vast hordes of Japanese, Koumintang, Japanese, Moslem Rebels, Americans, Japanese, Russians, or Japanese with nothing more than their gung-fu and their revolutionary spirit. As a result, Chinese movies are such formulaic junk that even the Chinese prefer American movies.

Patrick From NYC says:

"On the matter of cultural influence China has had two thousand years plus influence on the countries and populations of Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei and the region of Indo-China. This extends beyond just language and script but also societal norms, legal systems, culture, religion, etc."

American Observer replies:

Patrick, I promise you that anyone educated enough to buy the Washington Post already knows all of that. However, Kin-ming Liu and Boris Johnson are not talking about two thousand years ago -- they are talking about right now. Why don't you do the same?

Patrick from NYC says:

"All those mentioned countries with the exception of Japan looked to China till the mid-to late 19th century as both benefactor and protector. While Western history books may have labelled them 'vassal states' of China, they in fact actually received more than what they gave China."

American Observer replies:

Ha Ha Ha. The leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, has given the Chinese leadership several lectures on the 'vassal state' system, and Lee Kuan Yew has reminded the people of China that the people of Asia will never permit China to become this kind of 'benefactor' or 'protector' again; and Singapore has allowed America to base F-16s in Singapore to make sure that the Chinese don't forget it. Only the Chinese remember the Vassal State system fondly, Patrick; the rest of the Asians are more concerned about the Chinese attacks on the Spratley Islands, and what that means for Chinese plans to reclaim China's ancient 'vassals.'

Patrick from NYC says:

"China couldn't live up to what was expected and stop the European and American colonizers taking over places in South-East Asia, parts of mainland China and, in the case of Japan which colonized Korea and Chinese Taipei."

American Observer replies:

CHINESE TAIPEI? Did you just say CHINESE TAIPEI? Patrick, Chinese Taipei is a political term, like 'Han Chinese.' As you know, the Chinese Communist Party invented the term 'Han Chinese' in order to pretend that there are two kinds of Chinese -- 'Han' Chinese and 'other' Chinese, such as Tibetans and Uighers; when in reality, the Tibetans and Uighers are not Chinese at all, they are merely victims of Chinese colonialism, and the 'Han Chinese' are really the only kind of Chinese who are actually Chinese. By the same token, the Chinese Communist Party invented the term 'Chinese Taipei' to describe the Republic of China on Taiwan, and the Chinese Communists even forced the Taiwanese to use this term or be booted from the Olympics by Chinese pressure on the International Olympic Committee. Your use of the term 'Chinese Taipei' strongly implies that you endorse China's colonialist plans against the Republic of China on Taiwan. Do you?

Patrick from NYC says:

"But for the developing world China can also provide an alternative model for development, governance and foreign policy that may be more applicable to their situation."

American Observer replies:

Oh -- and what model would that be? Let's see, so if the Chinese Communist Party keeps power by sending tanks into the streets to massacre Chinese students, the Burmese SLORC regimes should learn from the China and send tanks into the streets to massacre Burmese students?

Patrick, the Chinese Communist Party has very little influence in the developing world, and it gets what influence it has by sending aid and support to regimes so vile that no other government will help them, such as the Kim Dynasty in North Korea, the SLORC regime in Burma, the murderers in Sudan, and the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. The developing world already has enough ruthless money-hungry dictatorships; the people of the developing world hardly need another 'model' of the same-old same-old.

Patrick, I know the Chinese and I know China well, so I know you will respond with the usual 'Roots and Dancing With Wolves' rant, spiced perhaps with a few references to Iraq and Guantanamo and whatever else is in the headlines; go ahead, let it out, I have heard it before, and it will mean no more to me this time than it did all of the others. Then, when you are done, please think about what Boris Johnson and Kin-ming Liu are trying to say.

What does China actually offer the world, as a pattern and as an ideal? Today, in this year, 2007? Are you just offering antifreeze in the toothpaste and an exchange rate so low that African cotton mills can no longer afford to hire Africans? We know that China is growing and that the Chinese love themselves more than the sun and the moon and the stars; what besides that, do the Chinese offer as 'soft power' to the world?

Kin-ming Liu, You are full of.....Kool-aid.

American Observer seems to be missing my point. I'm not saying that China is equal to the USA in overall 'Soft Power' which by-the-way is more than just about movies or books and their respective sales figures. My own personal opinion about most of Hollywood output is not that high. Screen writers and producers very often depart from the source material (if any) to output their formulaic junk to cater to the LCD. But if that is what sells movies so who am I to argue with that one. I do however find American Observer's choices of cultural benchmarks to be very limited and uninformed. On the matter of cultural influence China has had two thousand years plus influence on the countries and populations of Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei and the region of Indo-China. This extends beyond just language and script but also societal norms, legal systems, culture, religion, etc. And along the way a lot of Chinese books have been read by those countries peoples as well as by others. All those mentioned countries with the exception of Japan looked to China till the mid-to late 19th century as both benefactor and protector. While Western history books may have labelled them 'vassal states' of China, they in fact actually received more than what they gave China. This system broke down with the rapacious Europeans, Japanese and Americans making their push for empires in the 19th century. China couldn't live up to what was expected and stop the European and American colonizers taking over places in South-East Asia, parts of mainland China and, in the case of Japan which colonized Korea and Chinese Taipei. China over her long history has managed to survive repeated disasters such as the Turkic invasions, Mongol created devastation and rule, European attacks and colonization, Japanese invasion and colonization from the late 19th century till the mid-20th century and Communism after that. For all that China and the Chinese put up during the past 4500 years she remains the only remaining continuous civilization (The ancient Egyptians had a longer civilization but they had the misfortune to having been conquered by first the Greeks, then the Romans and finally the Arabs that overran their civilization).
Now China is coming back in vogue and interest grows daily. Napoleon may or may not have made that famous quote about awakening China but I don't think that the world has to fear such a thing. Initially it may be the case that other countries and their peoples are turning to China because of the latter's revived economy. But for the developing world China can also provide an alternative model for development, governance and foreign policy that may be more applicable to their situation.

So Americans like chop-sui, learn how to use chopsticks, want to learn chinese culture, and somehow THAT isn't chinese soft power... good argument there bub

using the "westernized beauty" argument is really dumb as fashion is always changing and what might be cool today may be totally uncool in 5 years. Do remember that 500 years ago anything from China is like something to wage a war far; time changes perspectives.

And don't even bring in Mao as a roadblock to broadening chinese influence. I don't see Britain thinking that the portrait of Henry the VIII would be bad PR, considering that he did wipe out a good deal of his native population. I don't see Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's (Turkey's founding father, in case you didn't knw) portrait ostracized despite attempting to wipe out the Armenians.

Bad arguments, bad logic. Why are you quoting someone who has almost zero ability of cultural or historical understanding?

I guess it is all a matter of proportion, isn't it? When you have a moment, please count the global box office receipts of American movies against the global box office receipts of Chinese movies, or American TV shows against Chinese TV shows, or American books against Chinese books... or, well, anything. Scholars study China, that is true, but scholars study America as well -- and so does everybody else.

What a load of rubbish has been written here. If one is to discuss 'Soft Power' then one should stick to arguments that make sense rather than ones that trivialize it. To use the example where plastic surgery by Asians (mostly Asian women) or dyeing their hair red or blonde (Again mostly Asian women) to look white is a sign of cultural superiority of the West is the height of stupidity. An inferiority complex by some Asians does not mean that 'Soft Power' is not present in Asian societies. Nor does it mean that Westerners don't look into Asian cultures or undertake studies in it. Eastern religious influence, programs in Eastern Cultural Studies, Eastern Languages, etc are all to be found in Universities in the West. Now high schools around the world are starting to teach Mandarin and it is even taught in some elementary schools as well. Living in NYC, there aren't enough Chinese language teachers for schools who might want to set up programs. Kevin Rudd, the Australian Opposition Leader showed the way of the future when speaking to the Chinese leader and other representatives at the APEC (not OPEC as President Bush thought) meeting in Sydney in perfect Mandarin. He also did it with a diplomat's flourish showing a great understanding of Chinese culture and society at the same time. China may not be everyone's cup of tea at this moment but there is definite interest in the country, economy, culture and people that is growing in the West and others.

Brilliant and insightful writing from you both, Kin-ming Liu and Boris Johnson. Thanks for sharing it with us.