A recent article in the US journal Foreign Affairs, written by Daniel Mattingly of Yale University argues persuasively that: “China’s Soft Sell of Autocracy is Working”.
Professor Mattingly’s report draws, in part, on an international survey of people in 19 countries around the world, which found that Beijing’s messaging was “particularly resonant in developing countries, such as Columbia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa”.
The article is distinctly helpful in the way it maps the impact of China’s expanding English language, global-media footprint, including the China Global Television Network (CGTN):
“We found [during the survey] that viewers’ positions on China moved dramatically after watching representative clips produced by CGTN. Although only 16 percent of people preferred the Chinese political model to the U.S. political model initially, after watching CGTN content, 54 percent stated the reverse. People also saw the Chinese system as more responsive, better at delivering growth, and, remarkably, more democratic in character.”
CGTN, Xinhua and the China Daily (all mentioned in the article) are routinely badged across the West, and especially in Western media outlets, as little more than “party mouthpieces” delivering “propaganda”. In fact, the real difference is that “propaganda” production is far more profitably privatised in the West. Moreover, the Western “mouthpiece” role of primary media outlets like the New York Times, the BBC and so many others is manifestly clear.
Anyone who takes the time to watch what CGTN offers will not be surprised by the survey outcomes: the best of its programmes are excellent and production quality is regularly first rate. Moreover, with 1.4 billion people, a continuous culture that is well over 3,000 years old, civil engineering on a scale seen nowhere else and remarkably diverse, haunting geography, there are countless engrossing stories waiting to be told.
The US and China are compared in the article and both are described as “selling” and “messaging” – though only China is explicitly identified as producing “propaganda”. But China’s unique nation-building achievements are also aptly woven into the narrative.
Harvard Professor, Joseph Nye, coined the expression soft power some decades ago. He explained how this power was of singular importance in sustaining America’s then exceptionally dominant global role. American soft power at that time was perhaps 70% substance and 30% marketing. Today it looks more like the reverse in the case of the US. Given China’s achievements over the last 40 years, its soft power today relies fundamentally on an unmatched performance scorecard, which means there is so much for the marketing aspect to work with.
This message is implicit in Professor Mattingly’s thoughtful article. And it explains, in my view, one key reason why the US faces such head-winds today as works, “to sell its political system to the global public.” But read for yourself and consider if this is so.
Richard Cullen is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong. He was previously a Professor in the Department of Business Law and Taxation at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.