What Wine and Branding Have in Common

Even cheaper wines mark their year. No one has any illusion that giving the vintage makes the wine better. Rather, no self-respecting consumer would buy a wine without a vintage on it. “What, Yellow-Tail, you expect us to believe that every year is a vintage year?” The point is cheap wines have to pretend they belong in elite company for people to even consider them.

Therein lies the problem with China’s branding. China isn't globally pretentious enough. As Wang notes, “[t]he Chinese are too humble to promote China in international society.” (262) China is too defensive in nature, it is concerned especially about correcting misconceptions (Li, 6). Certainly, it has adopted a more proactive posture, setting up Confucius Institutes. However, although they teach Chinese values, they don’t make a claim of universality.

True, not all countries have to claim to have the best value system. Rather, they might pick a characteristic and promote that as their brand. However, these are mostly small and middle-tier powers. China wants to be a superpower, and so its branding must aspire to similar standards. That means China must proclaim it has superior culture and values, major powers such as France and America do.

Look the part, be the part.

-Jake

China's Soft Power in Developing Countries

I found Mingjiang Li's "Soft Power in Chinese Discourse: Popularity and Prospect" to have some interesting presentations of Chinese politicians and academicians in what constitutes China's soft power. I liked, for example, the mention by President Hu Jintao that China needs to ensure its soft power in four "environments:" in the international realm, with its neighboring countries, in its cooperative agreements "based on equality and mutual benefits," and in its media environment.

Historically, China has been seen as an aggressor both by its neighbors and now the rest of the world, particularly Western countries see China's growth as an economic and environmental threat, for example, so that's a tough one to overcome. Its media is also seen as being completely controlled by the state, which just doesn't sell in this day and age, even if you're trying to use media build a country brand. As Yiwei Wang says in "Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power," defining the Chinese brand is also a challenge, especially in a society that is evolving so quickly in so many ways.

Where China is making headway, and with a healthy dose of self-interest, is in its relationship and cooperative agreements with developing countries. All of the theory is spot on--promoting the idea of win-win relationships based upon equality and mutual benefits. In Africa, for example, even if you scratch the surface and say, this looks like the same ol' same ol', it is a refreshing change to many Africans after doing business with Western countries that have a colonialist spirit.

As most people know, China is going into business deals without putting "conditionalities" on loans, which doesn't exactly help with African countries' reform processes, namely with regard to governance and human rights, but it is a helluva lot less condescending than someone coming in and telling you how to resolve your problems. It is also resulting in the achievement of some great infrastructure projects. For example, in Angola, the Chinese are building roads in exchange for oil, with the guarantee being the oil that China is sure to receive, and needs for its own development and Angola finally has decent main artery roads that extend throughout the country. Win-win, commodities for basic infrastructure that African countries need to advance development, business interests, and everything else.

In other African countries China has also built schools, health clinics, and sports stadiums, and has refurbished old factories (if for example they judge them to have the potential to be viable). China has also sent doctors and other professionals to work where they're needed, and the folks who come over are paid very modest wages so their living standards are much more comparable to those of their African counterparts, another thing that is winning hearts in developing countries. The fact that China itself is a developing country means that it is more of a South-South relationship and is already endearing to many.

The Confucius Institutes are also a brilliant move! There are plenty of Chinese to staff them, and the ideas of Confucius are certainly one of the pieces of the Chinese brand that many people throughout the world are interested in and would like to know more about.

But the jury is still out, for example, on the development side with regard to what extent the relationships are really win-win, or whether China is just another big power that is in need of primary materials and is complicit in the rape of the African continent. The Chinese development model seems quite promising as part of the country's PD, and it is certainly meeting Chinese interests. If it succeeds over time, then watch out--China's successful PD efforts in this area may pay off dividends both now and even farther down the road in helping position the country to successfully compete in this international realm and meet its foreign policy goal of getting the raw materials it needs to ensure its own development.

UN, France in the Ivory Coast

As the NY Times reports in this article, France and the UN have entered into the conflict in the Ivory Coast, supporting democratically elected Alassane Ouattara against the former president  Laurent Gbagbo, who refused to step down from power after recent elections. I do not wish to discuss the "rightness" of this action - many bloggers, reporters, and commentators have already attested to Gbagbo's many crimes and faults, and that is not really the purview of this post. Instead, I'd like to comment on what is on its way to becoming a pattern. The UN, throughout its history, has been plagued with problems in its peacekeeping missions. Often, the UN troops are not allowed to take action, or may do so only in a limited way. While I do believe that protecting civilians and upholding the legitimate results of free elections is a worthy cause, I wonder at what the UN is saying about itself with the armed support of the Ouattara loyalists, and earlier this year, the Anti-Qaddaffi rebels.
In Libya, the UN has already recieved some criticism from some of its more prominent members (including Russia and China, who abstained from the vote), on the grounds that it is overstepping its boundaries and infringing on state sovereignty. I can't help but feel that the action in the Ivory Coast will produce the same result. It is hard to say as well, whether the people of both Libya and the Ivory Coast will feel any particular gratitude towards France and the UN. Although I can only assume that the UN has more reason to be in the Ivory Coast because of the humanitarian crisis, showing off the hard power of its forces would be a great boost to its soft power bargaining capabilities.

The Culture Problem

Edward Hall, in Beyond Culture writes of the problematic nature when engaging in communication cross-cultures. Given that Public Diplomacy 2.0 has increased access for others to learn about our own culture, does this do more harm than good. As this USC article states -http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/secretary_clintons_culture_complaint/
the perceptions other cultures have are often myopic or skewed. For example, Baywatch is replayed overseas which relays an image of Blondes in Bikinis. That's America. Moreover, the perceptions Americans have are just as skewed, as our information is siphoned off from select footage. Hopefully, with increased social networking, we'll be better able to grasp what other cultures are actually like, not just the sensationalist clips.

Reply to KAT at Group 3

Good post by KAT over at Grupo Numero 3

A Counterpoint:

I think those who advocate for “transformational diplomacy” are too bullish on the prospect of NGO’s improving nation brands. I cannot think of an instance in which a foreign NGO helped, willingly or inadvertently to boost another country’s brand. The closest example I can think of is Global Witness (I could be wrong on the name) a Canadian NGO, blew the whistle on conflict diamonds and helped create the Kimberly Process, which guards against conflict diamonds. They did not really improve the image of the countries were the diamonds were, but rather made the diamond industry look more responsible. NGO’s often seem more content with unearthing scandals and criticizing, and well they should be.

However, what is best from a PD perspective is not necessarily morally right. Keeping abuses under the rug can improve a brand more than confessing past sins.

-JDC

Mucking around to do better PD

I really like the readings this week concerning the idea of two-way communication, especially the Deos and Pigman piece on "Sustainable Public Diplomacy," and drove home what I've always hated about that "winning the hearts and minds" notion that U.S. PD was pushing around time of the Iraq war--it was a completely one-way message that was being sent out, almost love us or we'll gun you down kind of thing. I found it offensive and simplistic, something that no one was ever going to buy.

I also think that they make the point that soft power can be had on the cheap, so we'd better not think that it's something that we can somehow buy with our endless military resources. It's not, as Al Qa'eda has proven. The other notion I found intriguing, and am still mulling over, is what the limits of PD are in cases for example when you're not dealing with state actors, which is simply the world we live in now--is it PD when you're dealing with terrorists, or is it then some kind of unofficial mission or covert operation?

I find these questions particularly intriguing, and have been thinking about them in the case of our group's country study on PD in Pakistan. For example, with the problems in Kashmir, how do you begin changing the situation if you don't deal with the people who need to change and evolve, i.e., known terrorists? You simply have to deal with them somehow, even if through outside actors initially, and eventually find a way to bring them into the discussions.

That reminds me of the ex-combatants and child soldiers that I interviewed for USAID while working in Sierra Leone. Dialoguing with these groups was very difficult at first, and happened through humanitarian and religious organizations, those front line folks who are willing to integrate themselves into somewhat dangerous communities for long periods of time to gain both an understanding of local people to understand why they do what they do, and also to gain their trust as someone who genuinely wants to help make things better. In conflict situations, people are often motivated by how they can best make a living, and the best way to make a life for themselves and their families, which are very normal types of motivations. However, at the poorest levels of society they can be manipulated by the lure of more money, a better life, a better life in heaven if they're a martyr, etc. Once people start making decisions that are detrimental to themselves or others like committing violent or repressive acts, it requires a great deal of psycho-social counseling to get them back on track.

So where does the PD work come into all of this? The humanitarian aid that often includes psychosocial counseling is pretty much at the bottom of the chain, at the grass roots level, and the diplomats are often closed up in their embassies, or operating at the elitist level, far removed from such interventions.

So how can a PD expert hope to do his or her job without an understanding of all of this? Daryl Copeland urges diplomats to get out of their sheltered environments and muck around, and to establish connections at all levels in order to be able to effectively communicate out, and effect change. Says Copeland, "The art of persuasion and the identification of shared needs and interests will be key if the playing field is to be leveled and confidence, trust and respect, the pre-requisites of political progress, are to be nurtured."

I think the PD expert has to be in touch with everyone, from their counterparts in the host country government to businesspeople to farmers and excombatants, as in the case of many in Sierra Leone. Through effective interventions though, many excoms eventually became farmers, which was a small victory in many ways, and led them to a slightly better, and definitely more stable, more peaceful life.

Maybe in the Kashmir region of Pakistan, the dialogue has to start with terrorists, who if interventions are effective may also eventually become farmers, or businesspeople, or educators. The PD expert cannot do this work, but they should know about the issues and through effective communication with the people who are doing the work so that they can lend support to these societal transformations.

I know, I know, I'm such a damn Polyanna, but if the aims of diplomats overseas are ultimately to help people with issues relate to development and security, and an enlargement of the resource base for any given population--i.e., working in partnership with the people in the countries where diplomats serve to resolve these issues--then yes, I think that effective, informed PD to key audiences should be able to help us deliver those results. In the case of people actively at war, or terrorists plotting their net move, my problem solved is your problem solved, so to speak. If we can figure out what's going on and then figure out how to communicate that back and up effectively, then maybe we can in some ways help to level the world's playing field.

Punctuated Equilibrium in PD

In the study of evolution, some scientists have noticed that some evolutionary changes can take place suddenly, rather than gradually. There is a similar dynamic in PD. While countries spend billions executing long term plans to endear themselves to the world, sudden, consequential events can spoil the best laid plans. For example, Libya, led by Qaddafi's sons, had tried to cultivate an image of moderation and integration. That brand died in the few seconds it took Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi to say "we will fight till the last bullet" against protesters.

Since these moments are so important, governments should spend more time focusing on how to practice PD in an unpredictable crisis, like operation Odyssey Dawn. Long-term nation branding without preparation for contingencies is like putting up a tent without a rain-fly.