The earthquake (and work) has sidetracked me on this, but you will be pleased to hear that this is my last post on "China's Foreign Policy and 'Soft Power' in South America, Asia and Africa," a report prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate. My last post, last Friday, dealt with U.S. soft power and its waning international reputation over the past few years.

Whether one is reading press accounts and scholarly treatises or traveling through the regions under discussion, the PRC seems to be everywhere. It is tempting to begin to think in alarmist terms, thereby magnifying presumed PRC strengths as well as perceived U.S. weaknesses. Many concerned observers focus on the competitive strengths that PRC soft power has in relation to the United States, pointing out that the PRC international approach is particularly strong in areas where the U.S. political system and U.S. values make it less competitive. Some suggest that these PRC strengths have a brighter future in today’s global economy, meaning that China will have increasing economic and political soft power clout internationally at the expense of the United States.

This is a straw man that the report then proceeds to knock down, noting the inherent problems with giving loans to dictators in Africa, using State-owned assets to drive outbound investment, etc. This is all true to an extent, but I can't help but feel that the author is really focusing on issues that are problematic for U.S. policy, and only to a lesser extent, China's foreign policy.

Here's a particularly funny critique of China's foreign aid policy:

China initially reported that it pledged $63 million in assistance to Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, a figure dwarfed by the $405 million pledged by the United States. A later article in a PRC publication, however, put the actual amount of PRC Indonesian assistance at $22.6 million. PRC foreign policy achievements will be constrained if Beijing continues to shortchange its intended recipient governments in this way.

Again, this is accurate, but coming from the U.S. government, which has shortchanged a lot of countries and international organizations over the past few years, it's just a wee bit hypocritical.

Here's another opportunity for laughter:

Foreign entanglements also could raise political problems at home for PRC policymakers. The increasing availability of Internet and cell phone use assures that growing numbers of Chinese citizens have more access to information, including information about China’s international activities. Confirmation that China is investing millions of dollars in overseas projects, while at home unemployment soars and infrastructure development lags, may prove objectionable to the hundreds of millions of PRC citizens still living below the poverty line—much the way many Americans sometimes react to U.S. overseas investment.

That last admission there at the end saved this passage from a source of guffaws to one merely of giggles. Surveys of Americans consistently show that although U.S. foreign aid is miniscule as a percentage of GDP, most folks think that the US gov't is engaged in unprecedented global largesse. If and when this becomes an issue here in China, it will pale in comparison to the phenomenon in the U.S. This paragraph smacks of wishful thinking, people.

The report poses some policy questions for the U.S. These are revealing in their focus and diction. Here are only a couple:

How can the United States hedge against possible PRC hegemonic ambitions in Asia without creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? [wow]

As the PRC increasingly expands its ‘‘hard power’’ assets—naval and military power—to protect its growing international interests, how much greater are the prospects for Sino-U.S. military confrontation? [eeek]

 Here's a personal favorite:

How should the United States respond, if at all, to any global perceptions of U.S. disengagement around the world? ["Perception" of disengagement? "If at all"? Gimme a break.]

Last, but not least, we have the obligatory policy suggestions. Enjoy (the bracketed blunt and inane comments are mine):

Reinvigorate U.S. engagement around the world to counter PRC soft power, including the expansion of U.S. public diplomacy. In Asia, this could include active participation in building the emerging economic and political/security architecture of the region. [gee, that sounds so easy]

Seek to counter PRC efforts to isolate Taiwan by making support for Taiwan’s greater international participation a condition of U.S. assistance and economic interaction with other countries. [stupid, doomed to fail, irresponsible]

Seek observer status within the SCO and the EAS, and urge China and African countries to create an observational status within the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, enabling the United States and other countries to learn about the policy priorities of these groups and to participate in consultations on time-sensitive, urgent challenges in these regions, including
armed conflicts, humanitarian crises, and security threats to Chinese and U.S. businesses. [I'm sure everyone wants the U.S. sitting there as an observer at SCO meetings]

Urge China to support an equitable, rule-based global legal and business environment and help to develop the rule of law in the regions in which it is investing by signing up to public-private sector good governance initiative and agreements. [1. hasn't the U.S. been doing this all along? 2. this is an empty statement]

Encourage China to join in multilateral and country-level donor foreign assistance dialogues and related efforts to prioritize key goals related to African development and coordinate aid efforts in order to create synergies, avoid duplication, and maximize each donor’s strengths—including infrastructure construction in the case of China. [see above re: "empty statement"]

Focus on an assertive U.S. role in solving regional problems, including health care to address HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; providing drugs, and building clinics; alternative energy sources; improvements in agricultural development capacities and providing increased education and human resource training. [wishful thinking – Bush has been good with African aid, I must admit]

Work harder to ensure that U.S. democratization and human rights values are not seen by other countries as encumbrances and prohibitions placed in the way of, but instead as things that ultimately will improve, their economic progress. [speaking of Bush, this might be possible after he's gone]

Re-think the current U.S. ‘‘gold standard’’ in regional and bilateral Free Trade Agreements, especially when such a standard requires substantial changes in domestic laws. [good luck]

Reinvigorate the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) as a vehicle for U.S. soft power influence in Asia. {sigh} [Fred Bergsten has been saying this to anyone who will listen for the past 512 years – so now they're gonna do it?]

OK, that's it, the end to a lot of boring policy crap and inane commentary.