Chinese aid and investment

A report in The Guardian newspaper (Chinese mining in Peru) has highlighted China's investment in copper, silver and molybdenum mining in Peru. Chinalco, a Chinese mining giant, is struggling to relocate the 5,000 people who live next to Toromocho mountain where the minerals are awaiting extraction from the earth. Forced relocation at home is easy for the Chinese and happens on a regular basis; overseas it is more difficult, hence the mining company is trying to trying to bring civil society and local consultancy groups into the process to achieve what American academic Cynthia Sanborn calls 'a planned consensual relocation of a town'. The Guardian reveals that Chinalco bought the land for $860 million and invested $.2.2 billion in the mine.    

This report made me think again about China's investment in, and aid to developing countries which are considered features of China's soft power strategy.

One of the best books on China I have read in 2012 is Deborah Brautigam's The Dragon's Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2009; 2011) which connects with my own work on China's public diplomacy and soft power (although it never explicitly discusses either in depth). Brautigam's analysis offers a penetrating critique of popular perceptions of China as a wholly benevolent power offering the not only an alternative "model" of development, but also investment and unconditional aid that is said to be welcome throughout Africa.

Brautigam demonstrates that China's foreign aid 'has become one tool in a range of economic instruments adeptly managed by China's state leaders to boost China's exports and its own development' (p.25). After noting how China's engagement with Africa has contributed to the continent's development, she then asks: 'Should we be critical of China's claim that its aid should foster mutual benefit ...? Shouldn't aid from such a powerhouse be mainly altruistic ...? (ibid.). Brautigam thinks the 'short answer to this is no' (ibid,), and this is where China's public diplomacy creeps into the analysis.

One of the unique characteristics of China's approach to public diplomacy is the concern with reaching both international and domestic audiences: the Chinese themselves are a principal target of the government's public diplomacy programme. This is understandable given the problems associated with the introduction of market capitalist practices (extremes of poverty, unemployment etc.) and, more importantly, the decline of ideology - communism - to legitimise the government's decisions and mobilise the people around a developmental agenda. Now, the authority of the Communist Party depends more than ever on its performance and the delivery of its economic promises. This helps explain the clear shift from complete dependence on old style propaganda campaigns to public diplomacy strategies that might encourage support (of the party and its policies) from the people.

Brautigam's analysis adds a new dimension to this description of China's public diplomacy by discussing 'expectations' (ibid.) of both domestic audiences and the international community (including the recipients of aid). Such 'engagement that is frankly about the benefits for China as well as the recipient ... avoids the paternalism that has come to characterize aid from the West.'

 It also avoids the hypocrisy that inevitably accompanies aid when the aspect of mutual benefit is papered over. For example, the US Agency for International Development routinely justifies its budge requests to Congress by showing the high percentage of aid that comes back as benefits for America. At the same time, it tries to convince NGO critics that aid is really about reducing poverty (ibid.)

 

Note that I am not making any judgement here about the validity of China's claims: Brautigam evaluates China's aid far better than I ever could. Rather, I wish to draw attention to China's claim itself, for mutual benefit is a powerful theme to communicate to domestic audiences, while the apparent transparency of motivations and the urge to avoid western-style paternalism ('hypocrisy') appeals to recipients. This communication aspect of China's aid programme can help explain its attraction and success. It is captured in the words of an African ambassador in the US who told Brautigam "China gives Africans more respect than they get from the West." His fellow African Ambassadors in the group with Brautigam 'nodded vigorously in agreement' (p.68). As Huang and Ding (2006: 24) have noted, 'A country's economic clout reinforces its soft power if others are attracted to it for reasons beyond trade, market access or job opportunities.' It would appear that the Ambassador's sentiments suggest that this strategy is working.

 

 

 

References

 

Brautigam, D. (2009/2011), The Dragon's Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

 

Huang, Y.Z & S. Ding (2006), 'Dragon's Belly: An analysis of China's soft power,' East Asia, Vol.24 (4)

 

Sesame Street in Pakistan

Regular readers of this blog will know of my love for the American children's TV programme, Sesame Street, and my conviction of its role in international outreach. Its role in developing educational programmes around the world has been one of the greatest public diplomacy (or education diplomacy) success stories, mainly for two reasons: (i) it demonstrates the importance of acting positively and creating new opportunities and relationships with audiences (the importance of actually doing something, rather than just talking about it); and (ii) by encouraging local media organisations to create their own versions of Sesame Street that are embedded within local cultural contexts, the producers demonstrate a sensitivity to their audiences: "The US government thought it was on to a winner when it gave $20m (£13m) to fund a Pakistani version of the show, hoping it would raise the country's woeful literacy rates and help turn a young generation away from the siren call of religious extremism."

A report in yesterday's Guardian newspaper is therefore quite disturbing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/05/pakistan-sesame-street-funding-withdrawn?INTCMP=SRCH). It seems that the US Agency for International Development is withdrawing funding for the Pakistani version of Sesame Street, Sim Sim Hamara, because of 'financial irregularities', mismanagment and even corruption. Obviously the local prodcers, Rafi Peer, have denied the allegations.

Whatever the reason this is a very regrettable episode, and over above the soft power interests of developing a local version of Sesame Street, the only losers are Pakistan's children trapped in illiteracy.  
   

US to fund Sesame Street remake for Pakistan

USAid is spending $20m to remake Sesame Street for audiences in Pakistan. The location will be a 'lively village ... with a roadside tea and snacks stall ... some fancy houses with overhanging balconies along with simple dwellings, and residents hanging out on their verandas'  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/07/sesame-street-pakistan). The series will feature characters tailor-made for the audience (including Rani, the child of a peasant farmer), and will be broadcast in Urdu and 56 regional languages. The Guardian reports that 'The show will have strong female characters and carry an implicit message of tolerance, but will feature no pro-American propaganda or overt challenge to hardline religious sentiment. ... The Pakistani Sesame Street could turn out to be the most visible American aid project in Pakistan in recent years'.

This is not the first time that Sesame Street is remade for local audiences: by 2006 there were 20 co-productions in countries all over the world, each one addressing local audiences with local characters, locations and issues relevant to the audiences. The first HIV-positive Muppet, Kami, was created in 2003 to help address South Africa's AIDS epidemic.

In 2011 Sesame Street returns to China in the form of 52 11-minute Chinese episodes of Sesame Street: Big Bird Looks at the World (Zhima Jie: Da Niao Kan Shijie) broadcast on Haha TV, which reaches Shanghai’s population of roughly 18.5 million. This follows Sesame Street's presence at the Shanghai Expo where Big Bird joined expo mascot Haibao to present a Magic Map Show.

I am not aware of any serious study of Sesame Street and public diplomacy, but it does seem an excellent example of promoting American soft power through aid and education. Meanwhile, because each co-production is created around local needs, characters, locations and issues, it helps to dismiss the nonsense of cultural imperialism that refuses to go away in many academic debates about international communications. There are some who will criticise USAid's involvement and claim that this undermines the credibility of the programme. But remember these are co-productions that would not be possible without the involvement of local programmers; and when it comes to a child's education, does it really matter? Localisation would not be possible (especially in China) if there was a suggestion that the programmes would be a vehicle for the promotion of US values. Let's hope these new ventures are a success.