Chloé Zhao and the failures of China's soft power
China spends billions on its soft power diplomacy, but Beijing’s need to control the narrative means progress is slow and often awkward
Chloé Zhao’s Oscar win for Best Director on Monday should have been a moment of triumph for China. Not only is Zhao Chinese-born, but her win also makes her the first woman of colour and non-American woman to win the award. She even delivered part of her acceptance speech in Mandarin and quoted Confucius. She is the perfect example of China’s ability to produce and promote its talent to a range of audiences worldwide.
So why did the Chinese press fail to report on the historic win? The answer lies in part in a comment Zhao made in an interview with Film Maker magazine in 2013, where she said that China is “a place where there are lies everywhere.” The quote was later deleted from the article.
But this is just a symptom of a wider problem. A single seemingly ‘anti-China’ comment made almost a decade ago isn’t necessarily enough to get one blacklisted. The main problem is that in the meantime, Zhao hasn’t done enough to be pro-China. That the Chinese government is unable to exercise control over her thoughts and words, and make her say patriotic things, is a problem for a nation used to curating its image with care and precision.
This problem reflected in the little Chinese media coverage Zhao did get, as several articles put out by the Global Times demonstrate. Zhao’s win is, apparently, just another entry into the woke history books:
“Chinese experts said these awards prove that the Oscars are trying to regain the hearts of moviegoers around the world by playing the "politically correct" and "diversity" cards.”
She leans a little too much into her US audience, not bothering to pander to her native peoples at all:
“since Nomadland heavily features the director's personal style and focuses on social issues in the US, it may fail to capture the interest of Chinese moviegoers.”
“If we just talk about Nomadland, we feel that the film is typically American and far from the real life of the Chinese people. To be honest, ordinary Chinese people can hardly commiserate with it. If the film is shown in China, its box-office returns are expected to be dim.”
(Note: this doesn’t seem to be a problem with Marvel movies, whose Chinese success seems to thrive off their non-Chineseness.)
Worse still, Zhao’s very existence is a representation of the current tensions in Sino-US affairs:
“Zhao won the awards, which is a display of her success in the US. We hope she can become more and more mature. In an era when the China-US confrontation is intensifying, she can play a mediating role in the two societies and avoid being a friction point. She cannot escape her special label, and she should actively use it.”
You would think that this reaction from the Chinese media meant that China doesn’t really care about its perception abroad, and has no interest in presenting a positive image in renowned global events, especially when its Chinese representatives don’t play their assigned role. But this is far from the truth. China spends billions on its soft power, and by now anyone with a vague interest in China will have heard of initiatives such as ‘the Chinese Dream’ and ‘the Belt and Road Initiative’. While these are primarily political and economic policies, they are also attempts by the Chinese government to present a friendly face, a peaceful rise, and a sort of one-world dream-like vision of an interconnected, global future.
This dichotomy between policy aims and media action then begs the question, what are China’s soft power goals and why, despite concerted efforts and a high budget, have they been unable to achieve them so far?
China’s soft power budget
Soft power can be understood as the ability of a nation to make its culture, ideology, and society appear attractive to other nations to the extent that they will be more open to political and economic cooperation. China’s main problems when it comes to international perception are its harsh and repressive political system and ruthless business practices. Instead of the gentle rise it aimed to portray, China’s rapid economic growth and ambitious developmental plans have been seen as a threat by developed and developing nations alike.
China’s attempts at improving its image began in 2007 under Hu Jintao, but have been ramped up under Xi, who in 2014 said "We should increase China's soft power, give a good Chinese narrative, and better communicate China's messages to the world." Through ventures such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Development Bank, China has pledged to invest $1.25 trillion worldwide by 2025.
Apart from money, China takes an active role in helping different sectors in developing countries, for example by training journalists in Asia and Africa, and helping students around the world learn Chinese through its Confucius Institute Network.
There is no doubt that interest in China has been growing over the years. China is currently the third most popular country for international students and its primary news agency, Xinhua, has over 170 bureaus around the world. State TV news service China Global Television Network has six channels in English, Arabic, French, Russian, and Spanish, with reporting teams in more than 70 countries.
But anyone with experience with these tools of diplomacy knows that they are still rather blunt. Chinese English language news sites such as Global Times or China Daily are unabashedly patriotic and prone to lashing out. Their Twitter diplomacy is heavy-handed and gauche. Anyone who has ever taken a Mandarin lesson at a Confucius Institute, or taken part in a competition like Chinese Bridge, needs no further convincing. The message is there, but the tactics are crude and still rather unappealing.
China may be spending billions on PR, but the real question is whether or not it’s putting its money in the right places. I think this quote sums it up pretty nicely: “A 2014 BBC poll showed that since 2005, positive views about China's influence had declined by 14 percentage points and that a full 49% of respondents viewed China negatively. Surprisingly, as a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project indicates, China's soft-power deficit is apparent even in Africa and Latin America, precisely the regions where one would think the country's appeal would be strongest.”
How, then, could China modify its approach? Let’s take a look at sports as an example.
No-name stars
China spends hundreds of millions on producing Olympic athletes at specialised training schools. Chinese athletes won 48 Golds in Beijing 2008, 38 at London 2012, and 28 at Rio 2016, ranking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively. Here’s a question: how many Chinese Olympic Gold Medalists can you name?
The question may seem irrelevant on the surface, but like it or not, international sporting events like the Olympics play a huge role in soft power. Top international athletes such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Chris Hoy, and Simone Biles are remembered both for stand-out performances and their personalities (good and bad), which are reported heavily in the media surrounding their events. Like most other athletes, they work hard at their craft, but also at crafting an appealing persona that to some extent represents their home countries too - a playful, laid back vibe; a reserved but proud demeanour; a focused and competitive spirit.
When it comes to events like the Olympics, athletes represent both individual success and national pride (don’t even get me started on the World Cup). But China fails to capitalise on events like the Olympics to promote its talent as representatives of China’s sports programme, economic development, or international prestige. Their winners are subsumed back into the collective image of China’s overall success. We know China will be in the top 5 every Olympic games, and we even know which sports they’re most likely to win, but we don’t know who their winners are. This is a huge missed opportunity when it comes to appealing to the people of more individualistic nations outside of Asia, especially in Europe and North America.
It doesn’t help that China often falls out with the stand-out stars it does have. Following her victory at the 2011 French Open, Li Na became first Asian Grand Slam singles champion. She shot to success at home and abroad, appearing on the cover of Time in 2013, and launching a huge trend for tennis in China. A lot of this was down to her personality - she was friendly, charming, and witty. But unlike other athletes, Li Na was able to achieve her success after leaving the Chinese Sports Program in 2008. She has angered fans by speaking out against a high-profile kindergarten abuse scandal, for not apologising for losing matches, and for not terminating her contract with Nike following the Xinjiang cotton debacle.
Li Na’s individualistic streak seems to have cost her: a documentary about her life titled Playing Alone was removed from Chinese site Douban. It seems the Chinese government wants to have its international stars, but without the personality and often rebelliousness that comes hand in hand with fame. They want to control international narratives just as tightly as domestic ones. But this isn’t how soft power works.
Celebrities as mascots
In another newsletter and a podcast episode, I spoke about how Chinese celebrities at home were not only expected to behave responsibly, but were also expected to act as moral guides and upholders of Chinese virtues. Those who stray from the correct line are swiftly and summarily punished, and (usually) brought back in line in short order.
High profile celebrities like Fan Bingbing and Jack Ma are often made an example of for their misdeeds, whether that be not paying taxes on time, or for stepping out of sync with the party’s vision for national development. Often they reappear unscathed and apologetic, ready to get back to work without a mention of where they had been, or why they went missing in the first place. The state is able to continue to exercise a measure of control over their lives so that they continue to represent the best China possible, internally and occasionally internationally.
But it’s harder for China to control those not immediately within its sphere of influence, especially for soft power purposes. Zhao, for example, may have been born in China, but she was educated in the UK and now lives and works in the US. China would find it much more difficult to make her disappear for a few weeks, only to reappear with a dazzling smile and a heavily-scripted apology with bonus pledge to the CCP and Chinese values. Even if it could pull something like this off, this kind of action would most likely only further damage perceptions of China’s treatment of its own people. It doesn’t help that China uses what influence it does have to throw its weight against anyone who has done something, big or small, to offend it.
The art of subtlety
In 2019, American gaming company Blizzard withdrew prize money from the winner of the Asia-Pacific Grandmasters tournament for the game Hearthstone, banning him from the game’s pro league for a year. This came after he shouted a slogan supporting Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests, stating that the act could “offend a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damage Blizzard’s image.” After much uproar, they decided to pay up and reduce the ban, but repeated their commitment to safeguarding China’s “national dignity.”
Though the company stated that their relationship with China had no effect on their decision, critics weren’t so sure. Besides the fact that Chinese tech giant Tencent owns a 5% stake in the company, China is one of the world’s biggest gaming markets, one in which Blizzard has a vested interest. Whether or not the CCP exerted any pressure on the company, the feeling from international audiences was that foul play was afoot. As one gamer put it “The only thing Blizzard was trying to keep ‘safe’ was itself.”
The problem here was that China’s soft power - passive or active - was seen to impede the fairness of international esports and freedom of speech. If China’s soft power is seen to only have negative effects, then no one will want it. The fact that Chinese netizens and news sites tend to jump down the throats at anyone who criticises China in these moments - without letting the situation breathe a little first - doesn’t help.
These two groups also tend to engage in confusing double-think logic. Whereas the failure of Hong Kong protest documentary Do Not Split to win in its category was well-deserved due to its lack of authenticity and one-sidedness, for Chinese film Better Days, apparently just being nominated for Best International Film was good enough. "It does not matter that Better Days did not win. The storytelling in the movie and stunning performances of the lead characters allow us to see how China's film industry has moved forward.” I guess it’s the taking part that counts after all?
I think my point here is that if China just ignored many of these things, they would probably be surprised at how much perceptions about their character as a nation would change. Appearing to be the bigger person can go a long way, especially when it comes to the much smaller perceived slights that most people would never have even realised had happened in the first place. I know that it can be much harder to take the high road and not kick journalists out of your country every time they write something mildly off-colour, but there’s a reason why nations like the USA have a generally favourable image abroad, despite committing many domestic and international atrocities yet unaccounted for.
Sometimes, when you’re being accused of propping up illegitimate regimes or oppressing your own people, the best response is no response at all.
Striking a balance
The standard definition of soft power “is premised on the clear demarcation that exists in democratic societies between state and nonstate spheres. In China, the government manipulates and manages almost all propaganda and cultural activities.” Should China, then, be more like the US, which lets celebrities use their popularity to champion political and social issues without any comment from the government? This is obviously impossible. But perhaps there is a middle way.
If China insists on controlling information both inside and outside its borders, it needs to become more sophisticated at doing it. PR lessons for national stars or briefings for international nationals such as Zhao might be a start. At least then people will know what the government wants them to talk about and what to avoid, and both parties can come to an agreement before a high profile international event takes place.
The government would also need to do something about Chinese netizens, who tend to gang up on foreign commentators and often appear spiteful when reacting to events or minor comments that realistically don’t really affect them. Encouraging them to be milder when promoting Chinese nationalism abroad would do nothing to harm patriotism at home.
At the end of the day, it comes down to trust. Thus far, it seems that a lack of trust in both its own celebrities and the rest of the world’s authenticity when dealing with China is holding the government back from fully embracing a popular soft power strategy. Perhaps when dealing with these issues, the Chinese government would do well to take a leaf from Zhao’s book and heed the advice of Confucius: “People at their birth are naturally good.” Perhaps the Chinese government should try treating them as such.
Sources
BBC, Oscars 2021: Chloé Zhao, from 'outsider' to Hollywood history-maker
Bloomberg, What the Oscars Say About China’s Struggle With Soft Power
China Daily, China boosts soft power by training foreign journalists
David Shambaugh, China's Soft-Power Push: The Search for Respect
Global Times, 'Nomadland' reminds those caught between US-China rivalry to keep faith: Global Times editorial [deleted]
Global Times, Chinese netizens congratulate Beijing-born Chloe Zhao for Academy Awards win despite Oscars’ heavy political tinge
Insider, Inside the grueling Chinese 'sports schools' where kids become Olympians
Nikkei Asia, Muji promotes Xinjiang cotton as Chinese netizens lash rivals
Press Gazette, China expels three Wall Street Journal reporters over 'sick man of Asia' headline
RTHK, China and South Korea in a pickle over kimchi
Variety, How the Avengers Became Such a Marvel in China
Variety, Blizzard Reinstates Hong Kong Gamer’s Prize but Reaffirms Censure of His Speech