[Joe1870]

After reading a few books on global power including a number of Joseph Nye's publications on types and the future of power, I was wondering whether people agreed that the USA have made better use of their soft power assets than China.

[Igor Antunov]

In the past decade the US has utterly squandered its soft power on multiple fronts, severely damaging its own influence.

[Terrik]

This article gives a lot of good points about echoes some of my feelings at China's uphill battle in regards to soft power. I think they could do so much more, but their own policies often strange their own attempts at spreading their message.

[PushEnvelope]

The United States has indeed damned itself of recent with two simultaneous wars. However confronting an observation of who has a better sense of influence, China or the US, is a complex one to be sure. But what is not complex about international affairs?

China's human civil rights concern is controversial. Although some aspects can not be disputed. Lack of freedom of the press, absence of due process, no sense of worker's rights and a brutal non-existence of a freedom of religion is clear. Suppression of internet freedom is perhaps the most prevalent to be spoken of of recent. All of these issues are in the works of very gradual reform that, perhaps, will one day see ratification.

This in addition to the intense territorial disputes between China and Japan, as well as China's lack of respect for other foreign sovereignty, castes a terrible shadow. A gloomy unknown exists of what may be the future of Chinese leadership. The same leadership that will hold more power in the world than any other. The United States became the first empire to claim influence not by conquering but by culture. Will China be a future empire of the same?

I say the misuse of power is apparent in both. But of current I side with the United States.

[Igor Antunov]

Strict religious regulation is a brilliant measure and hopefully never changes. The rest could do some work.

[Franker65]

Quite a lot of it is indeed exemplified by the way the Chinese censor the Internet. If you look at statistics about Internet freedom in China, its no wonder companies decide to set up elsewhere. A low corporate tax rate and full use of the Internet are two of the most important factors in luring business to your country. China needs to consider the latter much more.

[Igor Antunov]

What makes you think they wish to lure foreign owned business to their country? Despite all this, they are the no.1 FDI destination regardless.

[Franker65]

What makes you think they wish to lure foreign owned business to their country? Despite all this, they are the no.1 FDI destination regardless.

Obviously to pay tax, create jobs and improve the economy.

[Igor Antunov]

They do that on their own anyway, and the chief aim was always to lure foreign technologies, and that time has come and gone. Now domestically created multinationals are starting to compete abroad.

[Varax]

China’s rapid economic rise will inevitably lead it to acquiring a much greater deal of soft power and while on some fronts I feel they have managed this wisely on others they have not. For instance their recent oftentimes provocative territorial claims has put a number of their neighbors on alert. I feel that in some areas China is pushing too hard too fast. Had they waited until they are even stronger they might be able to push a large part of East Asia under their influence but by acting in a provocative manner now they have made it harder for themselves down the road. Part of capitalizing on soft power is convincing other countries it is in their own best interests to work with you. With some countries such as Pakistan China has made good gains whereas with Southeast Asia they have been too antagonistic. Being too antagonistic too quick will also play right into the US’s plans for the region.

The US is still the world’s major superpower despite everything else, still the world’s largest economy (well, unless you count the EU as one entity which I don’t). It has a huge, established global network of allies and client states. That doesn’t happen by accident so historically the US has been very effective using its soft power. More recently I agree there have been some serious missteps but the real problem for the US is our current economic failings and thus relative decline.

I don’t think either is really better at managing their soft power - it’s just that the US has more at the moment and a larger established network while China is just really starting to get going now as a true global player.

[Gletkin]

With their current saber-rattling over the Pinnacles, I'd say China's done a good job of upstaging Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With all their controversies, those wars were waged by the US over alleged immediate national security concerns against regimes with whom they had few economic ties and in the case of Iraq, over a decade's worth of geo-political rivalry.

Japan has been one of China's largest trading partners and no more a political rival than the US itself. While the Iraq War raged, China quietly toured Asia, winning appeal with its "It's the Economy Stupid" message. But for some reason since then, China's recently been much more belligerent about the Japanese presence in the Pinnacles over vague historical claims. This makes them look a little unhinged.

Plus, my understanding of "soft power" is basically liking a country despite military power or financial clout. Just plain "liking you" even if it's based on "propaganda". Take those two things away from the PRC, what else do they have? The USA on the other hand still has a very appealing popular culture that still wins it its share of admirers even if you take away the Pentagon and Wall Street.

[Igor Antunov]

Plus, my understanding of "soft power" is basically liking a country despite military power or financial clout. Just plain "liking you" even if it's based on "propaganda". Take those two things away from the PRC, what else do they have?

Then you misunderstand the key behind soft power. It is economic in nature. Incentives, bribes, sweeteners. They don't even have to like you, money talks when making inroads into their infrustructure and other sensitive industries. Even if China loses the propaganda war, it still has the bulk of the worlds industrial base (still rapidly modernising-will be largest consumer and user of industrial robots by 2014) and the largest piggy bank of all. Domestically it has more than enough manpower and internal talent to keep moving forward. So it has all it needs to drive expansion from within.

[RhetoricThug]

The soft power that America has over the globe is far too great, you can never compare it to China. Hollywood itself is a jumpstart.

Hell, even North Korean dictators love Disney.

No contest here

[Gletkin]

Then you misunderstand the key behind soft power. It is economic in nature.

Hmm...that does make more sense.
I had thought a definition that excluded financial clout was a bit too soft.

In any case, what China is doing falls outside of "soft power". It's attempting to display "hard power".

Even if China loses the propaganda war, it still has the bulk of the worlds industrial base (still rapidly modernising-will be largest consumer and user of industrial robots by 2014) and the largest piggy bank of all. Domestically it has more than enough manpower and internal talent to keep moving forward. So it has all it needs to drive expansion from within.

No it doesn't.
All those attributes still need international trade to continue China's advancement.
Which is why it's madness for China to talk of war against one of its largest trading partners.

[Figlio di Moros]

If it's simply economic power, then America wins. China doesn't have the influence over the IMF the way the west does.

[Igor Antunov]

The soft power that America has over the globe is far too great, you can never compare it to China. Hollywood itself is a jumpstart.

Hell, even North Korean dictators love Disney.

No contest here

Hollywood can be bought, if you have enough money. That is why Iron Man 3 went to China. Wealth = culture influence. And China's just getting started.

Which is why it's madness for China to talk of war against one of its largest trading partners.

It doesn't, in fact it was Japan that first suggested it would fire on Chinese vessels, this is China's response to that threat of open aggression.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

hard to compare the two - both have been successful in their uses of soft power. The US has been using soft in conjuction with hard, in the context of being a global hegemon, for nearly 100 years. China has been relying mostly on soft power for the last 30 years, as they have expanded their wealth exponentially. At the current moment the US is coming down off 12 years where we have shifted drastically to the use of hard power to the detriment of investments in soft power - but as I said we have been employing a dual strategy effectively for quite a while. China has yet to project force beyond it's borders in the confident and impune way that the US has for 60 years. What we are seeing are the fits and starts of it's efforts to make this transition - and it is mild imo, considering the dysfunction of most other places in the world.

[RhetoricThug]

Hollywood can be bought, if you have enough money. That is why Iron Man 3 went to China. Wealth = culture influence. And China's just getting started.

What are they going to change Iron Man?
Iron Man is made by Marvel- American Company.
Kinda funny- Disney owns Marvel.

I don't see any solid example demonstrating China's softpower. America wins.

I'm sure the future will hold some examples.
But let us get real, China can't even create their own economy without borrowing capitalism. The West runs the world, Hard and soft power.

[Ahovking]

I think In terms of soft power America is America and china is Zimbabwe. Soft Power is all about image and china has always kept to itself while america has been out in the world fighting and supporting "independents" of other nations, so if you were under american you should be safe as they have in the pass fought and supporting "independents" While when you think of china the first thing you think of is communism and the soviet union and the fear of the cold war returns, so for china its going to be very hard to improve its soft power but i don't think it will ever be a strong soft power like the united states.

[Igor Antunov]

The US is an interventionist Pariah, otuside of western europe, various puppet government elites and the US itself. I'm not surprised Americans are blind to that however.

China has massive leevay and influence with the other 80% of humanity.