PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

What China’s Strong Arm Tactics Don’t Buy

  • December 9, 2010
  • Jim Arkedis

Beijing has arm-twisted nineteen countries to not send representatives to tomorrow’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.  At issue is the honoree, Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese political prisoner whose views on human rights and democracy don’t jive particularly with the Chinese Communist Party’s.  Imagine that.

On the surface, Beijing’s deft deployment of “soft power” seems impressive: to keep nineteen countries from attending supporting democratic movements is impressive. “Soft power,” as Harvard professor Joe Nye explains in an October Washington Quarterly article, is an area where Beijing is just coming into its own.

But Nye also points out that Chinese soft power has limits:

It is not easy for governments to sell their country’s charm if their narrative is inconsistent with domestic realities. In that dimension, except for its economic success, China still has a long way to go.

Such is the case with the Nobel event.  Let’s examine the nineteen no-shows, and their political and press rankings from 2009 by Freedom House, the NGO that tracks these sorts of things:

Country Political Status Freedom of the press status
Afghanistan Not Free Not Free
China Not Free Not Free
Colombia Partly Free Partly Free
Cuba Not Free Not Free
Egypt Not Free Partly Free
Iran Not Free Not Free
Iraq Not Free Not Free
Morocco Partly Free Not Free
Pakistan Partly Free Not Free
Russia Not Free Not Free
Saudi Arabia Not Free Not Free
Serbia Free Partly Free
Sudan Not Free Not Free
The Philippines Partly Free Partly Free
Tunisia Not Free Not Free
Ukraine Free Partly Free
Venezuela Partly Free Not Free
Vietnam Not Free Not Free

Yikes.  Only two unfettered “free”’s in the lot. In other words, as Nye acutely observes: ‘[I]f the authoritarian growth model produces soft power for China in authoritarian countries, it does not produce attraction in democratic countries. In other words, what attracts in Caracas may repel in Paris.”  How spot-on.

And if you’re interested in hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth, come see Joseph Nye, Under Secretary Michele Flournoy, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and a host of others talk about these issues at a PPI panel discussion on China, next Tuesday, December 14th in DC.  Click here to see the invite and RSVP.

Photo credit: Adam

Related Work

Feature  |  May 7, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Poland’s Trump Conundrum—and Vice Versa

  • Tamar Jacoby
Press Release  |  April 29, 2025

New PPI Report Slams Trump’s First 100 Days of Foreign Policy as Most Disastrous in Modern History

  • Peter Juul
Publication  |  April 29, 2025

Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad First Hundred Days On Foreign Policy

  • Peter Juul
Press Release  |  April 28, 2025

PPI Statement on Passing of Paul Hofheinz

  • Will Marshall Lindsay Mark Lewis
Op-Ed  |  April 23, 2025

Ainsley and Mattinson for The New European: How Populism Gives Youth Wings

  • Claire Ainsley Deborah Mattinson
Publication  |  April 21, 2025

How Democrats Can Rebuild Trust on National Security: Five Big Ideas to Start

  • Peter Juul
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings