Shaping future global engagements

The New York Times writer and Columbia University Professor Howard French shows in his recent book on Africa that the idea that Chinese migrants are "all the same" is plain wrong.

Chinese migrants come from diverse backgrounds and have a variety of occupations. Across Africa they can be found logging timber, farming crops, raising pigs, running restaurants and hotels, operating medical clinics or trading at local markets. Many of them are also buying homes, getting married and starting families - in short, settling down in Africa for the long term and belying narratives about uncaring, short-term attitudes.

What French's study shows is that Chinese migrants to Africa share in common a tenacious work ethic and ambition to improve their lives. In the process, many of them are bringing affordable goods and services to communities for the first time.

What can account for the wildly different interpretations of Chinese activities overseas? They reflect and embody fundamentally opposed world views. Those who believe China's rise is a "threat" will perceive China's global engagement as threatening. Those who believe in China's "peaceful rise" will see it in a different light.

The importance of these perceptions is evident in how the media have framed China's activities in different parts of the globe. Western media have viewed China's engagement with the developing world with suspicion, and sometimes hostility and envy. These biases reflect and reinforce popular attitudes and misconceptions about China's rise.

Research shows several regularities in Western media coverage of China's engagement in contexts as different as Africa, Russia and the South Pacific. Cambridge University Professor Emma Mawdsley has analyzed how UK broadsheet newspapers report on China's engagement in Africa. The predominant framing was of China as an exploitative villain, with African elites painted as venal or incompetent co-conspirators and African people as powerless victims.

China was cast as self-interested and indifferent to Africa, while "the West" was said to care about Africans as "partners in development". My own research on Australian newspapers' coverage of China's engagement with South Pacific island nations showed similarly negative and hypocritical framings. China was routinely described as ravenous, prowling and exploitative, while at the same time indifferent, stealthy and cunning.

In recent years China has invested heavily in new media operations to balance negative and biased global media narratives. This is an important task. China's global engagement is going to increase in coming years and its economic activities will bring its companies and people into greater contact with local populations in every corner of the world.

It is important for host countries, for China and for international society as a whole that these interactions are positive. Intensifying connections in any sphere can cause friction, and it is vital they are managed and sources of tension minimized as much as possible.

In this regard, the Chinese government, one of the most efficacious institutions in the world, can do more to address the concerns that some host populations have. I am not suggesting that the government make efforts to monitor the behavior of private individuals abroad, but concerns about the ways in which State companies operate, for instance, could be better addressed.

Labor conditions, pollution, lack of knowledge exchange and the general unaccountability of Chinese companies are real issues that can damage China's prestige and reputation. And while China is at pains to demonstrate its respect for African nations' sovereignty, less effort is made to learn and adapt to local cultures and norms.

Transposing practices and norms directly from the Chinese environment can be problematic considering the incredibly diverse range of places where Chinese companies operate. Demonstrating greater sensitivity to local cultures could go a long way to enhancing positive attitudes toward Chinese engagement. While less tangible than infrastructure projects or trade figures, these practical, grassroots activities are an important component and basis of "soft power".

The author is associate professor and deputy director of the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.