China’s Cultural Diplomacy

Mahrukh

In 2007, former President of China Hu Jintao underlined the significance of culture in fostering social unity and national strength. China has made great efforts to develop its cultural diplomacy, such as internationalizing media, enhancing cinema, and expanding Confucius Institutes, to ensure fundamental cultural rights for all. China aspires to reclaim its cultural dominance in an era of economic globalization, political multi-polarization, and diversification of cultures by launching a state-led cultural diplomacy campaign that combines culture and diplomacy to highlight changes in all areas of its worldwide importance. The Chinese traits of this ‘cultural leap outward’ and analyze what makes it genuinely ‘great’ by evaluating the trajectory of China’s worldwide cultural imprints established by its recent growth in the field of Confucius institutes. Since its inception in 2004, 525 Confucius institutes have been functioning in 146 nations and regions as of December 2017.

In China, culture is seen as the core and essence of soft power and an essential asset for state power. Culture is considered a critical instrument for China to strengthen its soft power, reassuring nations worldwide that it constitutes a civilized, responsible, and dependable country through cultural interaction. As a result, the phrase “soft power” is nearly identical to cultural power. Breslin (Shaun Breslin, PhD, University of Warwick, United Kingdom)- 2012 emphasizes fostering cultural and historical diversity for the Chinese soft power, stating that its officials recognize that its political practices may scare rather than entice or reassure global observers. In China, the concepts of “soft power” along with “cultural diplomacy” are increasingly giving way to “cultural soft power.”

Zhang (Chinese choreographer Zhang Jigang, also ranked General Lieutenant of the Public Liberation Army)- 2017 emphasizes British cultural diplomacy without discussing potential parallels or contrasts between the concepts. As stated by Zhang, culture plays a unique and essential role in Chinese soft powers, serving not just as its centre of gravity but also as the structure that accepts all other facets of Chinese soft influence. President Xi Jinping regularly uses the phrase “cultural soft power” as a basis for the country’s cultural soft power, stressing that China must deepen cultural reform, promote socialist fundamental principles, and advance the cultural sector. Xiao emphasizes the widespread usage of “cultural soft power” in the Chinese mainland, not just on the internet but also by government officials, who utilize it as a slogan in many contexts.

Xi Jinping underlined in May 2016 the necessity for a new rhetorical framework to advance cooperation between China and the remaining nations of the globe. The primary driver of Chinese public diplomacy has been the mismatch between China’s perception of itself and how it is viewed internationally. After China’s successful hosting of the Summer Olympics in Beijing and its inability to persuade the West of its case for Tibet and its treatment of Tibetan human rights, this need started to rise in the 1990s and intensified in 2008. The Chinese administration announced plans to finance the media industry with about US dollars 6 billion 2009. China Central TV (CCTV), China Radio Overseas (CRI), China Daily/Global Times, and Xinhua News Agency, the “Big Four” of Beijing media outlets, announced the opening of additional locations in their respective overseas markets.

China Central Television broadcasts on six channels, Xinhua News Agency has 180 worldwide offices, and China Daily publishes daily news in the United States, demonstrating the rapid globalization of Chinese media. Because their content is linked to Chinese official propaganda, Chinese communication channels have yet to surpass excellent Western media sources despite significant Chinese investments. These sources have, however, had some success in some parts of the worldwide south, particularly in Africa. China can alter the situation with its substantial investments and initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality and credibility of its outlets, particularly in light of the rapidly expanding digital connection and technical innovation in the world.

Due to its advantages, the Chinese cinema industry may take a more privileged position internationally. China has emerged as the global leader in the number of movie theatres, drawing interest from Hollywood and other major players. China implemented limitations to safeguard this industry, limiting the annual production of high-profile international films to 34. Hollywood and Chinese studios are increasingly collaborating on joint projects; between 2002 and 2013, 41 films were co-produced. China, however, has more influence on the paths of films when they are co-produced. This includes control over the exhibition time, demands from Chinese funders, and the ability to record sequences there with Chinese celebrities.

As part of its twin role of cultural diplomacy, China controls what is presented within its borders and seeks to prevent unfavourable portrayals of the country outside. New products, which attempt to preserve security and cultural coherence at home while counterbalancing cultural modernity and Westernization, will increasingly be geared toward China as the Chinese market grows. Since 2005, the quantity of Confucius Institutes (CIs) in the USA has increased dramatically; as of April 2018, there were 110 CIs and 501 Confucius Classrooms. As a result of the expansion, there needs to be more scepticism over China’s covert goals and the idea that CIs represent the nation’s government. Universities should either rework agreements with Hanban (The executive body of the International Association of Chinese Language, Hanban is an independent organization connected to the Chinese Ministry of Education) for greater autonomy or stop their collaborations with CIs, according to the American Affiliation of University Professors (AAUP).

The simultaneous closure of CIs at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Chicago heightened criticism and overstated the impact they would have on other CIs. Several issues, including academic freedom, openness, free speech, and soft power, have been brought up by US opponents of Chinese Impact Centers (CIs). The National Organization of Researchers study makes intermediate suggestions for control, transparency, and closure of CIs at all North American colleges. In 2018, Texas Congressmen requested all four Texan colleges to end their relationships while Republican. Senator Marco Rubio encouraged four Florida universities to dissolve CIs. Critics contend that the discourse around CIs has evolved from educational autonomy to espionage and that criticism frequently leaps from suspicion to conviction.

The American media portrays Confucius Institutions (CIs) as politically created tools of the Chinese government used to sway North American opinions on China’s foreign and domestic policy. Seldom is it acknowledged how CIs have improved American understanding of Chinese languages and culture. Political and media narratives and preconceived ideas about China that are ingrained in teaching strategies and curricula can influence interactions with China. One tactic for concealing strength is cultural soft power. The AAUP’s notion of academic freedom and Hanban-organized pre-departure training are two recommendations for CI teachers.

In the twenty-first century, Chinese governance employs cultural soft power, investing in media, movies, and other cultural tools to increase worldwide visibility and ease tensions. This strategy contrasts China’s view of itself with the rest of the world to foster an atmosphere conducive to its international inclusion. Although China employs comparable public and cultural diplomacy techniques, its views on soft power and diplomatic engagement in culture are very different. Comprehending these subtleties may enhance the objectivity and practicality of examining Chinese cultural diplomacy. However, American opinions of Chinese diplomatic efforts regarding culture must be revised and consistent.

The writer is a student of International Relations at International Islamic University, Islamabad.