Confucius Institutes v2 (1)

26 CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF CHINA’S SOFT POWERin Western scholarship is that public diplomacy, which focusesprimarily on policies with the goal of advocacy and influence, shouldbe separate from cultural diplomacy, which is more relationshipbasedwith a focus on mutual understanding. This distinction maynot be as pronounced in a Chinese model; both culture and relationsappear central to Chinese diplomacy. Writing in 2008, Yiwei Wangsuggested that Chinese public diplomacy had its own characteristicsthat were closer to the relational model of France than the U.S.model. 42 Li Zhiyong places culture even more centrally, arguing that“the original form of public diplomacy in China is not internationalpropaganda – as other scholars claim—but cultural diplomacy.” 43The reason for assumed links between culture, relations, anddiplomacy may stem from China’s view of itself and its millennialexperience of cultivating diplomatic relations with other powers.Public and cultural diplomacy are relatively recent diplomaticinnovations, emerging as state-based activities of the contemporaryWestern experience. Rather than viewing itself strictly in state-basedterms, Wang and other scholars have noted that China sees itself asa civilization defined by its culture. 44 Moreover, as noted Chinesescholar John King Fairbanks observed, “Chinese influence abroadwas based on commerce and culture rather than on military power.” 45In this respect, while the CI institute initiative may be new, China’spractice of spreading its language and culture is not new, but is basedon the premise of learning about other cultures and civilizations andcultivating relational ties. Appreciating the importance of cultureand relationships and China’s networked communication approachto building soft power components may be the most valuable insightand lesson from China’s CI initiative.