The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) in China with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) serves the structure of the Chinese foreign policy in the era of contemporary globalization that encourages international cooperation during the fragmentation. Global instabilities in the form of intensified geopolitical rivalry, economic inequality, and ideological differences are on the rise, and the global competitiveness index of China brings focus to cultural differences, exchange, and knowledge sharing.

China presents itself as a mediator that focuses on gap closing between the different civilizations, while strengthening the pillars created by the BRI. The question remains: is GCI really an innovative idea toward connectedness and cooperation in the world or rather an extension of tactical support for China’s ambitious BRI plan?

The GCI which began in March 2023 rolled by the Chinese President Xi Jinping advocates recognition of other civilizations, fairness and understanding. It harmonizes with the intentions for multiculturalism and integration. That is why China can be regarded as the country focusing on the surrender for the international understanding.

China presents itself as a mediator that focuses on gap closing between the different civilizations, while strengthening the pillars created by the BRI.

It places values people’s tolerance having no one superior civilization and the need to have harmony among nations for everybody’s benefits. This tally with the mission of the BRI that has been useful in developing extensive connection infrastructures across Asia, Africa, and Europe. From the foregoing analysis, the two strategies namely BRI and GCI appear to project China as a world power not only economically, but socially and politically as well.

Where globalization is driven by ideological and political bipolarity in parts of the world, the GCI might provide a check on the recent tendencies towards unilateralism and protectionism. For instance, the United States has been accused of subjecting the world to neoliberal imperialism and liberal democratic imperialism. Specifically, China through the GCI advocates for an alternative discourse, which is multicultural and recognize cultural diversity.

But there are some strategic perspectives related to the GCI that must be discussed. On the one hand, the initiative could be associated with the desire to foster mutual cultural and historical appreciation and understanding. This way, the initiative has a clear diplomatic slant, which means that its main goal might be to ensure that China gets more allies in its international politics.

The BRI has been criticized for generating economic interdependence among host countries and nations as well as increasing their debt vulnerability since it was inception in 2013. On the other hand, it is rather plausible that by promoting the GCI, China might wish to do away with some of these former and offer a more mutually beneficial view of its involvement in the global affairs.

Therefore, by the GCI, China may be trying to be a peacemaker in a world full of conflict. Further, the initiative presupposes that conflicts in cultural and ideological terms can be settled through dialogue and cooperation. In this regard, it seems that the GCI is consonant with what the BRI is about, which is connection and cooperation.

The BRI has been criticized for generating economic interdependence among host countries and nations as well as increasing their debt vulnerability.

As it is with the positioning of the BRI as an infrastructural institution that seeks to physically connect nations, the GCI positions itself as an institution of culture that seeks to facilitate civilizational connection. This alignment may assist China to popularize and centralize its control with the participant countries of BRI, whether it is from an economic point of view or the diplomatic view.

However, there are some doubts to the motives of utilizing the GCI. Critics want to know whether there is more to the introduction of the initiative other than being a vehicle that would help China assert its dominance in international matters. This may be so because by couched its leadership role in cultural diplomacy, Beijing may be trying to downplay, or arguably dissuade negative perceptions about China’s rising economic and political might. For example, countries which are doubtful of China’s increasing influence might regard the GCI as an exercise in soft power politics aimed at enlisting partners who might be reluctant to endorse the BRI.

Furthermore, the commitment of the GCI to non-interference of civilizations also gives food for thought regarding how China treats the endogenous cultural and ideological differences. One gets the impression that the way Beijing governs the country when it comes to politics of ethnic minorities’ treatment and the rights of individuals in Xinjiang and Tibet or any other place that the central government considers rebellious, is somewhat inapposite to the goals of the GCI.

Doubters have noted that although China prescribes itself as a peace-loving nation that respects other cultures it has been accused of restricting freedom and discrimination of some cultures in China. This lack of simulator could dilute the authoritative position of the GCI on the international level.

The GCI can be seen as an audacious endeavor by China to assert its voice and set the directions in attitude to civilization the world. As the world faces phenomenal challenges including climate change, economic disparity and conflict, there is need for global communication.

Material promoting cultural diversity and respect in global communication might find interest in China-asserting countries that are looking for different models of development and conducting diplomacy than those initiated by west. For instance, the Global South countries most of which have benefited from one BRI project, or another might easily relate to the communication of the GCI which embraces the message of pluralism and progress.

The partnership between GCI and BRI shows how Beijing fastidiously plans for being a world leader through an effective Chinese foreign policy. Linked with cultural diplomacy into economic strategies, Beijing is building a complex system of relations with a global society. The strategy enables China not only to construct literal structures but also shape the discursive and cultural registers in which interactions occur. In this respect, it is the GCI that provides a kind of the parallel to the BRI and contributes to a perception of China’s rise as benign and beneficial.