By : Shivali Yadav

Abstract

Culture and heritage possess an intrinsic capacity not only to mirror societal values but also to actively shape our understanding of them. China has been harnessing and manipulating its culture to suit the narrative they are showing on the global stage. By analysing Beijing’s strategy to invoke the history of the Silk Road while undertaking its economic and geopolitical objectives through the Belt and Road Initiative, we aim to understand how culture becomes an instrument by which they consolidate their power. 

Introduction

Culture and heritage have inherent power that can be utilised to shape a society’s identity, values and collective memory. This power lies in their ability to preserve traditions, influence social norms, and foster a sense of belonging among communities. Through symbols, narratives, and shared practices, culture shapes perceptions of history and legitimacy and reinforces social structures. This quality propels culture to the centre of power struggles and enables it to serve as a vital tool for nation-building. 

Heritage-making, as elaborated by André Micoud, is the process of actively engaging with the past to create meaning for the present. It involves giving form to an abstract collective identity by utilising shared cultural symbols and occurs in many contexts and scales. China is a quintessential example of how the state can strategically deploy culture to achieve its objectives. Foremost amongst its policies for the same is the large-scale infrastructure project One Belt, One Road (OBOR), for which it promises to invest $1 trillion. OBOR is built on the heritage surrounding the Silk Road, and it advocates for transnational cultural heritage. However, this advocacy is tainted by the fact that it may serve the expansionist interests of the country. 

This article aims to analyse the interplay between the strategic promotion of culture and the fulfilment of geopolitical interests pursued by China through its framing of the One Belt, One Road initiative as a return of the Silk Road.

Culture as a Weapon

Cultural heritage remains significant while constructing the values of a country. Even during periods of rapid economic growth, governments are increasingly inclined to uphold their cultural relevance to maintain a certain gravitas. This relates to authorised heritage discourse, where certain practices are seen as having immutable values that speak to national identity. By controlling which aspects of heritage are preserved and celebrated, governments can reinforce their authority and align themselves with deeply rooted cultural narratives. This makes it relevant to the idea of political legitimacy. Heritage regimes expand the understanding of heritage beyond intangible and tangible entities, instead interlinking it with governance and politics. This is how China uses heritage as a governance tool. 

Prior to the May Fourth Movement of 1919, Chinese culture was increasingly rejected in favour of science and democracy, as it was viewed as the root of China lagging behind Western powers. However, since the ratification of the World Heritage Convention in 1985, Beijing’s stance towards cultural heritage has substantially changed. They adopted a multi-level heritage regime that uses the notions of cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage. This shows the party-state’s willingness to adopt international concepts to enhance its political legitimacy. 

The One Belt, One Road Initiative

The history of routes is gaining political significance. China’s propagation of ‘people-to-people’ contact as one of the core pillars of the OBOR initiative is propelling it to become one of the major players in heritage diplomacy. This stems from the fact that from the beginning, Beijing has framed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a revival of the Silk Road. As the Silk Road, which was a vital bridge between Asia, Africa and Europe to exchange goods, culture and knowledge, the BRI also encourages long-term relationships that enhance diplomatic connections through culture. 

It is crucial to examine China’s understanding and appropriation of the past for strategic ends through the revival of the Silk Roads. The concept of the Silk Road, a term first coined by German geologist Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877, is doing political work by giving an allure to the idea of exchange and enrichment. China is pushing this narrative of peaceful connectivity by using its heritage as a geocultural power. China has allocated immense resources to strengthen the Silk Road heritage, and the scale at which it is implemented makes it a ‘memory infrastructure.’ This kind of engagement creates collective memories among the ordinary citizens, and also ensures its recognition by people beyond China’s borders. 

Aggressive Use of UNESCO

To consolidate their narrative, the one-party state started promoting a specific version of China’s history in the education system and museums; history education is used to glorify the party, while museums construct categories of citizenship. Another prong of the multi-faceted cultural mobilisation is its aggressive use of UNESCO heritage lists. PRC has the largest amount of World Heritage Sites listed, which is used to signify it as a civilised country with a rich history and cultural diversity, which aids in boosting its soft power. The government asserts sovereignty by inscribing historical sites and cultural practices as national, especially over areas with large ethnic populations. It also reinforces national unity.

The Silk Road is seen as a ‘smoothing device,’ where the cultural corridor can foster governance. It is becoming a means of consolidating China’s geopolitical power. However, this risks relying on reductionist ideas of cultural transmission, as seen in how the Chinese state frames the Silk Road as being deeply tied to the spread of Buddhism. However, this selective retelling of the Silk Road as centred on Buddhism may contribute to the marginalisation of Muslim minority groups, whose culture and religious practices have been threatened for several decades. This is also occurring through modification or destruction of mosques in China, which further signals the broader suppression of Islamic culture. 

By correlating cultural values with prestige and historical continuity, China legitimises its global leadership using BRI. Concepts like mianzi (face), which underscores the importance of reputation and social harmony, and Confucian ideals of benevolent leadership, which emphasize moral governance and the welfare of others, are deeply ingrained in China’s story of a “peaceful rise,” reinforcing its image as a responsible and non-threatening global power. This model contrasts directly with the fragmented, war-torn history of pre-modern Europe. Moreover, the Silk Road’s claims of cultural cooperation must co-exist with China’s underlying but evident ambition of reinforcing its global influence. The emphasis on shared history creates a network of soft power relationships they can control. As China funds heritage conservation projects in partner countries, it exerts ideological influence over how history is remembered. The BRI has an uneasy balance of mutual understanding and imposition of hegemonic narratives.

Conclusion

While culture and heritage have historically been used to impose certain narratives, the OBOR project represents their strongest utilisation to achieve a party-state’s objectives while maintaining harmony. It signifies a fundamental shift in global power dynamics, which could be more multicultural – but at what cost? The question remains unanswered, but this answer will shape the future of global heritage governance and international power relations. 

About the Author

Shivali Yadav is a first-year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School. Her areas of interest revolve around international relations, geopolitics, and the intersection of various fields with gender and media.

Image Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-world-map-illustration-1098526/