By: Syeda Manal Tirmizi, Student of MPhil Political Science, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University Peshawar.
Winner of the Article Writing Competition (4th position) on the theme “Celebrating 10th Year of Belt and Road Initiative” held in September 2023.
Abstract: Stakeholders and politicians are becoming more interested in the delicate link between President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This study aims to assess education professionals’ perspectives on this interaction, providing insights into perceived synergies and obstacles. The research found that a significant number of respondents saw a good alignment between the aims of the two programs using a survey-based quantitative technique.
Nonetheless, a sizable proportion voiced misgivings or stayed neutral, showing the difficulties in evaluating and integrating global activities. Furthermore, while analyzing the Global Civilization Initiative’s impact in developing mutual respect among BRI member nations, expert views were virtually equally spread, underlining the multifaceted nature of such global undertakings.
In conclusion, although many experts believe that the Global Civilization Initiative has the potential to improve the BRI’s aims, there is a clear need for ongoing discourse, openness, and inclusion in its execution. This research adds to the current discussion about the dynamics of international cooperation, particularly in the context of global policies and their consequences for mutual understanding and collaboration.
1 Introduction: Globalization has left an indelible imprint on the modern landscape of international relations and global business. For decades, this complicated network of interconnection has been the subject of vigorous scholarly investigation and discussion (Chen, 2018). As countries cope with the problems and possibilities posed by globalization, China’s rise as a dominating power in global affairs has been especially notable.
China’s rise to the role of global superpower is not only a reflection of its economic prowess, but also of its strategic vision and diplomatic endeavors (Chubarov, 2018). China’s commitment to global cooperation and development is central to this goal. This dedication is reflected in a number of initiatives and programs that have served as the foundation of China’s foreign policy and international involvement.
President Xi Jinping’s “Global Civilization Initiative” is one of the most ambitious and revolutionary of these endeavors. The Global Civilization Initiative is, at its heart, an expression of a vision for a world in which countries, regardless of their cultural, economic, or political differences, may live in peace and mutual respect (Chen, 2018). This program is more than simply a diplomatic gesture; it reflects China’s faith in the potential of cultural interchange, economic cooperation, and shared ambitions for a brighter future for all of mankind.
Parallel to the worldwide Civilization Initiative is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive initiative that has become the hallmark of China’s worldwide outreach. The BRI, which was launched in 2013, is a massive infrastructural and economic initiative that aims to revitalize the old Silk Road by linking Asia with Europe and Africa through a network of roads, railroads, ports, and other infrastructure projects (Zou et al., 2015). The BRI’s breadth and scope are unprecedented, making it one of the most important global development efforts of the twenty-first century.
However, the BRI is more than simply an infrastructure project. It symbolizes China’s vision of a world in which countries are united not just by trade and business, but also by a common sense of purpose and destiny (Xi, 2017). This vision resonates well with the mindset of the Global Civilization Initiative, making the two programs’ aims and ambitions seem nearly symbiotic.
The convergence of these two efforts offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for academic research. As a result, the purpose of this study is to look deeply into the interaction between the Global Civilization Initiative and the BRI. The goal of this research is to determine the extent to which the Global Civilization Initiative’s principles of mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation have influenced the strategic planning and execution of BRI projects, as well as to gauge BRI partner nations’ perceptions of the Global Civilization Initiative.
As the BRI spreads its impact across continents, the attitudes and perspectives of partner countries will be critical in deciding the initiative’s success and longevity (Xi, 2014). This study intends to examine the success of the Global Civilization Initiative in building a sense of shared destiny and mutual progress among BRI member states by examining these perspectives.
The convergence of the Global Civilization Initiative and the BRI provides an intriguing prism through which to explore the challenges of global cooperation in the twenty-first century. It is believed that this study will provide a better understanding of the difficulties and possibilities that lie ahead as countries work together to define a route for a brighter, more interconnected future (Xi, 2014a).
2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction to the Global Civilization Initiative: The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) announced by China’s President Xi Jinping has emerged as a key topic of interest among the academic community in the modern landscape of international relations. Interactions between civilizations have historically been a mix of cooperation and conflict, resulting in a complex tapestry of world history (Asian Development Bank, 2017a). The GCI, which is based on the ancient Chinese idea of “harmony without uniformity,” provides a new viewpoint on these encounters by promoting proactive and peaceful cooperation (Chen, 2018).
The GCI’s mission is transformational, aiming to reshape global connections by encouraging states to collaborate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. This effort rejects the conventional concept of “clash of civilizations” in favor of civilizations enhancing each other via communication and trade (Liu & Dunford, 2016). The GCI is founded on many concepts, including mutual respect, open conversation, and cooperative growth, all of which seek to build a feeling of shared global progress (Leonard, 2016).
The GCI has far-reaching ramifications for global diplomacy. In a period of geopolitical rivalry, the GCI proposes a new paradigm of interaction, implying that states might work on the basis of shared cultural and civilizational values, rather than solely economic or strategic goals (Asian Development Bank, 2017a). However, the project has received some criticism. Some experts suggest that, although the GCI’s goals are admirable, its execution may be hampered by historical animosities and cultural prejudices (Chubarov, 2018). Others are skeptical, seeing it as China’s attempt to influence global narratives to its favor (Dunford, 2015).
Looking forward, the GCI’s success is dependent on the global community’s collective will. As the globe grapples with issues ranging from climate change to socioeconomic inequality, the GCI offers a ray of hope. It implies that a better, more peaceful future for mankind is possible via mutual respect and collaboration (Dunford, 2017).
2.2 Historical Context and Evolution: The concept of a global civilization is well rooted in human history. The notion has grown in breadth and relevance from ancient empires seeking to extend their territory and influence to contemporary governments seeking global outreach via diplomacy and commerce (Dunford et al., 2014). However, President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) presents a sophisticated interpretation of this age-old notion, infusing it with current significance and ambition.
The word “civilization” has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Historians, sociologists, and political scientists have investigated its many facets, delving into its cultural, economic, and political ramifications (European Commission & High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, 2018). While civilizations in the past often interacted via conquests, commerce, or cultural exchanges, the present period of fast globalization necessitates a more collaborative and amicable approach to these relationships. The GCI develops as a transformational endeavor in this environment.
China has long been a crucible of civilization, with a rich tapestry of history spanning thousands of years. Its ideologies, art, science, and inventions not only formed its own fate, but also affected the rest of Asia and beyond (Fukuyama, 2016). The notion of “harmony and coexistence” is central to Chinese thinking. This Confucian and Daoist philosophy stresses the necessity of balance, mutual respect, and harmonious cohabitation among distinct entities (Chen, 2018).
Xi Jinping’s planned GCI is significantly influenced by traditional Chinese philosophy. It reinterprets and adapts these concepts, however, to handle the problems and possibilities of the twenty-first century. In an age of unparalleled interconnection, the GCI aspires to promote a vision in which countries may join together to construct a common future, despite their various cultural and historical origins (Gilpin, 2001). This concept is not only utopian; it is based on real reasons. As global concerns such as climate change, pandemics, and economic inequities transcend national borders, governments must work together to overcome them (Grimes & Yang, 2018).
However, the path from traditional Chinese philosophy to the GCI has not been straightforward. China has seen enormous modifications throughout the ages, both domestically and in its connections with the outside world. China’s understanding of its role in global civilization has evolved from the dynastic periods, when it was a dominant cultural and economic force, to the more turbulent 19th and early 20th centuries, marked by external invasions and internal strife, and finally to its resurgence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Ismi, 2004).
In many respects, the GCI symbolizes the pinnacle of this evolutionary path. It incorporates China’s goals as a global leader, dedication to world peace and development, and confidence in the potential of cultural diplomacy (Kynge, 2016). The project also symbolizes China’s faith in its civilizational values and eagerness to share them with the rest of the world. Unlike certain former civilizations’ hegemonic inclinations, which tried to force their values and institutions on others, the GCI stresses mutual learning and respect (Leonard, 2016).
Critics may contend that the GCI, although admirable in its goals, confronts substantial implementation obstacles. The intricacies of global geopolitics, as well as deeply established prejudices and historical animosities, may stymie the development of a genuinely global civilization (Liu & Dunford, 2016). The GCI, on the other hand, is defined by its capacity to imagine a future that transcends these problems, nurturing a society marked by mutual respect, understanding, and shared goals.
Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative is a tribute to China’s civilizational past as well as its modern global ambition. The program, which is based on the age-old Chinese idea of peace and cohabitation, provides a new viewpoint on global relations in the current period. As the globe faces a plethora of problems and possibilities, initiatives such as the GCI serve as a light of hope, leading mankind toward a shared and peaceful future.
2.3 Key Principles and Objectives: President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) is built on a foundation of essential ideas that embody its vision for a peaceful and cooperative world. These principles not only govern the initiative’s goals, but they also represent a purposeful break from established practices of international participation.
The notion of mutual respect across civilizations is central to the GCI. This notion parallels China’s long-standing focus on appreciating variety and acknowledging each civilization’s inherent merit (Liu, Dunford, & Gao, 2018). In an era defined by cultural disputes and misunderstandings, the GCI urges countries to overcome preconceptions and prejudices in favor of meaningful and respectful connections. This concept acknowledges that a world in which civilizations live in peace is not only feasible, but also necessary for global stability and development (Marx & Engels, 1968).
The second pillar of the GCI is the promotion of discussion and exchange. The initiative advocates for open conversations that cross political, cultural, and geographical boundaries in a world characterized by information proliferation and rapid communication (NDRC MFA and MOC, 2015). Dialogue promotes understanding by allowing countries to refute myths and discover common ground. Nations may utilize their collective understanding via collaboration to overcome common concerns ranging from climate change to poverty eradication (National Development and Reform Commission and State Oceanic Administration [NDRC and SOA], 2017). This approach is reminiscent of the ancient Chinese concept of “wenming,” which stresses the value of cultural interchange in building peace.
The notion of collaborative action in tackling global concerns is central to the GCI’s aims. Today’s globe is unprecedentedly intertwined, with concerns crossing national boundaries. The GCI acknowledges this interconnection and contends that effective solutions to global concerns can only be found when states work together (Nolan, 2013). This approach is consistent with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize the need of working together to accomplish goals such as poverty reduction, gender equality, and environmental sustainability (Robinson, 1977). The GCI envisions a future in which collective action leads to meaningful and long-term change by encouraging countries to combine their resources and skills.
As the GCI describes its principles, it also establishes a set of overarching goals. The fostering of a feeling of shared destiny and common humanity is foremost among these goals. The effort aims to go beyond national interests and build a more global sense of identity that crosses boundaries (Ross, 2017). It hopes to do this through reducing disputes caused by cultural misunderstandings and prejudices, opening the way for a more peaceful and cooperative global order (Sabir, Torre, & Magsi, 2017).
Furthermore, the GCI aspires to promote cultural interaction and mutual enrichment. Recognizing the richness and variety of human cultures, the movement pushes for cultural heritage preservation and enjoyment. Nations may learn from one another via cultural exchange, leading to mutual enrichment and a better awareness of the common threads that unite mankind (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], 2018).
The GCI aims to reshape global governance by advocating for a more inclusive and equitable approach to decision-making. It advocates for the inclusion of historically excluded perspectives and emphasizes the significance of reaching agreement. The project seeks to lessen power concentration and improve global stability by calling for a multipolar world order.
2.4 Reception and Critique: President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) has received both acclaim and condemnation from the international community. While the initiative’s concept of establishing a peaceful global society has struck a chord with many, it has also provoked controversy and doubts among academics and officials.
The GCI’s goal of a world marked by mutual respect, understanding, and collaboration has been received with enthusiasm. Proponents of the effort applaud its focus on crossing cultural and geographical barriers, describing it as a relevant answer to the contemporary world’s linked concerns (US Department of Defense, 2006). The urge for open discussion and interaction across cultures is considered as a step toward reducing cultural misconceptions and cultivating an atmosphere of peaceful coexistence. The GCI has been praised for fostering collaborative efforts to solve urgent concerns including as climate change and poverty by underlining the interconnectivity of global difficulties (The Leaders Roundtable of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, 2017).
Furthermore, the GCI’s goals of developing a sense of shared destiny and common humanity have resonated with nations advocating for a more inclusive and fair global order (Yang, 2020). Nations that have previously been sidelined in international decision-making processes see the effort as a forum to express their concerns and shape global governance (Zhang, 2022).
The GCI, on the other hand, has not been immune to criticism. According to some analysts, the effort is an outgrowth of China’s soft power policy aimed at increasing its worldwide influence. While the GCI promotes mutual respect and understanding, critics wonder whether these values are regularly used in China’s international and domestic policy (The State Administration of international Exchange [SAFE, PRC], 2018). This inconsistency raises questions about China’s genuine devotion to the initiative’s principles.
One of the most serious critiques concerns the possibility of cultural uniformity. While the GCI aims to promote cultural variety and interchange, there are concerns that the project would result in the diluting of unique cultural identities (The White House, 2017). In an era when globalization may lead to cultural hegemony, detractors worry that the GCI will unwittingly contribute to the destruction of local customs, languages, and ways of life. This fear is especially prevalent among indigenous tribes and smaller countries concerned about the ascendancy of more powerful civilizations.
Another source of criticism is the inherent difficulties in applying the GCI’s principles. It is a difficult task to achieve mutual respect, conversation, and collaboration among cultures with disparate values and objectives. Critics claim that historical grudges, geopolitical rivalries, and ideological divisions may prevent the GCI’s aspirations from being realized (Vinokurov Tsukarev, 2018). Furthermore, the nature of international relations, which is defined by power dynamics and opposing interests, may pose challenges to the initiative’s successful execution.
Striking a balance between the GCI’s high aim and realistic execution remains a difficulty as it evolves. While the initiative’s goal is to build a worldwide community based on mutual respect and understanding, it must also deal with real-world challenges such as power relations and geopolitical rivalries. Furthermore, resolving concerns about cultural homogeneity needs careful study of how to enable cultural interchange without losing the individuality of various civilizations (Wang, 2015).
2.6 Comparative Analysis with Other Global Initiatives: In the landscape of global projects, President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) offers a unique viewpoint that distinguishes it from its competitors. While other efforts sometimes place a greater focus on economic or political cooperation, the GCI stands out for its emphasis on cultural interaction and mutual respect across cultures. This novel approach has attracted interest and discussion in the international community, establishing the GCI as a pioneer in redefining global connections.
One of the most notable differences that distinguishes the GCI from other global initiatives is its persistent dedication to cultural exchange and mutual respect. Unlike projects that focus largely on economic ties or geopolitical alignments, the GCI prioritizes civilizations, cultures, and their interconnections (Chen, 2018). This focus on cultural diplomacy deviates from conventional approaches of international involvement, which have often been driven by strategic interests and power dynamics (Wang, 2015).
The GCI’s emphasis on cultural exchange recognizes the powerful influence of shared human heritage on global relationships. The effort seeks to bridge gaps and dispel misunderstandings by acknowledging the significance of cultural variety and fostering an atmosphere of cross-cultural learning (Woodward, 2017). This approach is consistent with the notion that building understanding across civilizations might lead to more meaningful and long-term cooperation.
Unlike efforts that promote economic development or political alignments, the GCI’s focus on cultural interaction provides as a gateway for countries to create deeper linkages. Many global efforts are focused on achieving concrete results, such as trade agreements, infrastructure development, or security alliances (World Bank Group, 2018). While these goals are important in their own right, the GCI adds a layer that goes beyond monetary advantages, concentrating on the intangible but powerful domain of shared human experiences (Xi, 2014b).
The GCI’s distinct emphasis corresponds with a growing recognition that solving global concerns requires a more comprehensive approach. Climate change, poverty, and inequality are not only economic or environmental challenges; they are also inextricably linked to cultural narratives and viewpoints (Xi, 2014c). The GCI recognises the intricate interaction between social dynamics and global concerns by putting cultures at the core of its agenda, claiming that solutions may be more successful when cultural subtleties are included.
The GCI’s unique approach has attracted a variety of reactions from the worldwide community. Supporters of the project see its focus on cultural exchange and mutual respect as game-changing step in resolving deep-seated misconceptions between countries (Chen, 2021). They contend that through encouraging an atmosphere of openness and conversation, the GCI provides the framework for long-term peace and cooperation (Xi, 2015). Furthermore, supporters argue that the initiative’s cultural diplomacy may be a significant instrument in easing tensions and conflicts caused by cultural differences.
Skeptics, on the other hand, have questions about the GCI’s approach’s viability and effect. They wonder whether cultural interchange can actually result in substantial change in a society dominated by power dynamics and strategic goals (Xi, 2017). Some contend that, although cultural interchange is admirable, it does not always solve underlying imbalances and geopolitical rivalry (List, 1909). Furthermore, there have been worries voiced regarding the possibility of cultural homogeneity, in which dominant cultural narratives may dominate smaller and disadvantaged cultures.
2.7 Future Prospects and Implications: President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) has sparked debate over its capacity to affect the trajectory of global relations and interactions. As the effort progresses, the world community is filled with both hope and skepticism about its future possibilities and ramifications. While some view the GCI as a revolutionary force that will lead to a more integrated and peaceful society, others are concerned about the difficulties ahead.
Optimists anticipate a future in which the GCI acts as a catalyst for altering international relations dynamics. They contend that the initiative’s focus on cultural interchange and mutual respect has the ability to reconcile long-standing gaps and remove myths that have fuelled hostilities (Kynge, 2016). The GCI may establish the groundwork for peaceful coexistence and collaboration in an increasingly linked world by facilitating conversation across civilizations (Gilpin, 2001).
The GCI’s ability to promote a more connected world is especially important in an age of increasing globalization and technological innovation. As information travels at extraordinary speeds across boundaries, civilizations have grown more conscious of the shared difficulties they confront (Leonard, 2016). The GCI’s emphasis on common human experiences may energize countries to work together to solve global concerns ranging from climate change mitigation to pandemic response (Chubarov, 2018). This collaborative mentality, fostered by cultural understanding, has the potential to shape a future marked by mutual support and shared progress.
Amid the euphoria, however, there is a chorus of cautious voices that underline the obstacles and complexity that the GCI may face on its path. While the initiative’s goals are admirable, putting them into action may be difficult in a world where geopolitical rivalry and national interests sometimes take priority (Chow, 2021). Skeptics believe that the GCI’s potential influence may be restricted by the international system’s profoundly ingrained power dynamics (Dunford, 2015).
The GCI’s success is built on meaningful discussion and collaboration. Nations must be prepared to participate in talks that go beyond courtesy in order for the project to have substantial results (Chen, 2018). Recognizing past grievances and resolving complicated problems that have strained international relations are required for meaningful communication (Fukuyama, 2016). Furthermore, the GCI’s effectiveness is dependent on states’ willingness to move beyond rhetoric and embrace measures that promote mutual understanding and cooperation.
The GCI’s focus on cultural diversity has the potential to transform the landscape of global governance. As countries gather to engage in meaningful dialogue, their views on global concerns and solutions may shift. The GCI’s focus on mutual respect and understanding may have an impact on decision-making processes in international forums, resulting in more inclusive and successful solutions (Dunford et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the GCI’s success may impact how countries address problems of cultural preservation and diversity. The effort may help to preserve individual identities while building a feeling of common humanity by commemorating cultural history and encouraging tolerance (Grimes & Yang, 2018). This has repercussions not just for international relations, but also for domestic policy aimed at balancing globalization and cultural preservation.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Approach: The methodology adopted for this study is rooted in a quantitative research paradigm, utilizing a survey-based approach. This method was chosen due to its efficacy in gathering structured data from a significant number of respondents, allowing for statistical analysis and generalizable conclusions.
3.2 Population and Sample Size: The target population for this research comprises education experts, given their profound understanding of global initiatives and their implications on educational paradigms. From this population, a sample size of 240 experts was selected. This sample size was determined based on the need for a representative subset of the larger population, ensuring the reliability and validity of the research findings.
3.3 Instrumentation: A closed-ended questionnaire was developed as the primary instrument for data collection.
The questionnaire was structured to capture:
- Respondents’ awareness and understanding of the Global Civilization Initiative.
- Perceptions regarding the impact of the Global Civilization Initiative on the Belt and Road Initiative.
- Beliefs about the potential future implications of the Global Civilization Initiative.
Each question was designed with a set of predefined responses, allowing for ease of data analysis.
3.4 Data Collection Procedure: The questionnaire was distributed electronically to the selected sample of education experts. An introductory email was sent to potential respondents, explaining the purpose of the study and seeking their consent to participate. Upon receiving consent, the questionnaire link was shared. A reminder was sent after two weeks to maximize the response rate.
3.5 Data Analysis: Once the data was collected, it was subjected to statistical analysis using software tools. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data, while inferential statistics were used to draw conclusions and identify patterns or trends. The analysis aimed to determine the overall perception of education experts regarding the Global Civilization Initiative and its impact on the Belt and Road Initiative.
Results and Analysis: A deeper look at the gender distribution in the sample of 245 respondents indicates a modest lean towards female representation. Females made up 129 of the total replies, accounting for 52.7% of the total sample and 54.0% of the valid responses. Males, on the other hand, accounted for 110 replies, accounting for 44.9% of the overall sample and 46.0% of the valid responses. The cumulative percentages demonstrate that the whole gender distribution of valid replies, totaling 100%, was recorded in these two groups. It’s worth noting that there were six missing gender answers, accounting for 2.4% of the total sample.
Such missing data highlights the need of taking non-response into account in research and maintaining thorough data collecting techniques. In conclusion, although the gender distribution in this sample is somewhat skewed toward female respondents, it provides a balanced viewpoint, ensuring that both genders are sufficiently represented in the conclusions of this study on the Global Civilization Initiative’s influence on the Belt and Road Initiative.
When the descriptive data are examined, it is clear that the gender distribution among the 239 respondents is generally balanced, with 46% representing one gender and 54% representing the other. In the absence of specified categorizations, these numbers may indicate male and female designations. When asked if President Xi Jinping’s “Global Civilization Initiative” matches the BRI’s aims, the average score of 3.19 out of 5 indicates a modest impression. However, the accompanying standard deviation of 1.462 reveals multiple viewpoints, emphasizing respondents’ unique perceptions.
Surprisingly, the data shows a somewhat less than neutral opinion toward the cultivation of mutual respect among BRI member nations through the Global Civilization Initiative, with a score of 2.95. This perspective is consistent with the opinion expressed in replies about the reflection of the initiative’s ideals in BRI projects, which received a score of 2.95. In contrast, the Global Civilization Initiative’s effect on the BRI’s strategic planning and its impact on cultural cooperation both received an average of 3.02, indicating a more neutral view among the polled education professionals.
Further investigation into the initiative’s ramifications indicated that respondents believed BRI projects had moved their emphasis toward cultural interaction since the initiative’s launch, as demonstrated by a mean score of 3.07. This favorable trend is mirrored in statistics on the improvement of BRI perception among partner nations, which averaged a score of 3.17. Despite this, respondents, with a mean score of 3.00, had a balanced assessment on whether the program had supported more inclusive decision-making in BRI projects. Similarly, the convergence between the BRI’s economic ambitions and the Global Civilization Initiative’s cultural aspirations was rated as modest, with an average score of 3.04.
In terms of future ramifications, the poll concluded with a cautiously hopeful perspective. Respondents feel that the Global Civilization Initiative will have a long-term beneficial influence on the success of the BRI, as demonstrated by a mean score of 3.05.
Overall, the education experts’ perspectives depict a landscape of recognition for possible synergies between the Global Civilization Initiative and the Belt and Road Initiative. While the overall attitude is favorable, the discrepancies in replies highlight the complexities and various viewpoints present among the experts, implying some level of confusion or skepticism regarding the extent of this effect.
Conclusion: The dynamic interaction between President Xi Jinping’s planned Global Civilization Initiative and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has elicited a variety of responses from education specialists. The study intended to identify these experts’ perspectives on the synergistic potentials and ramifications of the two efforts.
It was discovered that a large proportion of responders recognize the congruence between the Global Civilization Initiative and the BRI aims, underlining the potential synergies they may provide when viewed together. While the majority recognizes the positive convergence of these initiatives, it is important to note that a sizable subset remains neutral or expresses reservations, highlighting the multifaceted nature of global initiatives and their reception among stakeholders.
The replies reflect a more equally divided mood in terms of mutual esteem among BRI member nations. Although the Global Civilization Initiative is intended to provide a forum for mutual respect and understanding, respondents’ responses ranged from strong agreement to extreme disagreement. Such discrepancy highlights the inherent difficulty of converting policy and ideology into concrete and perceptible effects, particularly in international interactions and cooperation.
Although many analysts believe that the Global Civilization Initiative has the potential to complement and strengthen the BRI’s aims, there is still some doubt. This emphasizes the significance of ongoing communication, transparency, and inclusive techniques throughout the implementation phase of such global efforts. As the landscape of international cooperation and global initiatives evolves, policymakers and stakeholders must take into account the diverse feedback and insights from
experts in the field to ensure that initiatives like the BRI and the Global Civilization Initiative achieve their intended positive outcomes while fostering a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.
