Built to endure

China-ASEAN cultural exchanges are transitioning from individual activities to institutionalized mechanisms that create a firm foundation for greater cooperation

In the complex arena of international relations, civilizational dialogue and cultural exchanges serve not merely as ornamental gestures but as foundational pillars that build trust, reduce misunderstandings and create vital channels for communication. Yet in a region where multiple powers are actively engaging the Association of Southeast Asian Nations through culture and civilizational outreach, the question is no longer whether such exchanges matter, but how they can be structured to endure.

For ASEAN — a region strategically connecting the world’s most vital economic corridors — this cultural dimension is particularly consequential. Recognizing its significance, major powers have increasingly woven cultural engagement into their regional strategies, though their approaches reveal distinctly divergent philosophies. The United States, through platforms ranging from popular media to academic exchanges, promotes a model of cultural export, centered on values such as liberal democracy and market consumerism. This form of engagement, often underpinned by implicit power dynamics, seeks not just to share but subtly to shape societal norms, particularly among youth — aligning closely with the US’ broader “Indo-Pacific” strategic calculus. India, by contrast, emphasizes civilizational reconnection, drawing on shared religious and historical heritage, as seen in initiatives such as the “Bodhi Yatra” Buddhist pilgrimage. This approach aims to rebuild cultural and spiritual linkages, framing India’s rise through the lens of ancient continuity rather than ideological influence.

China’s engagement with ASEAN strikes a qualitatively different chord. Moving beyond the frameworks of “soft power projection” or “civilizational revival”, China’s focus is on mutual learning and institutional partnership. Whether through language education, heritage preservation or people-to-people exchanges, China’s emphasis rests on reciprocity and shared benefit — values that resonate deeply with ASEAN’s own principle. This alignment is no accident. ASEAN has long championed a regional model based on consultation, consensus and non-interference — a framework that inherently resists unilateral cultural dominance and favors collaborative, respectful dialogue.

This model also aligns with ASEAN’s own cultural positioning and pursuit of goals. ASEAN’s culture is “unity in diversity”, and it does not seek to achieve unity by eliminating differences in ethnicity, language or religion. This diversity naturally rejects a single dominant geopolitical order, with each ASEAN member maintaining its independence and uniqueness. The conduct of ASEAN countries follows principles of consultation and consensus, non-interference in internal affairs, and respect for the comfort of all parties, fostering regional integration for the benefit of ASEAN people. As the lyrics of the official ASEAN anthem The ASEAN Way phrase it: “For peace, our goal from the very start. And prosperity to last. We dare to dream, we care to share. Together for ASEAN.”

China-ASEAN cooperation focuses on jointly establishing a set of inclusive, equal and shared regional rules and platforms for cultural and people-to-people exchanges. This represents the embodiment of “institutional openness” in the realm of humanities.

However, to further deepen this relationship steadily, it is still necessary to enhance civilization dialogue and cultural exchanges, enabling the peoples of both sides to cross national and civilizational boundaries, imagine, identify with, and feel the close connection with each other as members of a shared future. In the future, perhaps the following approaches could be considered.

First, by embracing a shared narrative over unilateral ones, both sides should adopt more symbolic and creative methods to weave each other into each other’s stories. Shared narratives require institutional frameworks — for example, through shared rituals, festivals and monuments as cultural symbols, such as establishing a “China-ASEAN joint cultural heritage year”, jointly compiling historical publications or film and television works, so that the temporal and spatial limitations of traditional cultural and people-to-people exchanges can be dissolved into a lasting public memory and a sustainable and tangible link.

Second, both sides should strive to deepen people-to-people connectivity. Currently, due to imbalances in economic development within ASEAN, the disconnection between security cooperation and cultural issues, fragmented policies and weak implementation mechanisms, cultural identity within ASEAN has not yet shifted to the public level and remains at the elite policy level. Both sides urgently need to strengthen efforts to popularize the achievements of their civilizational and cultural exchanges. To reach broader society, existing platforms — the China-ASEAN Education Exchange Week, Youth Leaders Summit and others — should be leveraged to launch regular youth camps, community cultural funds, and standing agreements on film, publishing, and festival exchanges. The goal is to encourage mass participation.

Third, a deeper understanding of local knowledge can facilitate mutual learning and understanding. ASEAN is one of the most culturally diverse regions in the contemporary world and a “kaleidoscope” of religions, closely tied to politics. Cooperation with ASEAN countries requires a deep understanding of these cultural and religious characteristics to avoid contradictions and conflicts. Strengthening academic exchanges, joint research programs and dialogue mechanisms on non-traditional security issues — including conflict prevention related to religion and culture — would help integrate cultural sensitivity directly into policy planning and regional governance.

Elevating China-ASEAN civilizational dialogue from an activity-based model to a mechanism-oriented framework is more than a cultural endeavor; it is a concrete practice of institutional openness. Greater institutional openness in turn can create a robust cornerstone for a China-ASEAN community with a shared future, which is capable of enduring an age of uncertainty and change.

The author is an assistant professor at the Institute of German and European Studies at Tongji University.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.