European cultural, academic, and NGO exchanges with China represent a complex form of soft power competition that is asymmetrical, value-driven, and increasingly antagonistic.

While often framed in the past as neutral "people-to-people dialogue," these exchanges are now clearly recognized as battlegrounds where both the European Union (EU) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) actively seek to promote their respective values, political models, and long-term geopolitical interests.

The competition is asymmetrical because the EU's soft power projection is decentralized and rooted in civil society, while China's is centralized and controlled by the state.

1. China’s Soft Power Projection: State-Controlled Influence

China defines soft power as a tool of the state to enhance its international image, garner respect for its political system, and neutralize criticism of its "core interests" (like Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong). Its approach is highly pragmatic and state-funded, making its soft power projection easily perceived by the West as propaganda or influence operations.

The Role of Confucius Institutes (CIs)

Confucius Institutes are the most visible and controversial element of China's cultural soft power in Europe.

• The Model: CIs are state-sponsored, non-profit organizations often embedded within European university campuses. They are modeled after Western cultural institutions (like the Goethe-Institut or British Council) but are unique in their direct funding and management by a government agency (originally Hanban, now the Ministry of Education's Center for Language Education and Cooperation).

• The Soft Power Goal: CIs aim to promote Chinese language (Mandarin) and culture, fostering goodwill and painting a picture of China as a "peaceful, civilized, and responsible" cultural power.

• The Competitive Threat: Critics in Europe argue that CIs function as a propaganda apparatus and a tool for political influence that restricts academic freedom.⁶ Concerns include:

  • Self-Censorship: Agreements often contain clauses preventing the discussion of "sensitive" topics (e.g., the "three Ts"—Tibet, Tiananmen, Taiwan—or Xinjiang and the Falun Gong).

  • Intelligence and Coercion: They are seen by some security agencies as platforms for intelligence gathering and for pressuring institutions to align with Beijing’s political positions.

• The European Response: The competitive nature has led several European universities to close CIs or end their contracts, signaling a hardening of the academic defense against perceived foreign interference.

Academic and Economic Leverage

China leverages its economic strength to project soft power and limit critical academic discourse in Europe:

• Student Recruitment: Chinese students represent a crucial revenue stream for many European universities, which can lead to financial dependence. This dependence creates a self-censoring environment where institutions may hesitate to criticize Beijing for fear of losing lucrative student populations.

• Joint Research: Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China seeks to align European think tanks and research centers with its narratives, framing these exchanges as neutral "knowledge sharing" while advancing its geopolitical and economic agenda.

2. European Soft Power Projection: Normative Values and Civil Society

The EU's soft power in this competition is a distinct contrast. It is fundamentally normative, driven by the attractiveness of its core values—democracy, human rights, rule of law, and academic freedom—rather than a state-controlled message.

Academic and Educational Diplomacy

European institutions use academic exchanges as a primary soft power tool to export their political values.

• Erasmus+ and Scholarships: Programs like Erasmus Mundus offer scholarships to thousands of Chinese students and scholars annually. The soft power goal here is to expose future Chinese elites, academics, and policymakers to the Western model of open society, democratic debate, and uncensored research. The underlying hope is that this exposure will cultivate an appreciation for European values and institutions, leading to long-term positive changes in China’s global outlook.

• Independent Research: Unlike their Chinese counterparts, European universities' soft power stems from their perceived independence and commitment to academic freedom. When European academics and think tanks critically analyze the CCP (e.g., on Xinjiang or Hong Kong), they project soft power by defending the core liberal value of free inquiry, even when it comes at a diplomatic or economic cost.

The Role of NGOs and Civil Society

European NGOs and civil society groups (human rights watchdogs, environmental groups, foundations) act as moral policy entrepreneurs that project soft power by:

• Advocating for Norms: They pressure European governments to hold China accountable for human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. This continuous public advocacy keeps the EU's core values at the forefront of the relationship.

• Challenging the State Narrative: By maintaining independent communication networks and engaging with Chinese civil society (or dissidents), they challenge the Chinese government’s official narrative, undermining the credibility of Beijing’s state-controlled soft power messages.

• The Credibility Factor: Because European NGOs and academia are not directly controlled by the state, their messages—even when critical of China—tend to carry higher credibility and attraction among international audiences than state-issued propaganda. This credibility is the true source of European soft power.

3. The Shift from Cooperation to Antagonistic Competition

While exchanges in the past were often framed under the heading of "cooperation" and "mutual understanding," the relationship has decisively shifted toward antagonistic competition.

The core of the soft power competition lies in the conflict of values. China aims to demonstrate that its authoritarian development model is attractive and functional, seeking to gain global legitimacy by emphasizing cultural appeal and economic prowess. The EU, conversely, uses its decentralized ecosystem of culture and knowledge to assert that the values of liberal democracy and individual freedom remain the most attractive and credible source of long-term global influence. In this battle, the credibility of the messenger—the independence of European institutions versus the state control of Chinese ones—is the primary soft power resource.