By Yao Yao Mize
Abstract
Culture is a dynamic and multifaceted aspect of national identity that plays a crucial role in shaping a nation’s global image and influence. This paper explores the strategies of cultural diplomacy employed by three East Asian countries: South Korea, Japan, and China, and their impact on the development of soft power. South Korea’s cultural diplomacy is characterized by its vibrant K-pop industry and its ability to connect with global audiences through social media. The Korean Wave, or Hallyu, has reshaped the international perception of South Korea and has generated interest in its culture, language, and lifestyle. The South Korean government has recognized the power of its pop culture and is utilizing these idols to build their global image. In contrast, Japan’s cultural diplomacy efforts have had a longer history, dating back to the post-World War II period. Japan initially promoted traditional aspects of its culture, but in recent decades, Japan’s entertainment industry, including anime and video games, has gained international recognition. China’s approach to cultural diplomacy differs because of its communist regime and their perception of culture and politics as intertwined. While Hollywood collaborations encourage China’s cultural diplomacy, it is economic influence and infrastructure development that primarily contributes to China’s soft power. Despite varying strategies, these countries recognize the importance of cultural diplomacy and soft power in promoting cultural diversity and shaping global opinions.
Introduction
Culture is an integral part of a nation that can both unify and create conflict. It is a notion built on the behaviors, beliefs, norms, institutions, arts, and overall lifestyle of a group of people. While culture is a social issue, in recent decades it has shifted into the political sphere as it has been used strategically by countries in a method called cultural diplomacy in order to gain soft power. Both cultural diplomacy and soft power are concepts that have developed during and in the aftermath of the Cold War, but these terms have become increasingly important as technology, specifically social media, plays a larger role in people’s lives. Cultural diplomacy today is impacted by our advancing methods of communication. This changing factor affects the way countries are able to acquire global attention, influence, and power.
While the United States has long dominated global popular culture, in recent years, South Korea has amplified its cultural attention predominantly with the rise of Korean popular music (K-pop), Korean dramas (K-dramas), and Korean movies. A similar phenomenon also occurred in Japanese entertainment with anime (animated movies and television shows), manga (graphic novels akin to comic books), and video games. In both situations, a sudden wave of these cultures changed the perception of these countries and enhanced their relevance among public audiences abroad who were consuming this pop culture. These cultural shifts have been fortuitous. On the other hand, a country like China has not had this luck but has put lots of governmental effort and funding into cultural diplomatic endeavors. Taking advantage of a more convenient boost of popularity, such as in South Korea, or through the long, continuous efforts of China, cultural diplomacy has been successful in achieving soft power. In turn, this has strengthened their comprehensive global power.
Defining Cultural Diplomacy and Soft Power
Cultural diplomacy falls under public diplomacy, which is also a relatively emerging concept. Toward the end of the Cold War, the term “public diplomacy” was coined by American diplomat Edmund Gullion in order to “allow a clearer distinction between its own [American] democratic information practices and policies pursued by the Soviet Union.”. [1] The propaganda that was used to reach domestic and foreign public audiences then carried a negative connotation. By renaming the activities of the United States Information Agency to public diplomacy, a new phrase was created offering a clean slate that could be used to build a new positive meaning. Nicholas J. Cull, professor of public diplomacy at the University of Southern California, explains in his book Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, that one of the fundamental elements of public diplomacy that also differentiates from propaganda is the aspect of listening. While propaganda and public diplomacy are considered similar in the goal of sending a message about a country or policy or simply engaging with foreign viewers, public diplomacy intends to attract others by “listening” or obtaining knowledge of how other countries perceive this international actor and other information in order to gain the attention of oversea audiences. [2] Contrary to propaganda, where the aspect of “speaking” (usually in short phrases or slogans) is important to effectively disseminate their idea, public diplomacy at its best aims to persuade individuals, with sufficient reasoning, given the knowledge about their target audience’s values and beliefs. Cultural diplomacy is clearly an important aspect of public diplomacy as not only does the government want to push its own country’s narrative, but understanding the culture of the target audience is imperative to its effectiveness.
This method of attraction is used in a political sense as it can be practiced alongside “hard power,” such as military intervention or economic sanctions, in order to reinforce overall power and influence. [3] The strategy of cultural diplomacy is a means of acquiring “soft power.” The concept of soft power was originated by Joseph Nye, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and former dean of Harvard Kennedy School of Government. An increasing number of countries have begun to practice this concept. Nye defines soft power as being “able to get the outcomes it wanted because of attraction rather than just threats of coercion or payment” and further clarifies that “hard power is push; soft power is pull.” [4] Thus, when public audiences become interested in a certain culture, they act more conscientiously towards that country. This attention can allow for a stronger connection between the audience, the country, and its domestic population, likely garnering further awareness for other non-cultural aspects of the country. In this sense, cultural diplomacy is used as a mechanism to gain attraction (pull) of an audience which is then used to exercise soft power and sway public opinion, respect cultural diversity, and even bring awareness to human rights.
Although soft power can be useful, it can ultimately be undermined by hard power. Hard power and fixed policies cannot be changed by soft power, and since soft power is weaker, it can often be undercut by military or economic forces. When a country attempts to promote the narrative that they are benevolent, but then they use military intervention to get what they want, the narrative that the soft power is trying to portray no longer seems legitimate. But to improve on both soft and hard power would be to use them together to increase overall impact; this is referred to as “smart power.” [5] Some countries may have experience in attempting to use smart power, but the world is evolving and advancing technology continues to tilt the playing field.
South Korean Cultural Diplomacy
South Korean cultural diplomacy has drastically changed since the “Korean Wave,” or Hallyu in Korean, as the South Korean government has now begun to utilize the popularity of its music and other media to advocate for its diplomatic aims. [6] After the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948, the instability of the South Korean government in the aftermath of the Korean War prevented the Republic of Korea from focusing on cultural diplomacy, and until the 1980s, the state had control of Korean media which was heavily censored.[7] The 1980s democratization movement and economic growth allowed for the relaxation of regulations for foreign cultures, and Western media began to seep into Korean TV. The Seo Taiji & Boys were considered the first K-pop group to mix this Western influence with Korean mainstream music, as their songs contained rap and hip-hop styles and their lyrics addressed teenage social issues that were not often discussed in Korean music. [8] This music made its waves first regionally, throughout Asia, but then started to spread globally because of its memorable melodies, synchronized choreography, and fun, often colorful, fashion. Music industries (such as SM Entertainment and JYP Entertainment) appeared and began forming “idol groups” (groupings of either men or women singers similar to the original Seo Taiji & Boys), and they continued to curate these groups with strict training beginning from a young age. They are selected, put in a group, and are taught how to dance, sing, and act. Today there are many popular idol groups such as BTS, Stray Kids, Blackpink, and Twice, that have many trending songs that have become popular all over the world. Each of these groups have gained a large following of supporters who consistently listen to songs, go to live concerts, and buy merchandise. Social media has played a huge role in propelling K-pop to its success as it has become easier than ever to spread and see videos of K-pop groups. People also find a community within these groups, which helps them connect to other fans of the music, and they often bond together, creating large groups of followers.
However, despite this popularity, it is important to note that this phenomenon of K-pop was not a direct product of the South Korean government. While the Korean government financially funded much of the industry and aimed to keep the K-pop industry protected, through building concert auditoriums, advancing hologram technology, and regulating karaoke bars, there was no initial campaign by the government to advertise K-pop because it was solely run by the entertainment corporations. [9] Initially, South Korean cultural diplomacy has largely focused on traditional culture, campaigned by the Korean culture ministry as ‘Han-Style’ culture (such as Korean dress [hanbok], Korean style housing [hanok], Korean food [hansik], and more). [10] But with the overtaking of K-pop, other modern aspects of Korean culture have become popular such as K-dramas (like Squid Games or Business Proposal), Korean cosmetics (K-beauty), and Korean movies (like Parasite or Train to Busan). This modern Korean culture appeals to a younger generation that is not as interested in South Korean traditional aspects, but when they feel this connection to K-pop idols or K-dramas, they gain more interest in the Korean lifestyle which may include food, language, honorifics, and more. Korean culture is acting as a pull toward South Korea for foreign audiences to learn the Korean language, visit South Korea (through tourism and exchange programs), and buy more Korean products.
Not only did the Korean Wave garner attention for South Korea and give it a larger space in the international community, but now as the Korean government recognizes the power and influence K-pop groups hold, they will be able to fully utilize the K-pop groups for cultural diplomacy to an extent they did not realize before. For example, one of the most popular K-pop groups, BTS, was noted for performing and giving a speech at the United Nations General Assembly as many fans watched online to support BTS and hear their words of encouragement during the COVID-19 pandemic.[11] Furthermore, the South Korean government has invited other K-pop idols to other political meetings. Such instances include the first summit between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un in 2018 when singers Red Velvet and Baek Ji-young performed in Pyongyang. Additionally, BTS has been associated with UNICEF since 2017 with their “Love Myself” campaign that “help[s] end violence and neglect, and promote children and young people’s self-esteem and well-being,” and they have donated $1 million and a portion of the proceeds from their album and merchandise sales. [12] While the US has had many actors and singers (such as Angelina Jolie and Beyonce) support UNICEF, this is the first time South Korea is promoting its image in this way. This shows a successful practice of cultural diplomacy in order to improve their image as a responsible global actor and show their care for human rights.
In 2020, South Korea’s Culture of Ministry established a separate department to specialize in supporting the Hallyu movement.[13] However, the Korean government has attempted to promote the Korean Wave before in 2012 and 2015 with similar committees, but they received backlash from the private sector as the government was seen as infringing on their business and they were concerned the government involvement might hinder the Korean Wave’s success.[14] Making a pop-cultural movement increasingly political may limit the phenomenon, and it is important that if the South Korean government wants to use the cultural diplomacy of the Hallyu to its best, they will have to be extremely careful in incorporating politics into the entertainment sector.
Japanese Cultural Diplomacy
Japan has had a similar history with cultural diplomacy, as much of its campaign revolved around traditional aspects of Japanese culture, such as architecture, nature, tea ceremonies, and flower arrangements that displayed a softer, peaceful, and serene side of Japan to combat the samurai, feudal and warlike narrative after WWII.[15] In the 1950s, Japan’s movies became internationally critically acclaimed, and it was considered the “golden age of cinema,” which showed Japanese artistry from a new modern angle.[16] Unlike Korea’s war, Japan has had more stability and more time to focus on cultural diplomacy, allowing them more experience in this field. Movies like Rashōmon (1950), The Life of Oharu (1952), Gate of Hell (1953), and other Japanese movies won recognition from the Venice Film Festival, the Cannes Film Festival, and the Academy Awards piquing international interest and giving Japan recognition for its arts and film post-WWII.[17] However, these films did not see the same critically acclaimed success in Japan that they did internationally. During the war, traditional Japanese culture had been promoted in conjunction with militarism, but in a post-war era, the theme of war no longer appealed to Japanese audiences.[18] However, for Western audiences, it projected “exotic images of a distant country” which made it interesting because of its unfamiliarity. [19]
These movies boosted Japan’s popularity and placed them on the map culturally. But in recent years the start of the phenomenon of anime began when in the 1990s, Japanese animation companies partnered with American entertainment businesses to present animated television shows to kids. Shows such as Sailor Moon, Dragon Ball Z, and Pokémon became popular among the younger generation and Japanese games ( Pokémon, Super Mario Bros, and Super Smash Bros) also became mainstream. Anime shows and movies for young adults were also being produced and won Academy Awards (i.e. Spirited Away from Studio Ghibli). For many adolescents, Japan became known for its animated shows and games because children were more interested in the new and exciting entertainment provided by new technology, rather than the architecture, nature, and other traditional aspects of the country. Similar to South Korea, there was a surge of interest in Japanese modern media and further engagement in Japanese culture as a whole. More people have learned the Japanese language and have become interested in everyday Japanese lifestyle and traditions. Given how this helped tourism to Japan, the Japanese government realized the importance of the entertainment sector for cultural diplomacy. Even though the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has promoted cultural diplomacy through pop culture, it has not interfered with or pushed strong politics within the media. [20] Movies and shows will often depict an idealistic life of living in Japan, even portraying war between the East and West, but popular anime or manga will usually rely on fantasy plots or romantic-comedy school life storylines. Both South Korea and Japan attempt to take advantage of their sudden popularity and use cultural diplomacy in order to gain soft power, whereas China, in contrast, has had a different kind of approach to cultural diplomacy.
Chinese Cultural Diplomacy
While China has realized the importance of cultural diplomacy, its political system prevents it from succeeding in the same way South Korea has. Due to China’s communist regime, the Chinese government defines cultural diplomacy differently than Nicholas Cull and Joseph Nye, and because of this, their approach is also different. China sees cultural diplomacy as being so imperative to soft power (i.e. culture is inherently needed to build a responsible nation) that they use the term cultural soft power. [21] In this holistic sense, Chinese characteristics of Marxism and socialism are intrinsically cultural values. Thus, in cultural diplomacy when China presents its own narrative to overseas audiences, it also pushes what other people and nations recognize as political views. Unlike Nye and Cull, China does not separate culture and politics which makes it harder for them to have similar success to South Korea in cultural diplomacy. While they may not have success with cultural diplomacy to the same extent, they are nevertheless known for their culture and are still able to gain soft power in other ways. Ultimately, they have not had the same “luck” as South Korea and Japan in their rise in pop culture (specifically in the West), but perhaps this “luck” may be attributed to both South Korea and the US being democratic capitalist societies.
Like South Korea and Japan, China’s original cultural diplomacy campaigns were focused on spreading traditional Chinese culture, such as cuisine, nature, language, architecture, and other aspects. They have had achievements in sharing this culture through events like the Beijing Olympics and Shanghai World Expo, but it is not a lasting success. Today, China’s main methods of cultural diplomacy are through broadcasting, movies, and the Confucius Institutes. Broadcasting is considered an older form of public and cultural diplomacy, because unlike today’s advanced technologies, broadcasting only allows for one-way communication; there is no engagement with the viewers as the audience cannot respond to the information being broadcasted.[22] As mentioned earlier, listening (from both the “speaker” and the “audience”) is imperative in public and cultural diplomacy which allows for a two-way street of understanding, but in the method of broadcasting, this element is omitted.
In comparison, modern technology, especially social media, allows Korean culture and Japanese culture to gain traction with younger audiences around the world very quickly. People are able to interact with pictures and videos, boosting the views of certain videos they enjoyed, sharing the content with friends, and voicing their opinions about the content (i.e. how good a song was, whether they like a singer or actor, etc.). Social media has globalized these cultures in a way that was not possible before which helps them gain astounding success. Even though broadcasting can still be relevant, lots of cultural diplomacy has moved past this stage, and Chinese broadcasting cannot compare to the rise of pop culture from South Korea and Japan.
Secondly, China has made progress in its entertainment industry as its movies and actors have increased in popularity, and China has gained a foothold in Hollywood. In the 1980s, after Mao Zedong’s death, Deng Xiaoping established a Reform and Opening Up policy that allowed for an increase in the circulation of Western, specifically American movies. Currently, China has the most movie theaters in the world and has become the No. 1 box office internationally in recent years, as its annual ticket sales have even exceeded America’s sales.[23] As China has become an incredibly large part of sales, Hollywood has had to cooperate with China’s censorship. In 2008, China’s State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television issued a list of requirements that foreign movies had to meet in order to be shown in Chinese theaters.[24] Additionally, to protect China’s own movie industry, the government only allows 34 big-budget foreign movies, but to evade this limitation, Hollywood co-produces with Chinese studios, allowing further control from Chinese government censorship.[25] Movies like Iron Man 3 (2013), Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014), and Pixels (2015), have been influenced to change their script, cut out scenes, or avoid certain controversial topics (such as the Tibetan border) in order to project China in a positive light and avoid any bad representation (ex: being a backward country or a villain in the movie).[26] In this sense, China has successful soft power in the entertainment industry as Hollywood wants to appease the Chinese government since their audience constitutes such a large part of movie ticket sales. However, this soft power does not necessarily come from cultural diplomacy but from China’s huge population and America’s economic desires. China is attempting to improve its image abroad, but it is not exclusively promoting its own culture in these movies. The Chinese government has much more control over this kind of cultural diplomacy than the South Korean or Japanese governments do over their pop-culture movements. But because of this, the South Korean and Japanese entertainment industries are seen as more idealistically “free” than the Chinese entertainment industry, which may have a more negative reputation because of its censorship. This issue of government control is also a problem in its other major section of cultural diplomacy: the Confucius Institutes.
Finally, China’s most prominent and lasting projects of cultural diplomacy are the Confucius Institutes (CIs). In 2004, the first CI was established in Seoul, South Korea, and was aimed at teaching Chinese culture, language, and promoting multiculturalism. South Korea was a fitting start as they had a long history with Confucian thought, and more institutes were being built in South Asia. As more institutes were built around the world, they expanded their goal to start collaborating in academics.[27] In April 2018 the US had 110 CIs. The heightened presence of CIs was due to the increased demand for Chinese language teaching.[28] However, the US saw the expansion of the CIs as a threat, and some institutes shut down because there was a concern for academic freedom given China’s heavy censorship of controversial subjects. Moreover, with China’s holistic view of cultural diplomacy, people criticized the institutes for disseminating Chinese Communist propaganda. However, in places where censorship is acceptable, such as in the Arab world, the CIs have been more successful as they focus on China’s financial sectors and do not see China as harboring hidden political agendas.[29] This shows the ability of the CIs to be successful when targeting a similar government and public audience in regard to censorship. Even though they have won over certain countries, to gain a bigger audience and flourish in the West, they would need to create a separation between their political system and their culture, as (Western) foreign viewers are often deterred by communism and its policies rather than attracted.
From Cultural Diplomacy to Soft Power
In comparing South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese cultural diplomacy, it is clear that there are different approaches to cultural diplomacy, yet all three countries are considered prominent in the global community. They have all had both successes and failures, but today all show signs of soft power regardless of the extent of their cultural diplomacy success. South Korea and Japan have had the chance to benefit from modern technology which has propelled each culture to popularity on a global scale. This popularity has made them more globally recognized for non-political aspects, but in improving their reputation with the public audience, they gained further power and assertion in the international community. On the other hand, China’s push for cultural diplomacy has had a deeper connection to censorship and politics, but China still draws attraction through other methods. This is not to say China does not have cultural appeal, as many tourists visit China for its history, architecture, arts, nature, and more. China’s soft power is gained through multiple different aspects, not just cultural diplomacy but also its strong economy.
China’s economic boom in the recent decade has proved it to be a strong country and has made it economically appealing for many businesses. Companies are willing to conduct trade, manufacturing, foreign investment, and other corporate activities in China because they want to engage in a prosperous company and reap their own benefits. As mentioned previously, China’s economic growth helped many of the Confucius Institutes become established because there was a demand to learn Mandarin Chinese. Not only are companies and countries attracted to China’s successful economy for business reasons, but China is seen as being wealthy enough to help other countries build infrastructure and assist them financially, with their most prominent project being the Belt and Road Initiative. By giving financial aid, China may seem altruistic to public audiences and this action can demonstrate China as having good intentions and being a benevolent part of the global community. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, China used its own funding and resources in the race to find a vaccine but ultimately the American pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, won out. However, China not only had a high vaccination rate within its own borders but it distributed many vaccines to other countries, showing its capabilities and attempting to reduce the negative image that the initial spread of COVID-19 brought to China’s reputation.[30] Through methods of economic and medical attributes, China has gained attraction and “pull” through other means in addition to their traditional cultural diplomacy. This also helps in making China known in a variety of aspects rather than just culture, compared to Japan and South Korea.
Today, China is well known for its growing economy and increasing power, and it is often seen as a competitor of the US. The US, as the global hegemonic power, is usually cited as having both strong soft and hard power. While hard power is easy to track, soft power can take a long time to build and can be difficult to quantify, especially when many other factors of reality are affecting the outcome. Even though it is challenging to obtain immediate and direct results, Brand Finance uses surveys of multiple metrics to create a Global Power Index (2023) in which the US ranks No.1, and Japan and China take 4th and 5th place respectively.[31] Considering China’s growth and power, it is surprising that Japan overall ranks higher than China. However, in the category of “Influence” China is No. 2, second only to the US, and lower on the list Japan places at No. 6.[32] Japan’s “Culture & Heritage” sector is No. 6, and in the metrics of “Business & Trade,” “Education & Science,” and “Sustainable Future,” Japan ranks No. 2.[33] Like China, Japan has other methods of gaining soft power that have to do with its advanced technology and stable economy. Additionally, it is important to note that Japan is the highest-ranked Asian country for “Culture & Heritage,” whereas the rest of the top nine countries in this category are Western countries (France at No. 1, US, Italy, Spain, UK in the following order). [34]
Finishing off the top ten for “Culture & Heritage” is China. While this may seem much lower than Japan, South Korea ranks even further down the list at No.17.[35] Even though South Korea is widely known for its K-pop, the “Influential in arts and entertainment” is only one of six other parts to the “Culture & Heritage” category. Despite being one small piece in quantifying soft power as a whole, the impact of K-pop and the interest it has created in younger generations to learn about Korean culture is immense and has greatly helped South Korea’s influence. In this case, it might be beneficial for the Index to have weighted sections, as certain aspects of soft power could be more consequential from one year to the next (another example might be the varying influence of the World Cup). However, South Korea’s overall lower ranking is logical considering that China and Japan have been able to project their power for much longer as both have historically struggled to be the dominating Eastern regional power and both have sustained past connections (good and bad) with the West and the US. Thus, having long been in connection with the West, they are more influential whereas South Korea has only in recent decades begun to emerge from the shadows of its neighboring countries. People are becoming increasingly aware of South Korea, and if they employ cultural diplomacy tactics (allowing the Korean culture wave to continue, without making it too politicized) and continue to bolster other sections of soft power, such as business, sustainability, governance, or education, they can gain even more recognition and respect in the international community.
Conclusion
Despite having different approaches to cultural diplomacy, South Korea, Japan, and China each had their own successes with each country displaying different strengths in gaining soft power. While Japan was able to take advantage of its pop-culture movement with cultural diplomacy, China was able to take advantage of other aspects (such as financial and medical aid) to gain its soft power. South Korea, despite ranking lower on the Global Soft Power Index, has the advantage of the Korean Wave, and should take the opportunity to look at Japan, as a model for cultural diplomacy, and China, for its strategy of diversifying their method of attraction. On the other hand, China could stand to separate its cultural diplomacy approaches from its politics and censorship in order to win over Western audiences. Despite all of this effort to obtain more soft power, it is not a strategy that can be used on its own. Soft power still has many capabilities, such as swaying public opinion and shifting the global community toward increasing acceptance of cultural diversity. As individuals have more compassion for other cultures, they become more aware of human rights and justice in all communities. It is also capable of opening up a dialogue when hard power strains a relationship, and it can be a means of keeping global stability and peace. To further these goals and relationships within the international community, soft power is needed, even if it is not considered the strongest power on its own.
The rise of K-pop changed South Korea’s position in the world which was a result of social media. Social media platforms being able to access a wider audience has shown to have both advantages and disadvantages because, on one hand, cultural narratives can be spread around the world in seconds. On the other hand, engagement with these audiences can be difficult when the competition has also increased to a multitude of actors and individuals all around the world. Older generations (often those in the government) may struggle to appeal to younger audiences online because they don’t understand technology in the same way and have different perspectives on the use of the internet. Perhaps, South Korea can get ahead and gain an advantage out of social media by utilizing the Korean Wave to its fullest. However, grappling with both technology and appealing to younger generations is what each country must do, as both are considered important to the future. Gaining cultural influence over younger generations shapes the way they think, and they continue to learn from the increasing presence of media. Thus, while many people may not pay attention to cultural diplomacy, or events such as the rise of K-pop, because it does not seem as important as sectors of the economy or politics, it continues to demonstrate its significance in playing a considerable role in creating the younger minds that will soon control the future.
Bibliography
[1] Cull, Nicholas John. Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past. Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press, 2009, 17.
[2] Cull, Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past, 18. .
[3] Nye, Joseph S. “Soft Power: The Evolution of a Concept.” Journal of Political Power 14, no. 1 (February 10, 2021): 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379x.2021.1879572. .
[4] Nye, Joseph S. “Soft Power: The Evolution of a Concept.” .
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jang, Gunjoo, and Won K. Paik. “Korean Wave as Tool for Korea’s New Cultural Diplomacy.” Advances in Applied Sociology 02, no. 03 (September 2012): 196–202. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2012.23026. .
[7] Park, Sang Mi. “The Paradox of Postcolonial Korean Nationalism: State-Sponsored Cultural Policy in South Korea, 1965–Present.” Journal of Korean Studies 15, no. 1 (2010): 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1215/07311613-15-1-67. .
[8] Kanozia, Rubal, and Garima Ganghariya. “More Than K-Pop Fans: BTS Fandom and Activism Amid Covid-19 Outbreak.” Media Asia 48, no. 4 (July 15, 2021): 338–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2021.1944542..
[9] Chow, Kat. “How the South Korean Government Made K-Pop a Thing.” WNYC. NPR, April 16, 2015. https://www.wnyc.org/story/nickelodeon-sitcom-make-it-pop-highlights-impact-of-korean-pop-music/ .
[10] Elfving-Hwang, Joanna. “South Korean Cultural Diplomacy and Brokering ‘K-Culture’ Outside Asia.” Korean Histories 4, no. 1 (2013): 14–26..
[11] Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. “More than 1 Million People Watched the U.N. General Assembly Online – When K-Pop Band BTS Took to the Podium.” The Washington Post. WP Company, September 20, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/20/bts-at-unga/..
[12] “BTS and Big Hit Renew Commitment to ‘Love Myself’ Campaign to Support UNICEF in Ending Violence and Neglect as Well as Promoting Self-Esteem and Well-Being.” UNICEF, March 4, 2021. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/bts-and-big-hit-renew-commitment-love-myself-campaign-support-unicef-ending-violence. .
[13] Seung-hyun, Song. “What Should, or Can, the Culture Ministry’s New Hallyu Department Do?” The Korea Herald, June 8, 2020. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200531000127..
[14] Song. “What Should, or Can, the Culture Ministry’s New Hallyu Department Do?” .
[15] Ogoura, Kazuo. “Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy.” Edited by Philip Seib. USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 2009. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdin_monitor_article/japan%E2%80%99s-cultural-diplomacy..
[16] Martín, Marcos Centeno “Introduction: The Misleading Discovery of Japanese National Cinema,” Arts 7, no. 4 (2018): p. 87, https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7040087..
[17] Martín, Marcos Centeno “Introduction: The Misleading Discovery of Japanese National Cinema”..
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20]“Pop-Culture Diplomacy.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, November 4, 2022. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/culture/exchange/pop/index.html..
[21] Becard, Danielly Silva, and Paulo Menechelli Filho. “Chinese Cultural Diplomacy: Instruments in China’s Strategy for International Insertion in the 21st Century.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 62, no. 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201900105..
[22] Rawnsley, Gary D. “To Know Us Is to Love Us: Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting in Contemporary Russia and China.” Politics 35, no. 3-4 (2015): 273–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12104..
[23] Hu, Jane. “When Hollywood Met China.” The New Yorker, September 12, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/when-hollywood-met-china.; Becard, Danielly Silva, and Paulo Menechelli Filho. “Chinese Cultural Diplomacy”.
[24] Hu, Jane. “When Hollywood Met China.”.
[25] .
[26]Ibid.
[27]Palit, Parama Sinha. “China’s Cultural Diplomacy: Historical Origin, Modern Methods and Strategic Outcomes.” China Research Center, January 14, 2014. https://www.chinacenter.net/2014/china_currents/12-2/chinas-cultural-diplomacy-historical-origin-modern-methods-and-strategic-outcomes/..
[28]Becard, Danielly Silva, and Paulo Menechelli Filho. “Chinese Cultural Diplomacy”.
[29]Yellinek, Roie. “How Confucius Institutes in the Arab World Shape Positive Perceptions of China.” The Jamestown Foundation 21, no. 21 (November 5, 2021)..
[30]Vadlamannati, Krishna Chaitanya, and Yoo Sun Jung. “The Political Economy of Vaccine Distribution and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.” Business and Politics 25, no. 1 (2023): 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.26..
[31]“Global Soft Power Index 2023.” Branddirectory. Brand Finance, 2023. https://brandirectory.com/softpower/nation?country=64..
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid.
[34]Ibid.
[35]Ibid.