Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

"China Flexes Muscles at UN Cultural Agency, Just as Trump Walks Away" - while reporting on the US once again withdrawing from UNESCO, The New York Times (NYT) did not forget to take a jab at China in its Wednesday article. The phrase "flex muscles," typically used in military contexts, is now being applied to China's cultural engagement with UNESCO - a framing that politicizes what should be a process of mutual cultural exchange and reveals the anxiety some in the US feel over their country's waning cultural influence.

A thorough reading of the NYT article reveals that while it barely offers any critical reflection on the irresponsibility of the US' withdrawal from UNESCO, it devotes significant space to constructing a negative narrative about China. It claims that China is "seizing the opportunity" to "advance its soft power" - an accusation that is not only absurd but transparently self-deceptive, serving to paper over the US' own neglect of responsibility in promoting multilateralism.

In recent years, the US has frequently oscillated between joining and quitting international organizations like UNESCO. This is no longer a matter of mere policy preference but reflects a deeper problem: Washington's instrumentalist view of global institutions - using them when convenient and abandoning them when not - poses a real threat to the fabric of international cooperation. Ironically, the NYT piece quotes a former US official saying that "UNESCO is a battleground for cultural and intellectual power and influence." This statement vividly exposes how some in the US view what should be a platform dedicated to "strengthening our shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture, and communication" as a geopolitical arena for zero-sum rivalry.

However, cultural exchange is not a game of supremacy. China has never viewed its participation in UNESCO or other cultural institutions as a geopolitical maneuver. Rather, it embraces these platforms as opportunities to contribute constructively to global cultural governance. In recent years, a growing number of Chinese cultural and natural properties have been inscribed on the World Heritage List, making China the country with the second most such listings behind Italy. This rise is not the result of taking advantage of the "displacement" or weakening of any other nation's soft power, but rather a natural outgrowth of the vitality of Chinese civilization itself.

In fact, China's global cultural appeal stems from its creative capacity, compelling storytelling and deep cultural resonance. From animated films like Ne Zha 2 and games like Black Myth: Wukong gaining traction overseas, to grassroots sports events like the Village Super League, dubbed "CunChao" and Village Basketball League, also known as "Cun BA," trending on international social media platforms, to the global rise in popularity of traditional cultural symbols such as Hanfu, tea culture and classical music - Chinese culture is increasingly transitioning from being seen to being recognized, appreciated by global audiences.

This trend is driven not only by China's growing cultural communication capacity but also by its steadfast commitment to the Global Civilization Initiative. China champions a vision of global cultural coexistence and common prosperity based on equality, rejecting notions of "civilizational superiority" and refusing to partake in any competition for cultural hegemony. In global cultural governance, China not only engages in heritage inscription and other international efforts, but also prioritizes the protection of its own cultural diversity - especially the preservation and development of minority cultures. 

Therefore, attempts to stigmatize China's legitimate engagement in UNESCO are rooted in Cold War-style thinking and a deep-seated insecurity about China's growing global presence. For a country that repeatedly walks away from even the most foundational UN cultural body to accuse others of "power grabs" is the height of contradiction. The real issue is not whether China is stepping up to "fill the vacuum," but rather the US' growing tendency to step back. Perhaps it is time for the NYT - and US public opinion more broadly - to ask Washington a more pressing question: In a world that is increasingly multipolar and interconnected, is the US still willing and able to engage in global cultural cooperation with openness, respect and responsibility?