Some articles in the Chinese press bring several images of Confucianism to mind.  These may be mutually contradictory but i will not attempt any sort of ultimate reconciliation.  If there is a moral to be drawn here, it might be that Confucianism produces various, and at times divergent, ideas for different people.

First up a little Xinhua dispatch, "Confucius in the eyes of Westerners," based on interviews with an elderly American woman living in China, an American academic in the US, and a British-Chinese descendant of Confucius.  It's a mixed bag.  First, the elderly American woman:

"The Great Wall is a symbol of peace as it was an
attempt to prevent warring tribes from entering China necessitating war
in defense of China," she said. "I wish every visitor to the Great Wall
was given a pamphlet explaining how Confucius wanted China to be a
peaceful country."  

So, yes, Confucius and Mencius had a pacifist streak.  But we should always remember that this is not the same as saying China actually was a "peaceful country" throughout its history.  There are periods of peace, but there are also periods of military expansion into contiguous territory.  Just to take the most recent historical example, the Qing dynasty:

From about 1600 to 1800, the Qing empire of China expanded to
unprecedented size. Through astute diplomacy, economic investment, and
a series of ambitious military campaigns into the heart of Central
Eurasia, the Manchu rulers defeated the Zunghar Mongols, and brought
all of modern Xinjiang and Mongolia under their control, while gaining
dominant influence in Tibet. The China we know is a product of these
vast conquests.

Confucianism did not stop that expansion, perhaps because it had long before been combined with Legalism (pdf file!) as a basis for Chinese statecraft.    

Next up, the descendant of Confucius:

"The modern world is full of difficulties very
different to those experienced at Confucius' time, but at the same time
human nature remains the same. Therefore Confucius' suggestions as to
how to behave in many situations still apply today," he said. 

Of course, as a purveyor of "ancient Chinese thought in modern American life" I generally agree with him: Confucianism can contribute something to the modern world.  But the question of human nature, that's a tough one.  I suspect he is referring to the Confucian-Mencian view (or maybe it is just the Mencian view) of innately good human nature.  On most days I want to believe that, too; and I go about my daily activities assuming that is true.  But some days it's hard.  The bad side of human nature (which Mencius also recognizes) seems too powerful.  Which means, perhaps, that Xun Zi was right: human nature is bad.  And that raises a further question: which interpretation does the descendant of Confucius mean?  There is not one singular Confucian view of "human nature."  There are, at least, two contending view.  Why privilege the Mencian view, even if it is the more pleasant?…

Another article I noticed was an op-ed in the English edition of the Global Times, "Moral values determine a nation's influence."  We could file this under "another call for Chinese soft power based on traditional culture, Confucianism included," and then return to the argument that Confucianism may not be able to provide much in the way of soft power (which is something that I continue to think about and am willing to revise in light of new arguments).  But the author, Ding Gang, makes another point worth considering:

In order to really impress people in neighboring countries, China's
image must also include a cultural and spiritual force, which is
precisely what we are lacking most.

I talked with a US scholar, who believes that it is very easy for
China to expand its influence in the neighboring countries because
Buddhism and Confucianism are interlinked.
However, he didn't know that China is most likely to be influenced
by rather than influence its neighboring countries when it comes to the
impact of Buddhism and Confucianism.

Both Confucianism in South Korea and Japan and Buddhism in Southeast
Asia have deeper roots in ordinary people's daily life than in China,
and are more widely and deeply spread and have more continuous history.

The above-mentioned US scholar also wondered why traditional East
Asian religion is not as influential in China as in neighboring
countries since people are seen burning incense and worshiping Buddha
everywhere.
I just told him not many of those people could tell him the basic principles of Buddhism or Taoism.
It is true that temples are full of the smell of incense and some temples even make a lot of money by selling goods to pilgrims.

Ding doesn't mention the obvious point, perhaps because it is so obvious: traditional philosophies and religions are relatively weak (but reviving) in China today because of the merciless assault against them that went on for more than three quarters of the twentieth century, the worst attacks coming under Mao's rule in the PRC.  And, yes, the revival of traditions now is refracted and distorted by materialist economic interests.  So, maybe it is true that China today is just not very "Confucian," or, at least, not as "Confucian" as some other East Asian societies.

I would actually push this further and contend that virtually all East Asian societies today have more in common with the modern "West" than with the remote traditional practices that are now being reinvented in contemporary forms.  That's what modernization does: it draws disparate parts of the world closer together while simultaneously producing nostalgia for traditional difference. And if that is true, then there is little sense in saying "South Korea is more Confucian than China," since both are simply creating their own particular combination of lived modernity and reconstructed tradition in the flux and flow of globalization….