The Curious Case of the Confucius Institute
“An oppressive government is to be feared more than a tiger.”—Confucius.
This year, Americans have been monitoring international news more than ever before—particularly China. After watching in astonishment as the COVID-19 virus spread from China to the rest of the world, the country continues to make headlines with its aggression in the South China Sea, and with a recent altercation with India’s military near the border between Sikkim and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Long story short, it would be generous to describe the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as merely adversarial.
There’s a new and interesting tactic in their arsenal though. In foreign policy, it’s called “Sharp Power,” and it is “the use of manipulative diplomatic policies by one country to influence and undermine the political system of a target country.” One of the ways China engages in Sharp Power against the United States (and around the globe) s is by funding Confucius Institutes in colleges and universities throughout the world.
What is a Confucius Institute? On the surface, it certainly seems pleasant enough. Starting in 2004, it is a program that describes itself as purely educational, with the purpose of sharing Chinese culture and language to students abroad. If that’s all it was, then it would pose no national security risk, and this article would be unnecessary. The problem is that Confucius institutes are not independent cultural organizations like the British Institute or Alliance Francaise—but directly connected and financed by the CCP government.
The “education” that is being curated by the CCP is all-encompassing— China dictates all of the books, teachers, and performances, and their curriculum—to any impartial viewer—is woefully inadequate. It does not only leave out the human rights violations by Chairman Mao Zedong, but champions him as a generous and wonderful leader. And don’t expect any conversations on Tianmen Square, the Dalai Llama or Hong Kong either. They are purposely left out, and students are given a healthy dose of communist propaganda instead of a balanced view of China’s past and present.
Defenders of the program claim xenophobia as the real reason behind the objections—but in the debates that have been documented in Toronto, the allegations seem comical, as many on the opposing side of CI’s are expatriates from China themselves.
Gordon Chang—noted author and political commentator on China’s worldwide machinations— said in an interview with Secure Freedom Radio that, “What is happening here is that you have university administrators and professors self-censure themselves because we know they are receiving substantial funds from China through the Confucius Institutes. This changes the whole atmosphere on campuses. So, this goes to the core of academic freedom, the core of free speech on campus, and there have been real problems in a number of places where the Chinese students and the Chinese government and security agencies have been able to influence discourse in very bad ways.” The lack of transparency from universities about how much money they are given from China is also a troubling factor in the discussion.
If Confucius Institutes were merely guilty of painting an inaccurate portrait of history, that would be troubling enough. Still, there is another more insidious element to these organizations, as they masquerade under the name of an ancient philosopher they have ejected from their own public square. Confucius Institutes not only involve the perpetuation of CCP propaganda to students eager to learn Chinese culture and art—but it is most likely a Trojan horse tactic for the accumulation and theft of cutting edge research and being done at the university level. Think it may be an overreaction? Just recently, Harvard professor Charles Lieberman, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, pled guilty to lying about his ties to and the money he received from a similar Chinese intellectual property program.The irony is that China seems to want to have these programs in universities globally, but has no interest in permitting other nations to do the same.
In February, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Commented on this absurdity in an interview with Lou Dobbs, stating "Why can't we have the same thing at a Chinese institution? We'd welcome that opportunity. These are the things that we've allowed the Chinese Communist Party to do here in the United States that we just don't have the ability to do on a reciprocal basis there." He went on to say that, "We want Chinese students coming here to learn, but we need to make sure that they're doing so on a basis that is transparent and fair and that these students who come here aren't under the long arm of Beijing, reporting back into their country in ways that our First Amendment doesn't permit. We need to make sure to protect American academics, American intellectual property, American innovators, protect the property and the work that they've done so that the wealth it creates goes to the inventor and the property owner, not to the Chinese Communist Party.”
If you think the United States is the only country concerned about this, you would be wrong. Sweden just recently closed its last Confucius Institute, citing they are no longer welcome in the country because CI policies do not coincide with academic freedom. America, which used to have about 100 Confucius Institutes, now has approximately 80, but Rachelle Peterson of the National Association of Scholars says “More needs to be done to encourage colleges and universities to cut their ties with their Confucius institutes.” One way? She suggests having the federal government make it a condition to get rid of them if they wish to receive any federal funding. Others say that if China wishes to keep them open, they would need to be open to having American teachers, as well as varied viewpoints in the curriculum—but it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon.
In the documentary, In the Name of Confucius, you follow former CI teacher Sonia Zhao, who lived in fear of persecution for practicing the Chinese form of meditation called Falun Gong—not in China—in Canada. Her story has led many people to understand the true motives behind the CI, as well as that the institution is also importing religious intolerance as well. As you follow her story and the debate in Toronto over whether Confucius Institutes should stay open or not, it is moving to see someone not born to liberty fiercely defend the idea as passionately as if it was always her own. “Teachers are entitled to the right of free expression.”she says. “Students are entitled to the right to obtain information from different channels.” It is a sobering reminder of how precious intellectual freedom is, and how many seem to take it for granted today.
