Jump to content

Confucius Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Metal.lunchbox (talk | contribs) at 07:04, 2 July 2011 (adding a little to the actual info about CI in the lead, removing unsupported claim that the CI is controled by the government. The source cited does not support claim and it is an argument to be cited in the controversy section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Confucius Institute
Founded2004
TypeEducational Organization
FocusChinese culture, Chinese language
Location
Area served
Worldwide
MethodEducation
OwnerThe Office of Chinese Language Council International (also known as "Hanban")
Websitewww.confuciusinstitute.net

Confucius Institutes (simplified Chinese: 孔子学院; traditional Chinese: 孔子學院; pinyin: kǒngzǐ xuéyuàn) are non-profit public institutions that aim to promote Chinese language and culture, support local Chinese teaching internationally, as well as facilitating cultural exchanges. Confucius Institute (CI) headquarters is in Beijing. The program was started in 2004[1] and is financed by the Office of Chinese Language Council International (colloquially, Hanban (汉办)), a non-government and non-profit organization affiliated with the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China[2]. Many foreign scholars characterize the CI program as an exercise in soft power where China "sees the promotion of its culture and its chief language, standard Mandarin, as a means of expanding its economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach."[3]

History

After establishing a pilot institute in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in June 2004, the first Confucius Institute opened on November 21, 2004 in Seoul, Republic of Korea and many more have been established in other countries, such as the U.S., Germany and Sweden, where Chinese enjoys an increasing popularity. The first Confucius Institute in South Eastern Europe was opened in August 2006 in Belgrade, Serbia.[4] As of July 2010, there were 316 Confucius Institutes and 337 Confucius Classrooms in 94 countries and regions.[5] The Office of the Chinese Language Council International plans to set up 500 Confucius Institutes worldwide by 2010 in view of the fact that 100 million people oversees may be learning Chinese.[6] HanBan aims to establish 1,000 Confucius Institutes by 2020.[7]

Name

Don Starr of the European Journal of Education writes of the incongruity of naming the institutes after Confucius (551-479 BCE), who was reviled during the first half of the 20th century, with anti-Confucianism ranging from the 1912 New Culture Movement to the 1973 Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius campaign.[8] "One of the great ironies of the peaceful co-existence of the Confucius Institute and the China Institute is that at the beginning of the 20th century, Hu Shi believed that "the way of Confucianism is unsuitable to modern life."[9] In Western terms, the CI name is a global branding issue; Confucius has internationally positive associations with teaching and Chinese culture. A recent academic study found many similarities between the operations of the CIs and multinational businesses.[10] Chen Jinyu, Vice-Chairperson of the CI Headquarters, explained, "With regards to the operation of Confucian Institutes, brand name means quality; brand name means returns. Those who enjoy more brand names will enjoy higher popularity, reputation, more social influence, and will therefore be able to generate more support from local communities."[11]

Purpose

Confucius Institutes have three main objectives, according to a Hanban program director, "to teach Chinese, to promote cultural exchange, and to facilitate business activity."[12] Stan Rosen, the director of the University of Southern California's East Asian Studies Center stated, "It's a very long term strategy to get people to appreciate Chinese culture. They steer away from those kinds of political issues, just to teach straight language. Because they know this is exactly what critics of China might be looking for."[13]

Organization

Finances

Controversies

Despite the rapid international growth and popularity of Confucius Institutes, they suffer from controversies and obstacles. Critics, frequently educators and journalists, accuse CIs of being a propaganda vehicle for the Communist Party of China, threatening academic freedom, and restricting freedom of speech over topics such as the Dalai Lama. Defenders, frequently CI employees and Chinese diplomats, deny that CIs have nefarious purposes and insist they only further international understanding about the culture of China. A European Journal of Education study divides critics of CI programs between "insiders" with practical concerns about "finance, academic viability, legal issues, relations with the Chinese partner university, and long-term support from their own institutions", and "outsiders" with ideological concerns about "improper influence over teaching and research, industrial and military espionage, surveillance of Chinese abroad, and undermining Taiwanese influence as part of the reunification plan."[14] The People's Republic of China publicly supports the institution, but university and public school systems that incorporate the program have stressed the "total autonomy in their course materials and teachers."[15]

2004

Controversies began when the University of Maryland established the first CI in the United States. The Economist quoted Li Changchun, the 5th-highest ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee, that the Confucius Institutes were “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up”.[16] The University of Maryland's CI Director Chuan Sheng Liu said, "We are an American university, and the most important value is academic freedom … We don't want anything to interfere with that, and we stand very firm on that ground."[17]

2005

In Toronto, The Globe and Mail reported, "Despite their neutral scholarly appearance, the new network of Confucius Institutes does have a political agenda." For example, teaching with the simplified Chinese characters used in the PRC rather than the Traditional Chinese characters used in Taiwan "would help to advance Beijing’s goal of marginalizing Taiwan in the battle for global influence.”[18]

2006

The Faculty Senate at the University of Hawaii-Manoa formally complained about establishing a Confucius Institute without proper approval, which violated shared governance in higher education.[19]

A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?"[20]

2007

When a CI was established at the University of Melbourne, members of the Chinese studies department objected to it being located within the faculty of arts, and the institute was set up away from the main campus.[21]

A declassified intelligence report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says, "Beijing is out to win the world's hearts and minds, not just its economic markets, as a means of cementing power."[22]

Faculty at Stockholm University demanded the separation of the Nordic Confucius Institute from the university, but an independent assessment rejected their claims that the Chinese Embassy in Stockholm was using the CI for conducting political surveillance and inhibiting academic freedom. The Parliament of Sweden took up this issue, and Göran Lindblad compared the CIs to Benito Mussolini’s Italian Institutes of the 1930s,[23] and asked whether the Chinese government should be subsidizing Western educational institutions when "China has ten million children without proper schools."[24][25]

2008

While the University of Sydney was negotiating to establish a Confucius Institute, some professors called for it to be segregated from the Chinese Studies department. Jocelyn Chey, a visiting professor at Sydney and former diplomat with expertise in Australia-China relations, criticized CI "as a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party, and not a counterpart to the Goethe Institute or Alliance Française."[26][27] Considering the close links between the CI, Chinese government, and Communist Party, Professor Chey later warned "this could lead at best to a "dumbing down" of research and at worst could produce propaganda."[28]

Tel Aviv University officials shut down a student art exhibition about the oppression of Falun Gong in China, and a Tel Aviv District Court judge subsequently ruled the university "violated freedom of expression and succumbed to pressure from the Chinese Embassy, which funds various activities at the university, and took down the exhibit, violating freedom of expression."[29] This ruling concluded the dean of students "feared that the art exhibit would jeopardize Chinese support for its Confucius Institute and other educational activities on the campus."[19]

Stockholm's Institute for Security and Development Policy described the founding of CIs as "an image management project, the purpose of which is to promote the greatness of Chinese culture while at the same time counterattacking public opinion that maintains the presence of a 'China threat' in the international community."[30]

The Vancouver Sun questions whether the British Columbia Institute of Technology has "sold out to Chinese propaganda" for a Confucius Institute.[31] On one side, human-rights lawyer David Matas says CIs are nominally for promoting Chinese studies but "informally they become a vehicle that the Chinese government uses to basically intimidate the academic institutions to run according to their guise and also as a vehicle for infiltration and spying into the campuses to find out what's going on hostile to their interest." On the other, BCIT official Jim Reiuchert says, "The real purpose of the Confucius Institute is to build bridges between the host country, the host institution and China."

2009

According to Asia Times Online, the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong criticized Confucian teachings as "rubbish that should be thrown into the 'historical dustbin'" while the 21st-century CCP uses Confucianism as "an assistant to the Chinese god of wealth (and a representative of Chinese diplomacy), but not a tutor for Chinese soul."

When questioned about CIs, an American official admitted that Chinese universities are far less receptive to America’s cultural-promotion efforts than vice versa, but "if you’re in a system that’s that paranoid, your soft power is self-limited."[32]

The Government of India rejected the idea of Confucius Institutes in schools, and called them "a Chinese design to spread its 'soft power' – widening influence by using culture as a propagational tool."[33][34]

Faculty at the University of Pennsylvania decided not to negotiate with CI. According to G. Cameron Hurst III, the former director of the Center for East Asian Studies, "There was a general feeling that it was not an appropriate thing for us to do. We feel absolutely confident in the instructors that we train here, and we didn't want them meddling in our curriculum."[35]

USA Today reported that the Confucius Institute at the University of Nebraska received $270,000 from the Hanban. While some critics view the CIs as "mostly a vehicle for propaganda", the CI director David Lou said, "There are no strings attached." [36]

An Asian Survey article notes concerns over a "Trojan horse effect" of CIs. "The Confucius Institute project can be seen at one level as an attempt to increase Chinese language learning and an appreciation of Chinese culture, but at another level it is part of a broader soft power projection in which China is attempting to win hearts and minds for political purposes." Besides CIs, some other ways that China raises its cultural profile overseas include Chinese contemporary art exhibitions, television programs, concerts by popular singers, and translations of Chinese literature.[37]

Addressing criticisms about a Tibet photo exhibit at the University of Maryland CI, Xie Feng, Deputy Chief of the Chinese Embassy in Washington D.C., denied the violation of human rights in Tibet and "so-called destruction of religion" by the Chinese government, and proclaimed, "The freedom of religious belief and normal religious activities of the Tibetan people are protected.”[38]

At a hearing of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Anne-Marie Brady, a University of Canterbury political science professor, testified that China considers propaganda work the "life blood (shengmingxian) of the Party-State in the current area", and promotes foreign propaganda towards the Overseas Chinese community through Confucius Institutes and activities such as "root-seeking (xun gen) cultural tours."[39][40]

2010

A China Daily editorial accused CI opponents of hypocrisy for not calling "Goethe Institutes, Alliances Francaises or Cervantes Institutes as propaganda vehicles or tools of cultural invasion".[41]

Despite censorship in the People's Republic of China, CIs also face domestic criticism. Some Chinese critics worry that "the government’s support for the CIs' budgets detracts from domestic spending" when the Ministry of Education "budget for domestic compulsory education remains inadequate." Others point to the potential for corruption and conflict of interest within the Hanban, which is supposedly a non-profit organization but operates CI-related companies for profit. "For instance, in November 2009, Hanban launched a new company, which won the bid for over five million U.S. dollars from the Ministry of Finance to operate the CI’s website; the person in charge of this company is also the deputy director of Hanban."[42]

A Der Spiegel article about threats from China's soft power criticized Beijing for using Confucius Institutes "in hopes of promoting what it views as China's cultural superiority".[43]

Few top-tier Japanese universities have accepted Confucius Institutes. "Of the more than 17 CIs launched in Japan since 2005, all were at private colleges" instead of at more prestigious national universities. "Chinese culture traditionally holds significant influence in Japan, but people remain concerned by the potential ideological and cultural threat of Chinese government-run projects such as CIs."[44]

Over 170 University of Chicago faculty members signed a letter to University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer that called CIs "an academically and politically ambiguous initiative sponsored by the government of the People's Republic of China."[45] The letter broadly discussed perceived problems in university governance and alleged that the university had proceeded "without due care to ensure the institute's academic integrity" and had risked having its own reputation used to "legitimate the spread of such Confucius Institutes in this country and beyond."[46]

After community members of Hacienda La Puente Unified School District opposed establishing a Confucius Institute, history teacher Jane Shults described their criticisms as "... jingoistic, xenophobic, not overly rational and it’s really shades of McCarthyism all over again."[47] A San Gabriel Valley Tribune editorial compared this CI program as "tantamount of asking Hugo Chavez to send his cadres to teach little American kids economics."[48] The Washington Times quoted opposing opinions. Nicholas J. Cull, a University of Southern California public diplomacy professor, said, "I'm sure this will become a standard dispute. People in America are very suspicious of ideas from the outside." Chen Zhunmin, an education director at the Los Angeles Chinese Consulate, insisted the program was unrelated to communism, "I feel that the concerns of the neighbors are mainly caused by lack of understanding of Chinese history and culture."[49]

The People's Daily reports that Osaka Sangyo University in Japan, which opened a Confucius Institute and closed it after one year of operation, formally apologized for an employee calling the CI "a spy agency established to gather cultural intelligence."[50]

2011

The Economist notes that China has not encouraged CIs "to act as overt purveyors of the party’s political viewpoints, and little suggests they are doing so. But officials do say that an important goal is to give the world a “correct” understanding of China."[51]

The Sydney Morning Herald quotes a Department of Education official that Confucius Institutes play a large part in increasing literacy in Chinese, "But they concede that situations could arise where it was "best [for students] not to engage in" discussions about controversial subjects such as the massacre in Tiananmen Square or China's human rights record, raising questions about China's influence over the program's content."[52][53]

Faculty at the University of Manitoba oppose establishing a CI, and Professor Terry Russell said, "'We have a real conflict of our principles of academic freedom,' with the potential to have a faculty version of Chinese history and a Confucius Institute version being taught on campus."[54][55]

Peng Ming-min, a Taiwan independence activist and politician, writes that although on the surface China merely demonstrates its "soft power" through CIs, "Colleges and universities where a Confucius Institute is established all have to sign a contract in which they declare their support for Beijing’s “one China” policy. As a result, both Taiwan and Tibet have become taboos at these institutes." Peng lists other examples of CI "untouchable" issues including the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, neglect of human rights, environmental pollution in China, and the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo.[56]

Historian Glenn Anthony May writes in the Asia Sentinel that Confucius Institutes "come with visible strings attached." For instance, host institutions must sign a memorandum of understanding to support the One-China policy. "At universities, we normally have an opportunity to debate issues like that, allowing professors like me and students to take issue publicly with our government's policy. Hanban, for obvious reasons, wants no such discussion to occur."[57]

The St. Petersburg Times reports that investigators at the University of South Florida found professor Dajin Peng, the former director of their Confucius Institute, "took thousands of dollars from the university by claiming he was attending conferences when he was on vacation or working as a paid instructor at other schools." He also misrepresented his authority to help thirty Chinese nationals obtain United States visas and gave two graduate students an unfair advantage on exams. Peng denied the university's "witch hunt" findings, said the FBI "decided to force me into a spy for the USA", and claimed, "This scheme goes all the way to President Obama."[58]

List of institutes

Listed by alphabetical order according to country of location.

Czech Republic

Thailand

See also

References

  1. ^ "Introduction to the Confucius Institutes". Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  2. ^ "The Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban)". University of Sydney Confucius Institute. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  3. ^ Peter Schmidt (2010b), At U.S. Colleges, Chinese-Financed Centers Prompt Worries About Academic Freedom, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/17/2010.
  4. ^ "State Councilor Tang meets Serbian deputy PM" Xinhua, 2006-08-28.
  5. ^ 316 Confucious Institutes established worldwide, Xinhua, 2010-07-1.
  6. ^ China to host second Confucius Institute Conference, Xinhua, 2007-12-06.
  7. ^ Confucius Institute: promoting language, culture and friendliness, Xinhua, 2006-10-02.
  8. ^ Starr (2009), p. 68.
  9. ^ Will Wachter (2007), The language of Chinese soft power in the US, Asia Times Online, 2007-5-24.
  10. ^ Hsi Chang Li, Sam Mirmirani, Joseph A. Ilacqua, (2009), Confucius Institutes: Distributed leadership and knowledge sharing in a worldwide network, The Learning Organization 16.6, 469-482.
  11. ^ Starr (2009), p. 69.
  12. ^ Paradise (2009), p. 651.
  13. ^ China expands language institutes at US colleges, Christine Armario, Associated Press, October 30, 2009.
  14. ^ Don Starr (2009), Chinese Language Education in Europe: the Confucius Institutes, European Journal of Education Volume 44, Issue 1, pages 78-79.
  15. ^ The language of Chinese soft power in the US. Will Watcher, Asia Times.
  16. ^ A message from Confucius; New ways of projecting soft power, Economist.com, 22 Oct 2009.
  17. ^ Schmidt (2010b).
  18. ^ Geoffrey York (2005), "Beijing uses Confucius to lead charm offensive” The Globe and Mail, 2005-8-9. Quoted by Sheng Ding and Robert A. Saunders (2006), "Talking up China: An analysis of China’s rising cultural power and global promotion of the Chinese language," East Asia, 23.2, p. 21.
  19. ^ a b Schimdt (2010b).
  20. ^ Jonathan Zimmerman (2006), Beware China's role in US Chinese classes, CSMonitor.com, September 6, 2006.
  21. ^ Geoff Maslen (2007), Warning – be wary of Confucius institutes University World News, December 2, 2007.
  22. ^ "CSIS say: Confucius part of Chinese bid to win over western hearts", The Chronicle, May 27th 2007.
  23. ^ Starr (2009), p. 79.
  24. ^ Starr (2009), p. 6.
  25. ^ "i Kina är tio miljoner barn utan en ordentlig skola" Riksdagens snabbprotokoll 2007/08:46 (in Swedish)
  26. ^ "Confucius deal close despite concerns", The Australian, August 22, 2007.
  27. ^ Jocelyn Chey (2008), "Chinese 'Soft Power' – Diplomacy and The Confucius Institute podcast, Sydney Papers Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
  28. ^ Harriet Alexander (2008), Sydney is China's new friend, Higher Education Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald, June 18, 2008.
  29. ^ Abe Selig (2009), Court backs students in TAU row over Falun Gong exhibit the university removed, Jerusalem Post October 1, 2009.
  30. ^ Xiaolin Guo (2008), Repackaging Confucius, Institute for Security and Development Policy, Stockholm, Sweden, July 2008.
  31. ^ Janet Steffenhagen (2008), Has British Columbia Institute of Technology sold out to Chinese propaganda?, Vancouver Sun, 2 April 2008.
  32. ^ Confucianism a vital string in China's bow, Jian Junbo, Asia Times Online, 09 Oct 2009.
  33. ^ No Chinese in India, says government news, Domain-b, 08 Oct 2009.
  34. ^ How to be a cultural superpower, Times of India, 22 Nov 2009.
  35. ^ China expands language institutes at US colleges, Christine Armario, Associated Press, October 30, 2009.
  36. ^ Mary Beth Marklein (2009), A culture clash over Confucius Institutes. USA Today, Dec 7, 2009.
  37. ^ James F. Paradise (2009), China and International Harmony: The Role of Confucius Institutes in Bolstering Beijing's Soft Power, Asian Survey 49.4: 648-649.
  38. ^ Xie Feng (2009), Remarks at the Series of Events on Western China at the Confucius Institute at the University of Maryland, 04/10/09.
  39. ^ Testimony of Associate-Professor Anne-Marie Brady
  40. ^ China’s Propaganda and Influence Operations, Its Intelligence Activities that Target the United States, and the Resulting Impacts on U.S. National Security, U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission.
  41. ^ Chang, Liu (2010-08-12). "No need to fuss over Confucius Institutes". China Daily. Xinhua. Retrieved 2010-08-14.
  42. ^ Ren Zhe (2010), Confucius Institutes: China's Soft Power?, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, June 2010.
  43. ^ Erich Follath (2010), The Dragon's Embrace: China's Soft Power Is a Threat to the West, Der Spiegel 07/28/2010.
  44. ^ Ren Zhe (2010).
  45. ^ Petition, CORES at UChicago.
  46. ^ Peter Schmidt (2010a), U. of Chicago's Plans for Milton Friedman Institute Stir Outrage on the Faculty, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 06/01/2010.
  47. ^ Chinese government classroom grant divides S. Calif. community suspicious of motivation, Associated Press, 24 Apr 2010.
  48. ^ Our View: Cancel 'Confucius Classroom', San Gabriel Valley Tribune 02/11/2010.
  49. ^ School activists rail against 'Confucius Classroom', Washington Times, April 27, 2010.
  50. ^ Japanese university apologizes for calling Confucius Institute spy agency, People's Daily Online, June 12, 2010.
  51. ^ China’s Confucius Institutes: Rectification of statues, "Asia Banyan", January 20, 2011.
  52. ^ Justin Norrie (2011), Confucius says school's in, but don't mention democracy, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 20, 2011.
  53. ^ Matthew Robertson (2011), Confucius say: generous gifts hide ethical compromise, ABC.net.au, 2 March 2011.
  54. ^ Nick Martin (2011), Manitoba Profs Wary Chinese Could Start Spying on Campus, Ottawa Citizen, April 27, 2011.
  55. ^ Profs worry China preparing to spy on students, Macleans.ca, April 27, 2011.
  56. ^ Peng Ming-min 彭明敏 (2011), China picks pockets of academics worldwide, Taipei Times Tue, May 31, 2011, p. 8.
  57. ^ Glenn Anthony May (2011), Confucius on the Campus, Asia Sentinel, 4 March 2011.
  58. ^ Kim Wilmath (2011), USF professor is impugned, but employed. St. Petersburg Times, June 5, 2011.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confucius_Institute&oldid=437353005"