Criticism of Confucius Institutes

The Confucius Institute (CI) program, which began establishing centers for Chinese language instruction in 2004, has been the subject of controversy during its international expansion.

Much of such concerns stems from the institutes' alleged relationship to Chinese Communist Party authorities, giving rise to allegations about improper influence over academic freedom at host universities, industrial and military espionage, surveillance of Chinese students abroad, and attempts to advance the Chinese government's political agendas on controversial issues such as Tibet and Taiwan. Additional concerns have arisen over the institutes’ financial and academic viability, teaching quality, and relations with Chinese partner universities. As a result of such concerns, administrators at several institutions such as the University of Melbourne and University of Chicago have opposed the establishment of a Confucius Institute.

In response, Confucius Institutes have defended their establishments, and compared such insitutes with other cultural promotion organizations such as alliance française and Goethe-Institut. Some observers has noted that such institutes are limited to teaching cultural and language programs, while largely avoiding contending with political and controversial subjects as human rights and democracy.

Background

The Confucius Institute program began in 2004 and is financed by the quasi-governmental Office of Chinese Language Council International (colloquially, Hanban 汉办), which describes itself as a non-government, non-profit organization that is affiliated with the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. The institutes operate in co-operation with local affiliate colleges and universities around the world. The related Confucius Classroom program partners with secondary schools or school districts to provide Chinese language teachers and instructional materials.

As of July 2010, there were 316 Confucius Institutes and 337 Confucius Classrooms in 94 countries and regions.

Objectives

Confucius Institutes’ stated missions are to promote knowledge of Chinese language and culture abroad, as well as to promote commercial and trade cooperation. In the context of the Chinese Communist Party's foreign policy objectives, the institutes serve as tools of cultural diplomacy intended to bolster China’s soft power abroad, and shape perceptions of its policies.

The Economist notes that China "has been careful not to encourage these language centres to act as overt purveyors of the party’s political viewpoints, and little suggests they are doing so", but also noted the important goal of give the world a “correct” understanding of China, as well as efforts in opposing Chinese dissident groups abroad, such as Tibetan independent activists, democracy groups and the Falun Gong.

Critical perceptions of objectives

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."

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."

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.

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."

India's Ministry of External Affairs rejected the idea of establishing Confucius Institutes in schools, and called them "a Chinese design to spread its 'soft power'", by using culture to spread propaganda and influence. In spite of growing tensions, a large number of Indian students has been taking Chinese language course at private institutes.

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." 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."

The Board of Education of the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District in January 2010 approved an agreement with Hanban to create "Confucius Classroom" at Cedarlane, a predominately Latino middle school in Hacienda Heights, California. 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." After opponents attempted to stop the establishment of a Confucius Institute, history teacher Jane Shults described criticisms of Confucius Classrooms as "...jingoistic, xenophobic, not overly rational and it’s really shades of McCarthyism all over again." According to Jay Chen, member of the Hacienda La Puente district board, the Cedarlane program would have been taught by a qualified teacher based on an approved curriculum. It would also have provided additional books and financial wherewithal to purchase computers or to fund field trips. Chen noted that many of the scheme's opponents, who accused the school board of "trying to promote Communism in the classroom", neither had children at the school, nor indeed did they live in the district at all. He said that this opposition was fuelled by anti-PRC sentiment in denial of constitutional rights, and that the board members were having to shield themselves from slurs, aspersions and slanders.

There has also been criticism over the Communist Party’s appropriation of Confucius. Under Mao Zedong, Confucian values and teachings were perennial targets of criticism and suppression, being viewed as vestiges of feudalism. According to Asia Times Online, the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong criticized Confucian teachings as "rubbish that should be thrown into the 'Ash heap of history" 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."

The establishment of Confucius Institutes has led to comparisons to similar cultural promotion organizations such as France's alliance française and Germany's Goethe-Institut. Some critics has noted that unlike the forementioned organizations, Confucius Institutes frequently attach themselves to universities or other educational institutions, thus leading to suspicions that the institutes are "aimed less at fostering interest in China and Chinese culture itself, and more at ensuring that such interest is guided along lines approved of by the Chinese party-state."

Comparisions with similar organizations

The establishment of Confucius Institutes has led to comparisons to similar cultural promotion organizations such as France's alliance française and Germany's Goethe-Institut.

A China Daily editorial accused CI opponents of double standards for not calling "Goethe-Institutes, alliance française or Cervantes Institutes as propaganda vehicles or tools of cultural invasion", noting that "China is not the first to set up such institutes nor does it have a monopoly over overseas cultural promotion." Some critics has noted that unlike the forementioned organizations, Confucius Institutes frequently attach themselves to universities or other educational institutions, thus leading to suspicions that the institutes are "aimed less at fostering interest in China and Chinese culture itself, and more at ensuring that such interest is guided along lines approved of by the Chinese party-state."

Jocelyn Chey, a former diplomat and expert in Australia-China relations, believes that the institute's program is most valuable where it supports culture and outreach into the community. Chey however states that CI is "a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party, and not a counterpart to the Goethe Institute or Alliance Française", and speculates the close links between the institutes and the Chinese Communist Party "could lead at best to a 'dumbing down' of research and at worst could produce propaganda." On the other hand, The Sydney Morning Herald cites Queensland University of Technology student Falk Hartig saying in a research paper that "It would be best to understand [Confucius institutes] not as 'propaganda tools' but as 'one instrument of China's cultural diplomacy to wield and bolster Chinese soft power globally'".

Relationship to Chinese party-state

A number of the more serious concerns and controversies surrounding the Confucius Institutes stems from its relationship to the Chinese party-state. Hanban, the body which administers Confucius Institutes, states on its website that it is a non-profit, non-government organization, though it is connected with China’s Ministry of Education and has close ties to a number of senior Communist Party officials. The current chair of Hanban is Politburo member Liu Yandong. Ms. Liu was formerly the head of the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China.

According to Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a number of individuals holding positions within the Confucius Institute system have backgrounds in Chinese security agencies and United Front Work Department, “which manages important dossiers concerning foreign countries. These include propaganda, the control of Chinese students abroad, the recruiting of agents among the Chinese diaspora (and among sympathetic foreigners), and long-term clandestine operations.”

Confucius Institutes are described in official Communist Party literature in the context of Hu Jintao’s soft power initiatives, designed to influence perceptions of China and its policies abroad. Li Changchun, the 5th-highest ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee, was quoted in The Economist saying that the Confucius Institutes were “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up”. In 2007, the Communist Party increased the United Front Work Department’s budget by $3 million to further bolster China’s “soft power” abroad.

Financing

Confucius Institutes mostly run a small number of classes, are on a small budget. They are funded jointly by grants from China’s Ministry of Education and funds from host universities; many are struggling as at 2007, although Hanban set a financial objective for self-sufficiency within five years..

Some critics have suggested that Beijing’s contributions to host universities gives Chinese authorities too much leverage over those institutions. The sizable grants that come with the establishment of Confucius Institutes could make universities more susceptible to pressure from Beijing to exercise self-censorship, particularly on Chinese human rights issues or other politically sensitive topics.

Additional concerns have been raised over the opacity of China’s financial involvement in the CIs. In a profile of the Confucius Institute at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), the Vancouver Sun wrote that Beijing “contributes undisclosed amounts to cover costs. Receipts leaked to The Vancouver Sun show that China has wired several hundred thousand dollars to its BCIT Confucius Institute,” which had few students and showed little sign of activity. The dean of the CI program refused to release financial data, stating that “Beijing insists on confidentiality because such information could affect its negotiations with other institutions anxious to have their own Confucius Institutes.”

Maria Wey-Shen Siow, East Asia bureau chief of Channel NewsAsia, wrote in the East-West Center’s Asia Pacific Bulletin that concerns over Confucius Institutes projecting political undertones "are not completely unfounded, but may not be totally warranted."  She highlights that, for all the CI controversies, "Han Ban’s annual budget was only US$145 million in 2009 so it would be false to state that China has been spending massively on these institutes."

Additional concerns center on potential for corruption and conflict of interests within Hanban, which is ostensibly a non-profit organization but operates CI-related companies for profit. In November 2009, for instance, the deputy director of Hanban established a company that won a $5 million USD bid in France to build and operate the Confucius Institutes’s website.

Some critics, including within China, have expressed 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." Swedish Parliamentarian Göran Lindblad was similarly critical of why Chinese authorities are subsidizing Western educational institutions when "China has ten million children without proper schools."

Espionage concerns

Critics of Confucius Institutes have cited concerns that they could serve as a vehicle for industrial and military espionage, as well as for surveillance of Chinese students studying abroad. The intelligence services of several countries have pursued studies of Confucius Institutes, including the Canadian organization CSIS.

Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas was quoted by the Vancouver Sun as stating that "Nominally, [the institutes] are just 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."

Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya have raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute in Dallas, Texas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company that the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage.

Political influences

Canada's 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.” An article in China Heritage Quarterly describes teaching only simplified characters in the context of Confucius Institutes as "semi-literacy in Chinese". In 2011, the Republic of China announced plans to establish the Taiwan Academy. These cultural centers in America, Europe, and Asia are designed to promote "Taiwanese-favored" Mandarin Chinese and Traditional Chinese characters.

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.

Michael Nylan, professor of Chinese history at the University of California at Berkeley, says CIs have become less heavy-handed in their demands, and have learned from "early missteps," such as insisting that universities adopt a policy that Taiwan is part of China. Nylan took an informal survey of faculty and administrators at fifteen universities with Confucius Institutes; "two respondents reported that institutes had exerted pressure to block guest speakers," but both events went ahead anyway.

Concerns over academic freedom

Some universities have declined to host Confucius Institutes because the university’s own Chinese language instruction programs were already fulfilling the needs of their students and communities. Moreover, the teachers provided by Hanban have in some cases been described as inadequate and inexperienced in providing second-language instruction.

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.

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,

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." After national funding for the Center for East Asian Studies was cut in 2011, university officials reconsidered hosting a CI, but a spokesperson said, "it's probably not a good idea to force anything on our faculty."

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." 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."

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."

According to a Chronicle of Higher Education article, since the first Confucius Institute was established at the University of Maryland in 2004, "there have been no complaints of the institutes' getting in the way of academic freedom on American campuses". The same article however goes on to write that the Institutes are "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government."

Stanford University was initially offered $4 million to host a CI and endow a Confucius Institute Professorship in Sinology. The Dean for Humanities said the Chinese were concerned at being embarrassed and thus attached a caveat that the professor could not discuss delicate issues like Tibet. On Stanford's refusal based on academic freedom grounds, Hanban relented. Standford plans to use the money for a professorship in classical Chinese poetry. Matthew Sommer, an associate professor of Chinese history, said, "It's convenient for everyone concerned that the position ended up being something that isn't controversial in any contemporary political way", and asked, "At what point does soft power become a harder power, where something concrete is asked for?" Dean Richard Saller, who is also the CI director, explained that Hanban prizes the Stanford relationship too much to jeopardize it by interfering with academic freedom. They "are very interested in getting a foothold at Stanford. Many parties in China would love the recipe for creating Stanford and Silicon Valley."

Columbia University received $1 million in Hanban funds, distributed over five years, to begin a CI. Professor Robert Barnett, the director of the Modern Tibetan Studies Program, described a "strange silence about Tibet and other sensitive issues when it comes to Columbia, academics, and talks of China." Barnett said, "The issue is not that China wants to promote itself and pay for Chinese to be taught. The issue is that it wants to have a presence in the campus and much more than that. It wants to have a presence in the faculty and in teaching departments." Questions have also arisen over how universities should respond when foreign governments limit academic freedom abroad. Since the 2001 publication of Columbia University professor Andrew J. Nathan's Tiananmen Papers, he and several other faculty members have been denied visas to China, and the Chinese government shut down the Modern Tibetan Studies Program's study abroad program in Tibet.

Jonathan Zimmerman of the New York University compared Confucius Insitutes with similar efforts by Benito Mussolini to promote Italian in American schools. He suspects that such institutes are used to "play up China's economic achievements and play down its crimes", and concluded that Chinese language programs should be established by the terms of the United States.

Jonathan Lipman, a professor of Chinese history at Mount Holyoke College, explained the effects of CI funding. "By peddling a product we want, namely Chinese language study, the Confucius Institutes bring the Chinese government into the American academy in powerful ways. The general pattern is very clear. They can say, 'We'll give you this money, you'll have a Chinese program, and nobody will talk about Tibet.' In this economy, turning them down has real costs."

Hiring policies

In 2011, a controversy erupted over the instructor hiring policies posted publicly on Hanban’s website, which forbids prospective teachers from practicing Falun Gong, a spiritual qigong practice forbidden in China. Human rights lawyers and media commentators in North America suggested that the hiring practices were in contravention of anti-discrimination laws. The website stated that Chinese language instructors should be "Aged between 22 to 60, physical and mental healthy, no record of participation in Falun Gong and other illegal organizations, and no criminal record." Conservative media commentator and lawyer Ezra Levant said on a Canadian news program "That would be like saying: 'No Jews Allowed.'" Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Yeshiva University in New York City, commented that "The notion that in the United States or Canada we tolerate conduct simply because it originates in another country is false."

When pressed for their views on the controversial hiring policy, the directors at some Confucius Institutes stated that the teachers come from China, and hiring guidelines are thus the prerogative of Chinese authorities. Yan Yuzhou, associate-director of the Confucius Institute at Pace University in New York, stated "They send them to us...You know, volunteers from China, the Chinese government has a right to ban them, I think."

This statement is contrasted against the claim by the CI director for the Chicago Public Schools, who was quoted in the Asia Times as saying "Confucius Institutes have total autonomy in their course materials and teachers" and that Hanban are "among the most modern, forward-thinking group of people in China."

Censorship concerns

A major concern of Confucius Institutes is their response of politically sensitive and controversial material such as human rights and Taiwan. Meiru Liu, director of the Confucius Institute at Portland State University, states that the local institute had sponsored lectures on Tibet, China's economic development, currency, and US-China relations. Mary E. Gallagher, director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan, said that the institutes has been free in covering 'that are controversial and sensitive in China'". In particular, the Confucius Institute in Edinburgh promoted a talk by a dissident Chinese author whose works are banned in China.

In Australia, a New South Wales senior Department of Education officials acknowledge that the institutes play an important role in fostering greater literacy in Asian languages, they admit to concerns about China's influence over the program's content. They view that dealing with "sensitive topics" such as human rights record is usually well handled by teachers. Greens MP John Kaye claimed that although teaching Chinese language and culture is important, "Students are being denied a balanced curriculum that explores controversial issues, such as human rights violations and Taiwan, because critical examination might upset the Chinese government." Fellow Greens MP Jamie Parker organized a petition with more than 10,000 signatures, calling for the removal of the Confucius Classroom Program from local schools.

NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli defended the classes, and noted that the Chinese language syllabuses did not include the study of political content. Shuangyuan Shi, director of Confucius Institute in Sydney, noted the institutes primarily focuses on language, and teachers are not there to draw up conclusions for students in regards to controversial subjects. Phil Lambert, CI board director noted that teachers generally handle such controversial subjects well, by noting the Chinese government's positions, as well as alternative views. Furthermore, the staff at the Sydney institutes noted that Beijing never threatened their academic freedom.

In 2009, the North Carolina State University cancelled a planned appearance by the Dalai Lama to speak on its Raleigh campus, citing concerns about a Chinese backlash and a shortage of time and resources. Provost Warwick Arden noted that China's economic significance for North Carolina, raising concerns Confucius Institute would present "an opportunity for subtle pressure and conflict." Arden also mentioned that CI director Bailian Li warned him that the speech could disrupt "some of the strong relationships we were developing with China." Li however noted that his conversation with Arden occurred after the university rescinded the invitation, and he made the comments in his role as vice provost for international affairs, not as institute director.

Glenn Anthony May, a University of Oregon history professor, 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." Meiru Liu, director of the Confucius Institute at Portland State University, responded to Professor May's criticisms that CIs hinder open discussions of issues such as the Chinese treatment of Liu Xiaobo, and said they had sponsored lectures on Tibet "with an emphasis on its beautiful scenery, customs and tourist interest," on China's economic development, currency, and US-China relations. Liu explained, "We try not to organize and host lectures on certain issues related to Falun Gong, dissidents and 1989 Tiananmen Square protests." For one thing, she said, these are not topics the Confucius Institute headquarters would like to see organized by the institutes. "For another, they are not major interest and concerns now by general public at large here in the US." ellow UO professor and CI director Bryna Goodman criticized May's views, noting that the local Confucius Institute hosted forums on sensitive topics such as China's internet censorship and economic regulations, and that "We haven't gotten any topic that has been proposed to us that we have considered out of bounds."