MCLC: reexamining Confucius Institutes

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: kirk (denton.2 at osu.edu)
Subject: reexamining Confucius Institutes
***********************************************************

Source: The Diplomat (8/2/12):
http://thediplomat.com/china-power/reexamining-the-confucian-institutes/

Reexamining the Confucian Institutes
By Peter Mattis

The Beijing-backed Confucius Institutes, which promote Chinese culture
internationally, have been no stranger to controversy since their launch
in 2004. Critics have charged
<http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/120601/
confucius-institute> they areplatforms for Chinese espionage and
propaganda <http://www.economist.com/node/14678507>‹a salacious if still
unsubstantiated charge. Their importance to Beijing, however, is shown by
Beijing recently saying that it could harm the friendship between the
American and Chinese people if the U.S. State Department did not
reconsider its decision
<http://chronicle.com/article/State-Department-Directive/131934/> about
visas for Confucian Institute staff in May. This suggests the cultural
centers¹ importance to Beijing, but spies and lies probably are
misrepresentations 
<http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5
D=39592&cHash=ccbda5a33d17f73e50a7a3d92be5233b> just as the Confucius
Institutes¹ defenders argue. Another possibility out of China¹s
revolutionary past may be a better explanation of what the Confucius
Institutes are truly doing. This explanation blurs the lines between
Western understandings of intelligence, soft power, and propaganda:
³united front work.²

Often linked with propaganda or the historical communist and nationalist
alliances against warlords and the Japanese, ³united front work² also
refers to Beijing¹s efforts to mobilize friends and isolate enemies. The
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from its inception was only an elite group
of dedicated cadres faced with the problem of how to mobilize the great
majority outside their circle. As Mao Zedong characterized the problem in
1926: ³if the Chinese revolutionŠhas shown such meager results, it is not
the goal but the tactics [that] have been wrong. The tactical error
committed is precisely the inability to rally one¹s true friends in order
to strike at one¹s true enemies.² Ideally, those true friends identify and
isolate enemies while hiding the CCP¹s hand and giving the appearance of
independent action.

Calling what the Confucius Institutes do ³united front work² seems
conspiratorial. Funded by an affiliate of the Chinese Ministry of
Education, the Confucian Institutes¹ stated mission is
<http://english.chinese.cn/article/2011-09/27/content_342613.htm> ³to
satisfy the need of people who are interested in Chinese learning all
around the world, promoting the understanding of Chinese language culture,
enhancing the educational and cultural cooperation between China and the
world, developing the friendship between China and other countries, to
help developing a multicultural environment and building up a harmonious
world² (sic).

Most Confucius Institutes are attached to universities, and they are
operated with a combination of local and Chinese support. They do not
compete with university programs, but augment existing language courses
and cultural exchange efforts. Confucius Institutes also support primary
and secondary school Chinese-language classes. Regardless of Beijing¹s
motives, China has pumped millions of dollars into funding these
institutes‹creating more than 300 institutes toward the worldwide goal of
1,000 by 2020.

The risk to this investment if the Confucian Institutes were exposed for
hosting spies is probably the single biggest reason to believe they are
not being used for espionage. They offer no benefit to China¹s
intelligence apparatus that Beijing does not already have. Its
intelligence services already use diplomats, journalists
<http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ex-spy-warns-canada-abo
ut-how-beijing-targets-politicians/article2255430/?service=mobile>,civic
organizations 
<http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=38525&t
x_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=517>, businesspeople
<http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/02/11/2003495608/1>,
and possibly even academics
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/01/chinese-spy-buy-caught-on-
video/> in their operations. So there is little reason to suspect that
Chinese leaders would disapprove automatically of using the Confucius
Institutes. Persistent allegations of Chinese embassy interference in
Chinese student associations already suggest Beijing keeps tabs on its
students. And some are rumored
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08850607.2012.623037> to be
debriefed by Chinese intelligence upon returning to China
<http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Dictionary-Intelligence-Dictionaries-Coun
terIntelligence/dp/0810871742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343612616&sr=8-1&keyw
ords=china+historical+intelligence+dictionary>. As for economic espionage,
using an official Chinese organization surrounded by controversy to gain
access to proprietary research held on college campuses would only prove
the worst accusations leveled at Beijing. And China¹s burgeoning cyber
capabilities 
<http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/12/29/chinas-cyber-command/>
offer a more easily deniable pathway to that same data.

With so many other ways of gathering information, Beijing has plenty of
reasons not to allow its intelligence services to jeopardize its
investment by discrediting the Confucius Institutes. No security service
has uncovered any such shenanigans since the creation of the Confucius
Institutes in 2004. Nor have the post-Mao Chinese intelligence services
<http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5
d=37368&cHash=0239321b02> demonstrated the power and prestige once shown
by the Soviet KGB that would allow them to force their way into this
program.

The Confucian Institutes also are too open
<http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5
D=39592&cHash=ccbda5a33d17f73e50a7a3d92be5233b> for scrutiny to be a font
for overt propaganda, even of the soft kind published in the China Daily.
Chinese cultural programs, sponsored lectures by Chinese and non-Chinese
experts, and more accessible Chinese-language courses are hardly fodder
for direct influence.

This almost makes ³united front work² seem absurd, but there is enough
substance to this idea that it should be tested. Most tellingly, the head
of the Confucius Institutes¹ parent organization, State Councilor Liu
Yandong <http://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Liu_Yandong/career>, served
as the head of the CCP¹s United Front Work Department (2002-2007). There
are other reasons to question the institutions, however.

For example, defenders of the Confucian Institutes compare them to the
Goethe Institute, the British Council, and the Alliance Franchise. Without
touching the thorny issue of moral equivalence, Confucian Institutes are
operating in a different context than their Western counterparts. The
Western institutes are political organizations operating in a political
context outside university walls, allowed in only when universities find
their activities appropriate. The Confucian Institutes, however, are
political organizations wrapping their activities within the legitimacy of
universities as public, apolitical institutions.

If the Confucius Institutes really are part a new ³united front² campaign,
then who are China¹s enemies today? They largely consist of two groups,
repeatedly identified in the official press: the so-called ³Five Poisons²
and ³Western hostile forces.² The former includes Taiwan, separatist
Tibetans and Uighurs, the spiritual group Falun Gong, and democracy
advocates. ³Western hostile forces² often is a euphemism for the United
States, but conveniently describes the hidden enemies who ³foment social
unrest² and try ³to Westernize and divide China.
<http://www.qstheory.cn/hqwg/2012/201210/201205/t20120524_159711.htm>² It
also could be extended to those who view Beijing¹s intentions with
skepticism‹or, in Beijing¹s terms, with a ³Cold War mentality²‹such as
those China experts who have raised the above concerns and who
administrators have frozen out of their universities¹ China-related
programs.

The full implication of the Confucian Institutes program is not yet clear;
it is difficult to say whether it truly represents a new ³united front²
campaign. Concerned inquiry does not mean they should be abandoned
altogether, because many of the programs are useful when managed properly.
However, given the nature of the institutes¹ relationship with the Chinese
government‹and especially when a senior Chinese leader has called them an
important part of China¹s international propaganda effort
<http://www.economist.com/node/14678507>‹the Confucian Institutes deserve
careful scrutiny and probably do not belong ultimately on university
campuses. ³United front² work succeeds because it is hidden, making it
difficult to determine who is speaking for what cause and with what
motivation.

Monitoring the content of Chinese language education is also necessary.
The concern is not whether students learn about Tibetan history or the
truth of Mao¹s revolution in their language lessons. Concerned citizens
instead should wonder how the CCP and the Chinese government are
portrayed‹just as Hong Kong parents have questioned
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/big-hong-kong-protest-ass
ails-communist-party-brain-washing/2012/07/29/gJQAuM8IIX_story.html?wprss=r
ss_world> the value of national education. Totalitarianism is about
controlling the rhythm
<http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/glossary.php?searchterm=029_xinhua.i
nc&issue=029>and language of discussion, of subsuming familiar concepts in
the service of the state.

The use of Confucius to promote Chinese culture is a perfect example of
this totalitarian assimilation. Contrary to the presumed emphasis on
obedience‹the preferred reading of Chinese rulers since the Han
dynasty‹Confucian thought emphasizes virtue above all else, granting
subjects the right to rebel when authority figures cease to be virtuous.
This makes Confucius an ironic choice as an international symbol for a
state that, since 1990, has had 18,000 officials flee with an estimated
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2079756,00.html> 120
billion dollars in government funds.
It is one thing to accept different points of view; however, it is another
thing entirely to allow Beijing to determine how China is discussed
internationally and how students learn about it. China¹s leaders after all
belong to a party based on a foreign ideology that once tried to wipe out
traditional Chinese culture. The country¹s rich cultural heritage stands
on its own merits and many foreigners can learn a great deal from it.
Depoliticizing foreigners¹ exposure to China¹s culture and history can be
only a good thing.

Peter Mattis is Editor of  China Brief
<http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/> at the Jamestown
Foundation.