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.^[1] 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.^[2] Some observers have 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.^[3]

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.^[4] 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.^[5][6]

As of July 2010, there were 316 Confucius Institutes and 337 Confucius Classrooms in 94 countries and regions.^[7]

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.^[8]

Lionel M. Jensen, associate professor of East Asian languages and cultures at the University of Notre Dame, while noting that "so far there have not been any events in which the academic freedom of the host university was explicitly threatened by authorities of Hanban", expressed concerns regarding the CI's educational objectives and quality of teaching. Jensen said the Hanban has reduced the diversity of China's cultures to a "uniform, quaint commodity", characterized by Chinese opera and dance performances, which he calls "culturetainment", meaning "the abridgment of Chinese civilization in the name of digestible forms of cultural appeal that can be readily shipped overseas."^[9]

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,^[10] former head of the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China.

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”.^[11]

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.”^[12]

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."^[13] 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."^[14] Although the number of Indian students taking Chinese language courses is on the increase, the Ministry of External Affairs rejected the idea of establishing Confucius Institutes in schools, as they were "using culture to spread propaganda and influence."^[15][16] 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."^[17]

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".^[18] German sinologists disagree about the degree of Chinese party-state control over CIs. Jörg-Meinhard Rudolph from the East Asia Institute (Ludwigshafen) noted that no German political party had financed any educational institutions in German universities, "yet they are accepting money from the undemocratic Chinese Communist Party." Michael Lackner, deputy head of the Confucius Institute at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, described the influence of German universities and said, "I am not sure whether Confucius Institute Headquarters really know what Chinese culture is. Thus, German academics could help define Chinese culture as a world culture."^[19]

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.^[20]

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 of the Party-State in the current era", and promotes foreign propaganda towards the Overseas Chinese community through Confucius Institutes and activities such as "root-seeking" cultural tours.^[21][22] Three years later, Professor Brady analogized, "If we had a U.S. government agency that was stating that it was a tool for U.S. government propaganda, my colleagues would be up in arms about having a center like that on campus."^[23]

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."^[24]

Comparisons with similar organizations

Confucius Institutes are frequently compared to similar cultural associations such as the UK's British Council,^[25] Germany's Goethe-Institut,^[26] France's Alliance Française, Italy's Società Dante Alighieri, and Spain's Instituto Cervantes.^[27].^[28] CIs differ from these organizations in two aspects, they are more closely managed by the Chinese government, and are attached to host institutions rather than off campus. Martin Davidson, chief executive of the British Council, criticized comparisons between his institution and CIs. "We are a stand-alone organization operating out of our own premises. They are being embedded in university campuses. The real question has to be one of independence." Davidson said that while the Chinese are very clear about wanting to combat negative propaganda with positive propaganda, "The danger is more of self-censorship — which is a very subtle thing."^[29]

A China Daily editorial accused CI opponents of double standards for not calling "Goethe-Institut, Alliance Française or Cervantes Institutes 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."^[30] Some critics note that unlike the aforementioned organizations, the CI model is attachment 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."^[31]

Jocelyn Chey, a former diplomat and expert in Australia-China relations, says that Confucius Institutes are more closely managed by its government compared with its French counterpart.^[28] She believes that the institute's program is most valuable where it supports culture and outreach into the community.^[32] 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",^[33][34] 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."^[32] 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'".^[26]

Financing

Confucius Institutes mostly run a small number of classes, with an average budget of US$400,000 per institute in 2009.^[35] 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.^[36]

Some critics have suggested that Beijing’s contributions to host universities gives Chinese authorities too much leverage over those institutions. The sizeable 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.^[37] The Economist points out that some Chinese language courses at Confucius Institutes are even paid for by the Pentagon under the National Security Language Initiative.^[11]

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."^[38] 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."^[38]

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.^[39]

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, who compared the CIs to Benito Mussolini’s Italian Institutes, asked why Chinese authorities are subsidizing Western educational institutions when "China has ten million children without proper schools."^[40][41]

David Prager Branner, a Chinese professor at Columbia University, said it is a fallacy to believe that taking money from the Chinese government will have no long-term consequences. "In order to try to anticipate those consequences we need to ask: why would China be willing to spend so much money to set these organizations up? Specifically, why does China consider this to be in its national interest and why would it be in America’s national interest?"^[42]

Espionage

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.^[12] David Matas said that "informally [the institutes] 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."^[37]

Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute at the University of Texas at Dallas, 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.^[12]

The People's Daily reports that Osaka Sangyo University, which opened a Confucius Institute and closed it after one year of operation, formally apologized for an employee who called the CI "a spy agency established to gather cultural intelligence."^[43]

Political

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.”^[44] An article in China Heritage Quarterly describes teaching only simplified characters in the context of Confucius Institutes as "semi-literacy in Chinese".^[31] In 2011 in response to the PRC's moves, the Republic of China announced plans to establish the 'Taiwan Academy' in America, Europe, and Asia as part of its "cultural diplomacy". Taiwan's programme is designed to promote "Taiwanese-favored" Mandarin Chinese, traditional Chinese characters, and Taiwanese topics.^[45]

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.^[46] However, BC lawyer and China expert Clive Ansley said that there were "troubling signs of [China's] growing influence on western campuses" before Confucius Institutes were established. He saw signs that public discussions about certain human-rights issues were being self-censored, out of fear of losing out on intake of Chinese students.^[37]

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.^[47]

Censorship and academic freedom

A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question of academic freedom, "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?"^[48] Chinese history professor Jonathan Lipman from Mount Holyoke College expressed the dilemma of accepting CI funding thus: "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."^[47] </ref> Professor Terry Russell at the University of Manitoba questioned the Hanban's real motivation, fearing that the university would not be able to organize certain activities judged "sensitive" to the Chinese, such as bringing the Dalai Lama onto campus. He 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."^[49][50] According to Cameron Morrill, president of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association, "It is inappropriate to allow any government, either foreign or domestic, control over a university classroom, regardless of how much money they offer."^[51]

In 2010, the University of Oregon "came under – and resisted – pressure from the Chinese consul general in San Francisco" to cancel a lecture by Peng Ming-Min (see above).^[52] Glenn Anthony May, a UO history professor wrote an article expressing concerns 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."^[53] Meiru Liu, director of the Confucius Institute at Portland State University, rejects May's criticisms that CIs hinder open discussions of issues such as the treatment of Liu Xiaobo. Liu explained that while Falun Gong, dissidents and 1989 Tiananmen Square protests are not topics the Confucius Institute headquarters would like to see organized by the institutes, they are "not major interest and concerns now by general public at large here in the US."^[54] Fellow UO professor and CI director Bryna Goodman countered May, noting that the local Confucius Institute hosted forums on sensitive topics such as China's internet censorship and economic regulations, and "We haven't gotten any topic that has been proposed to us that we have considered out of bounds."^[55]

The establishment of some Confucius Institutes has been opposed or blocked by faculty members at universities. Faculty at the University of Pennsylvania decided not to negotiate with CI due to fears of meddling in course curriculum.^[56][57] Members of the Chinese studies department at the University of Melbourne forced the institute off the main campus.^[28] 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.^[1] Jonathan Zimmerman, teacher at New York University also cited Mussolini's attempts to promote Italian in American schools. He suspected that such institutes are used to "play up China's economic achievements and play down its crimes", and said that Chinese language programs should be established according to American terms.^[48]

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'".^[58] In particular, the Confucius Institute in Edinburgh promoted a talk by a dissident Chinese author whose works are banned in China.^[59]

USA

Columbia University received $1 million in Hanban funds 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."^[60] Lening Liu, director of the Confucius Institute at Columbia stressed that Columbia’s CI was "committed to academic integrity and that it would reject any attempt by Hanban to censor its research."^[60] Other academics have questioned 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.^[60]

Over 170 University of Chicago faculty members petitioned president Robert Zimmer against the establishment, without Faculty Senate approval, of a CI as well as a Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics.^[61] The petition called Confucius Institutes "an academically and politically ambiguous initiative" sponsored by the PRC, and said the university risked having its own reputation used to "legitimate the spread" of CIs in the USA and around the world.^[52]

According to a Chronicle of Higher Education article, since the first Confucius Institute in the USA 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".^[62] 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."^[62]

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. Stanford plans to use the money for a professorship in classical Chinese poetry.^[47] 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.

In 2009, 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 said that "China is a major trading partner for North Carolina," and a CI presents an "opportunity for subtle pressure and conflict."^[63] However, in 2010, the Dalai Lama spoke at Stanford University and Miami University, Ohio – both institutions have Confucius Institutes.^[47]

After the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education approved opening a Confucius Institute at Dickinson State University, the faculty senate refused, explaining their decision as "truly a matter of where we want to put our energy right now."^[64][65]

On March 28, 2012, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on "The Price of Public Diplomacy with China," focusing upon Chinese propaganda efforts in the U.S., including Confucius Institutes on university campuses.^[66] Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, "Two of the pillars of America’s status as an open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda." Steven W. Mosher testified that Stanford University denied his PhD degree about China's controversial one-child policy after the Chinese Communist Party "threatened to retaliate against other Stanford scholars and programs." Rohrabacher responded, "It appears as though Beijing is able to expand its campaign against academic freedom from China to America when U.S. universities value Chinese favors and money more than truth and integrity."^[67]

Israel

In 2008, Tel Aviv University officials shut down a student art exhibition depicting the "oppression of Falun Gong" in China. A Tel Aviv District Court judge subsequently ruled the university "violated freedom of expression and succumbed to pressure from the Chinese Embassy."^[68] The judge noted the dean of students "feared that the art exhibit would jeopardize Chinese support for its Confucius Institute and other educational activities."^[62]

Australia

New South Wales Greens MP John Kaye said 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.^[69] NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli defended the classes, and noted that the Chinese language syllabuses did not include the study of political content.^[70] 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.^[71] 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. Furthermore, the staff at the Sydney institutes noted that Beijing never threatened their academic freedom.^[72]

Confucius Classroom

The Confucius Classroom program partners with local secondary schools or school districts to provide teachers and instructional materials. In one incidence, the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District Board of Education encountered strong community opposition to establishing a Confucius Classroom at Cedarlane middle school in Hacienda Heights, which is a largely Hispanic community with a majority-Chinese school board."^[73] University of Southern California public diplomacy professor Nicholas J. Cull said, "I’m sure this will become a standard dispute. People in America are very suspicious of ideas from the outside."^[74]

Hiring policies

In 2011, a controversy erupted over the instructor hiring policies posted publicly on Hanban’s website that stated that candidates for teaching positions should be "aged between 22 to 60, physical and mental [sic] healthy, no record of participation in Falun Gong and other illegal organizations, and no criminal record".^[75] North America representative for Hanban acknowledges that Falun Gong practitioners are excluded because Confucius Institutes must follow Chinese as well as US law.^[47] However, the CI director for the Chicago Public Schools was quoted in 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."^[76]

References