“Concerns have also mounted regarding the institutes’ alleged involvement
in intellectual property theft, surveillance of Chinese and Hong Kong students, espionage, and the suppression of academic freedoms”.
Dominika Urhová
We read at:
The Demise of Confucius Institutes: Retreating or Rebranding? – chinaobservers
The Demise of Confucius Institutes: Retreating or Rebranding?
Dominika Urhová September 5, 2024
Education and student exchanges have long been central to the West’s engagement with China, with hundreds of thousands of Chinese students studying in Western institutions each year. In parallel, China has actively sought to engage overseas institutions and students through initiatives like Confucius Institutes (CIs). However, as tensions between the United States and China have intensified in recent years, suspicion toward academic collaboration with Beijing, particularly concerning the CIs, has grown. In response, China has initiated a rebranding exercise to mitigate rising concerns while shifting its focus to more receptive regions, including, to a certain extent, Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Western Balkans.
Confucius Institutes function as nonprofit public institutions and are a flagship of China’s cultural soft power. The institutes are usually found at universities or colleges, nonprofit organizations, and occasionally at K-12 schools (i.e. the educational system that includes kindergarten, elementary, middle and high schools). The CIs are a collaborative initiative between a host institution, a Chinese organization (mainly universities), and, until recently, the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban).
Since their inception, CIs have been operated and funded by Hanban, a branch of China’s Ministry of Education. The number of CIs worldwide has increased rapidly since 2004, with China aiming to set up 1,000 institutes by 2020.
Though this goal has not materialized, by 2023, China had established and maintained 496 Confucius Institutes and 757 Confucius Classrooms (CCs) in over 160 countries.
However, following a series of scandals in the 2010s, Beijing has faced a global backlash over the alleged use of CIs as tools of Chinese propaganda. In recent years, growing national security concerns and fears of China’s influence campaigns penetrating host societie shave pushed the issue of Confucius Institutes higher up the political agenda.
Growing Suspicions
As tensions between the United States and China have intensified, CIs have faced growing criticism for their role in shaping the narrative through which China is depicted and perceived abroad. Accusations have surfaced that CIs censor discussions on issues sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Cultural Revolution, and human rights abuses in China, Tibet, and Taiwan.
Concerns have also mounted regarding the institutes’ alleged involvement in intellectual property theft, surveillance of Chinese and Hong Kong students, espionage, and the suppression of academic freedoms. A statement by Li Changchun, a former head of CCP propaganda, who in 2009 described CIs as “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda setup,” has fueled these fears and lent credibility to accusations that CIs are a tool of China’s propaganda apparatus.
The Crackdown Begins
The United States has led the charge against Confucius Institutes, with the Trump administration adopting a particularly hardline stance. During his tenure, President Trump signed a defense bill prohibiting the Department of Defense from funding Chinese language instruction by CIs or any institution hosting a CI.
In 2020, the State Department designated the Washington-based Confucius Institute US Center as a “foreign mission” of China, requiring the center to report its activities and operations to the US government. The Trump administration also pushed for colleges and universities to publicly disclose their financial ties and contracts with CIs, partly in response to a 2019 Senate subcommittee report revealing that nearly 70% of institutions receiving over $250,000 from Hanban had failed to report it to the federal government. Although the Biden administration later withdrew this proposal, Trump’s crackdown resulted in 104 of the 118 CIs in the US being shut down or in the process of closing by 2023.
Rebranding for Influence
Despite international efforts to close down Confucius Institutes, Beijing has found new ways to maintain its influence over educational institutions.According to a report by the National Association of Scholars (NAS), many of the 104 CIs that reportedly closed in the US have not entirely disappeared. Instead, most have either rebranded their CIs or entered into new agreements with their former Chinese partners, often replicating the original CI model with similar, if not identical, issues.
In mid-2020, in response to the growing international backlash and as part of China’s efforts to conceal CIs’ close connection to the government, Hanban rebranded itself as the new Ministry of Education Center for Language Exchange and Cooperation (CLEC). It also established a nongovernmental organization, the Chinese International Education Foundation (CIEF), that now funds and oversees CIs including their replacements. CLEC is supervised by China’s Ministry of Education and receives funding from the Chinese government, thus remaining closely linked to the CCP.
The rebranding extended to the CIs themselves. NAS research indicates that many universities replaced their CIs with similar partnerships involving the same Chinese universities, opening new centers operated and staffed by the same personnel and funded by Hanban, now known as CLEC or CIEF. Some universities maintained existing CIs but relocated them to different host organizations, while others continued their partnerships with Chinese counterparts outside of the CI framework.
On a geopolitical level, education has traditionally served as a confidence-building measure between China and the United States, helping to manage tensions as their relationship ebbs and flows. A crackdown on educational cooperation, however, signals growing suspicion and escalating tensions. Notably, at the summit between US President Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in San Francisco in November 2023, education cooperation featured prominently on the list of deliverables.
Yet, while much of the experts’ and politicians’ attention has centered on the closure of Confucius Institutes in the West and China’s superficial rebranding efforts, Beijing has increasingly redirected its focus to more receptive regions. This strategic shift includes expanding influence in countries across Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. ….
