China’s Confucius Institutes (CIs) have been in the news for the last few weeks. There has been increasing global backlash against these Chinese government-linked Institutes set up with the stated aim of promoting the study of Chinese language, culture and calligraphy.
In the newly altered global scenario we are witnessing a surge of anti-China sentiment after the outbreak of Covid-19. In this situation, these Institutes have become a focal point for countries, including India, wanting to reassess their engagement with Chinese soft power.
It may be interesting to look at what makes these Institutes so contentious and why China may have failed to sell them as mere centres of learning and sites for cultural exchange.
The genesis
The Chinese government started its first CI in 2004. By 2014 there were around 548 CIs in 154 countries in addition to around 1193 Confucius classrooms, out of which India hosts 3 CIs. One of the aims in opening these Institutes was to develop the image of China as a benign and peaceful rising power and counter increasing assessments that instead portrayed Beijing as a hegemonic rising power.
CIs are established between a local university/institute and a Chinese university/institute. The funding is shared between the Hanban, a body that comes directly under the Chinese Ministry of Education, and the host university/institute.
Post the recent pushback against the Institutes, the Chinese government has attempted to alter the image of these Institutes by changing the name of the governing body managing them from Hanban to Centre for Language Education and Cooperation. However, this move seems to have failed to help as it is viewed as only a cosmetic change.
Problems with functioning
There have always been issues regarding the working of the CIs. A number of universities like Pennsylvania State University and the University of Chicago in the US had expressed concerns about the working of CIs and their close relationship with the Chinese government. As a result, they had cut ties with the CIs in 2014.
There were some reports which showed that the institutions which hosted CIs were pressured to avoid discussions on issues such as Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen etc., which are generally viewed as sensitive issues by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Such incidents had raised suspicions that the CCP through CIs was trying the influence free and liberal spaces in other countries and universities, and shape the narrative on the lines of the CCP agenda and worldview. Further, because of continuous involvement of the CCP in the working of the CIs, it was argued that CIs were being used by the Chinese government for global propaganda.
US, India, Germany all have been reconsidering the existing CIs and may decide to close them. In the case of India the border clashes have soured the relationship. After India decided to ban a number of Chinese apps, the next obvious choice was CIs. The United States has, for its part, decided to look at the CIs as ‘foreign missions’. In a statement Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State described the Confucius Institute Centre U.S. Centre in Washington as “an entity advancing Beijing's global propaganda and malign influence campaign" in the country’s classrooms.
Blow to China’s soft power ambitions
The move to bring CIs under greater scrutiny is undoubtedly a setback to the Chinese government’s hope and dream of building a strong soft power reach like the United States, France (Alliance Française) and Germany (Goethe-Institut). However, there are some structural issues that will make it hard for China to reposition these Institutes as merely avenues of cultural interface going forward.
A major hurdles for the CCP will be its inability to disassociate from CIs and let them be just educational institutes. The fear and inability of the CCP to let the CIs be independent has led to its criticism and may result in countering the ultimate Chinese goal.
On the whole, the Chinese dream of having a strong soft power appeal has not succeeded so far. The economic growth of China did provide some appeal to the Chinese model, but Beijing has still not managed to ‘sell’ the Chinese way of life. CIs would have become a strong foothold for Beijing and may have helped in expanding the reach of Chinese language and culture if only Beijing could keep out of overt involvement.
Another major challenge in realising the CCP’s dream is its own structure. China does not have a free media and the Chinese government heavily relies on its propaganda department to sell its story domestically as well as globally. This is done both directly and indirectly as far as the foreign press goes. In recent years, companies linked to the Chinese state or those representing its views have been buying stake in media houses outside mainland China. The sole purpose of this is to make sure that the Chinese story or the CCP’s story is told effectively. But the biggest hurdle in this exercise is perhaps posed by the nature of the communications at hand. Beijing needs to understand that soft power cannot be pushed top-down. It needs to develop and be nurtured on its own.
Understanding soft power
The CIs will continue to face criticism and the cosmetic changes undertaken by Beijing will not manage to assuage global concerns. Soft power is definitely an essential aspect for any nation aiming for global position and prestige. However, what Beijing needs to understand is that soft power is successful only if it works and exists independent of hard power and government involvement. If it is perceived that the government is directly involved it weakens the appeal and raises questions and will continue to face pushback.
(Dr Gunjan Singh teaches at the O P Jindal Global University. She specialises in China Studies)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels| Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks