A Chinese Internet company has taken over management of the Brest Business School in the civilian and military port city of Brest, France, on the western end of the English Channel.
French authorities are closely considering China’s possible intentions, especially given that the Brest naval port serves as a base for nuclear submarines.
In 2016, China’s Weidong Cloud Education Group invested 7 million euros (US$7.85 million at the current exchange rate) in the school and gained a controlling interest. CEO Shen Dai (沈岱) is a native of Beijing who lived in France for 31 years and is a French citizen.
The school has since joined the Alliance of Silk Road Business Schools, which cultivates talent for China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The Weidong Group has branches in a dozen other countries such as Pakistan and it has also acquired the Demos Group — a major French company in the field of professional education and training — which helps students prepare for military-related recruitment exams.
Brest is on the coast of the northwestern region of Brittany. In April last year, French journalist Antoine Izambard published a book titled France-Chine: Les Liasons Dangereuses, in which he observes that female Chinese students in Brest try to get close to people connected with the military, and many of them have gotten married.
These developments are of big concern for France’s intelligence agencies.
There are about 400 military-related companies in Brest, so China’s participation in the school is clearly meant to act as a base for infiltration.
The city’s 140,000 residents include about 23,000 students, so attracting overseas students can make a major contribution to invigorating the local economy.
Western Brittany Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry director-general Meriadec Le Mouillour has said that taking advantage of the Weidong Group’s online education network is a good way of internationalizing, and that the military is responsible for safeguarding its own secrets and preventing espionage.
There is nothing wrong with attracting investors and making money. It is a good thing in itself, but if military secrets are exposed, it can threaten a nation’s survival.
The stated purpose of the Anti-infiltration Act (反滲透法) is precisely to prevent Brest’s painful experience of infiltration from being repeated in Taiwan.
Paul Liu is a retired engineer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS