After the US Department of State in August labeled the Confucius Institutes, which China has been actively promoting around the world, as “foreign missions,” US Secretary of State Mike early last month said that he hoped all these institutes on US campuses would be closed by the end of the year.
This policy is gradually influencing the US and other Western countries.
In the US, four schools — the University of Denver, the University of Oklahoma, the University of North Carolina and Emory University — have announced that they would follow the government’s policy and close the Confucius Institutes on their campuses.
Many universities in Germany, including the University of Hamburg, have already stated that they would close their on-campus Confucius Institutes, and the German opposition Free Democratic Party is drafting a bill that would require all universities to terminate their collaborations with the institutes.
The Australian government has begun investigations into the sources and uses of funds for the institutes.
There has always been opposition to the establishment of Confucius Institutes on university campuses in the West.
Many objected to the institutes because: their textbooks and teachers need to be reviewed and approved by the Chinese Ministry of Education, which is a breach of academic freedom; they often try to intervene in other academic activities on campus; they monitor overseas Chinese students on behalf of Beijing; steal academic research; try to bribe university administrators to avoid scrutiny; and conduct propaganda for the Chinese government.
Given the scale of controversy surrounding the Confucius Institutes, why has the US government only now started regulating them? The main reason is that, with China’s rise, demand for Chinese learning has soared in Western countries.
Unable to compete with the institutes, which are heavily funded by the Chinese government, many university or privately funded Chinese teaching institutes closed down.
In 2011, Taiwan set up the Taiwan Academy system to offer Chinese courses at its representative offices in New York, Los Angeles and Houston. However, it was difficult to compete with the Confucius Institutes, which dominated the market.
If US President Donald Trump is re-elected next month, the White House is expected to continue its policy of curbing the Confucius Institute’s monopoly of the market.
If Beijing does not stop its political interference through the institutes, which are supposed to be academic institutions aimed at promoting culture, a complete shutdown of these institutes is possible.
When that time comes, there would be urgent demand for other players to fill the need for Chinese-language and culture programs.
If Taiwan could anticipate this and make adequate preparations, it could corner the market.
By promoting policies that cater to the demand for the teaching of Chinese, the government could create job opportunities for young, unemployed teachers by training them to be teachers of Chinese as a foreign language.
Through this expansion of soft power, Taiwan could also increase its visibility in the international community and substantially enhance its relationship with other countries. This is truly a chance not to be missed.
Yang Chung-hsin is a researcher of China affairs.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and