2019年3月25日，寮國萬象市班農坪小學，一名中國志願者教師與當地學生互動。班農坪小學於2013年在中國的幫助下成立。（新華社/王精強/MAXPP）
中共正在發動一場全球宣傳戰，試圖平息海外批評人士的聲音，而與此同時，中國已經對國內異議人士發起了自30年前天安門大屠殺以來最具鎮壓力的鎮壓。
它計程車兵包括中國國家媒體記者、外交官和留學生，這些人都是被徵募來參加中國共產黨的投標的。最近的一個例子是倫敦經濟學院在中國學生的壓力下決定調整雕塑上對台灣的描繪。
它的武器包括政治滲透和影響力、全球媒體機構、對國外積極分子的威脅和侵略、企圖劫持和破壞聯合國人權議程的企圖，以及——正如一些人慢慢意識到的那樣——部署數百個植入大學的聽起來無害的語言和文化機構。還有學校。
中國的孔子學院表面上看起來只是英國文化委員會、美國中心、法國聯盟或德國的歌德學院的一部分，現在在154個國家至少有548所大學和1193所學校。中國的預算為3.14億美元，教師4.62萬人，學生170萬人，計劃到2020年擁有1000所孔子學院，這就是所謂的「孔子革命」。
韓國於2004年開設了世界上第一所孔子學院，目前擁有23所孔子學院，其中亞洲最多。泰國是該地區的第二大孔子學院，有16所孔子學院，而日本有15所孔子學院。印度尼西亞有七個，印度、巴基斯坦、菲律賓和馬來西亞有四個，但孔子學院也存在於新加坡、阿富汗、斯里蘭卡、尼泊爾、蒙古、香港、柬埔寨、Laos和越南。
英國在愛丁堡、利物浦、曼徹斯特、紐卡斯爾、諾丁漢、加的夫和倫敦大學學院等主要大學至少有29所孔子課堂，是世界上僅次於美國的第二大孔子課堂。
孔子學院的宗旨是教授漢語和文化，這當然是受歡迎的。隨著中國成為世界超級大國，我們需要了解它的歷史和文化，我們需要更多的人來講這門語言。但是刮擦表面，你會發現這並不是他們所做的一切。它們也對教育機構和民主國家的學術自由和言論自由構成潛在威脅。
大約12年前，當時的中國共產黨宣傳部長李長春（音譯）將孔子學院描述為「中國海外宣傳機構的重要組成部分」。2010年，中國教育部漢辦（Hanban）一個部門的總幹事徐林（音譯）證實，中國共產黨希望擴大其影響力，孔子學院是中國的一個重要組成部分。中國軟實力的重要組成部分。
孔子學院由漢辦直接控制、資助和管理，漢辦目前由中共中央政治局委員孫春蘭主持，孫春蘭曾領導過中共主要宣傳機構統一戰線工作部。
中國宣傳部長劉雲山2010年表示，「海外宣傳要全面、多層次、寬領域······要搞好海外文化中心和孔子學院的建設和營運。」即使是國家主席胡錦濤，也贊同這些學院是「培養和準備」的一種方式。一群人（或軍隊），以確保中國共產黨在未來能夠掌權······並增加中國共產黨在世界各地的影響力。」
今年早些時候，英國保守黨人權委員會根據對孔子學院的調查發表了一份報告。它借鑑了專家和以孔子名義拍攝的紀錄片中的證據，得出的結論是，孔子學院威脅學術自由和言論自由，正如中國共產黨自己所說，它代表了中國政權在其邊界之外傳播宣傳和鎮壓批評者的努力。
這一結論與美國國會、美國中央情報局（CIA）以及加拿大和比利時的情報機構得出的結論一致。2018年，中情局警告說，不要以學術審查換取中國對大學的資助，聯邦調查局局長告訴參議院情報委員會，孔子學院正在接受調查。
國會已經通過立法，加強對大學外國資金透明度的要求，要求孔子學院在司法部註冊成為中國政府的代理人。加拿大前亞太地區情報局局長麥可·朱諾·卡蘇亞（Michael Juneau Katsuya）聲稱，孔子學院與中國的情報機構有聯繫，「對我們的社會來說，這是一個明確而不可否認的威脅。」
孔子學院有一個共同的主題：從「天安門」、「西藏」和「台灣」開始，全面壓制三個主題的討論。
美國國家學者協會（National Association of Acaders）政策主任雷切爾·彼得森（Rachelle Peterson）表示，孔子學院代表著「由中國政府監督的顛覆性政治議程」，而諾丁漢特倫特大學（Nottingham Trent University）講師陶章（Tao Zhang）則表示，它們「在戰略上位於多所外國大學，允許中國人授權。」爭取在中國研究中獲得控制權的優先權。」
她補充說，這是「中國教育體系的延伸，由國家直接控制，與中國的學校和大學具有相同的思想和宣傳作用。」
許多大學在來自中國的壓力下撤回對有爭議的演講人的邀請，或刪除某些出版物。
2014年，在葡萄牙舉行的歐洲漢語學習協會會議上，漢辦主任徐林沒收了所有印刷的節目，並下令刪除台灣共同贊助機構的廣告頁。同樣，孔子學院出版的一本書在中國專家伊莎貝爾·希爾頓的一章中對中國持不同政見者吳立紅的環保行動進行了全面審查。對達賴喇嘛的邀請已被撤回或移出校園。
對個人信仰的歧視
也許最令人毛骨悚然的是所謂的孔子學院僱傭行為的歧視。根據全國學者協會的說法，漢辦對孔子學院教師的資格標準包括他們應該「沒有參加法輪功的記錄」。
索尼婭·趙，一位從事佛學精神運動法輪功的中國教師，受僱於漢辦，被派往加拿大麥克馬斯特大學孔子學院。在去加拿大之前，她在北京接受了為期三個月的培訓。」她說：「我們被告知要告訴學生只有一個中國，台灣是中國的一部分，······西藏是中國的一部分······我們被告知不要談論台灣和西藏等問題。」
「我們還必須簽署一份合同。合同上寫著「我們不能做法輪功的實踐者」······這一合同在所有國家的孔子學院生效。這項合同顯示了對教師個人信仰的歧視，這就是他們如何侵犯世界各地的信仰自由。」
2011年，趙松雅向麥克馬斯特大學通報了這些擔憂。她害怕，如果她承認自己是法輪功從業者，她會受到懲罰。由於她的投訴，麥克馬斯特大學終止了與漢辦的關係，關閉了孔子學院。從那時起，其他人也開始效仿。至少30所大學和一個學校董事會已經或將與孔子學院斷絕關係。
孔子學院絕不是中國唯一的軟實力工具。但與中國學生、學者協會相結合，對學術自由構成了強大的威脅。他們還關注在國外留學的中國學生，否則他們可能會覺得思想和表達的自由很有吸引力。
正如倫敦經濟學院（London School of Economics）的克里斯多福休斯（Christopher Hughes）教授在一篇關於這一主題的論文中所說，當倫敦經濟學院（LSE）2006年開辦孔子學院時，「中國學生······表示，他們對來到外國大學感到失望，結果卻發現他們自己的政府在校園內建立了一個組織，這讓他們覺得這是一種深思熟慮。H他們仍然在中國生活的監視之下。」一個學生告訴休斯教授，孔子學院感覺像是閉路電視，「有可能嚇跑我的批判性思維。」
那麼應該怎麼做呢？顯然，我們不能脫離中國。但正如英國下議院外交事務委員會（HouseofCommons ForeignAffairs Committee）上周發表的報告所言，我們需要重新調整我們的關係，把國家安全放在首位。
作為重新調整的一部分，我們不僅應該重新審視貿易與人權的平衡，華為的安全問題，以及最近英國皇家聯合服務學院（Royal United Services Institute）的報告和克萊夫·漢密爾頓（Clive Hamilton）在澳大利亞的優秀著作《無聲入侵》（The Silent Investion）中詳述的政治影響問題，還應該重新審視孔子學院。
「我知道壓力和恐懼，」趙松雅說。沒有人值得這樣做。我希望孔子學院能夠關閉，這樣老師可以自由地教授漢語，學生可以了解真正的中國和中國文化，而不是中國共產黨人的文化。」
如果我們現在還不願意關閉孔子學院，我們至少應該考慮類似於美國立法的措施——進行徹底的審查，暫停與孔子學院的任何新交易，直到審查完成，並確保採取措施確保學術自由和言論自由，不被剝奪。對資金來源的定罪和完全透明。
我們應該記住退休的英國外交官羅傑·加賽德的話，他說：「允許中國共產黨控制的國家機構在任何學校或大學建立教學機構，學術自由從本質上受到了損害。」
或者，正如雷切爾·彼得森所說，「現在不僅對我們學校的誠信構成威脅，更重要的是對高等教育的未來和所有自由國家的未來構成威脅。」這當然是採取行動的理由。
本尼迪克特·羅傑斯是保守黨人權委員會副主席。他也是東亞人權組織CSW和香港觀察主席的東亞組長。
Home>World
Propaganda in the name of Confucius
China is using educational institutes in154 countries to spread its influence and threaten academic freedom
Benedict Rogers
China
April24,2019
A Chinese volunteer teacher interacts with local students at Ban Nongping Elementary School in Vientiane, Laos, March25,2019. Ban Nongping Elementary School was established in2013 with aid from China.(Xinhua/Wang Jingqiang/MaxPPP)
China is waging a global propaganda war in an attempt to silence overseas critics at a time when it has unleashed the most repressive crackdown on internal dissent since the Tiananmen Square massacre30 years ago.
Its soldiers include Chinese state media reporters, diplomats and students studying overseas, recruited to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP). The most recent example has been the decision by the London School of Economics to adjust the depiction of Taiwan on a sculpture after pressure from Chinese students.
Its weapons include political infiltration and influence, a global media outfit, threats and aggression towards activists abroad, an attempt to hijack and derail the human rights agenda at the United Nations, and— as some are slowly realizing— deploying hundreds of innocuous-sounding language and culture institutions embedded in universities and schools.
China's Confucius Institutes, which on the surface appear to be simply an equivalent of the British Council, American Center, Alliance Francaise or Germany's Goethe Institutes, are now present in at least548 universities and1,193 schools in154 countries. With a US$314 million budget,46,200 teachers and1.7 million students, China aims to have1,000 Confucius Institutes by2020 in what it calls a"Confucius revolution."
South Korea opened the world's first Confucius Institute in2004, and it now has23, the most in Asia. Thailand, second in the region, has16 Confucius Institutes, while Japan has15. Indonesia has seven and India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Malaysia have four, but Confucius Institutes also exist in Singapore, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
Britain has at least29, the second-largest number in the world after the United States, in major universities such as Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Cardiff and University College London, along with148 Confucius"classrooms" in schools around the country.
Confucius Institutes purport to teach Chinese language and culture, which is surely welcome. As China takes its place as a world superpower, we need to understand its history and culture, and we need more people to speak the language. But scratch the surface and you find that it is not all they do. They also represent a potential threat to academic freedom and freedom of expression in educational institutions and democracies.
About12 years ago, the CCP's propaganda chief at the time, Li Changchun, described Confucius Institutes as"an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up." In2010, Xu Lin, director-general of a unit of China's education ministry known as the Hanban, confirmed that the party wanted to expand its influence and Confucius Institutes were an important part of China's soft power.
Confucius Institutes are directly controlled, funded and staffed by the Hanban, which is currently chaired by Sun Chunlan, a Politburo member who previously headed the United Front Work Department, the party's principal propaganda outfit.
China's propaganda minister Liu Yunshan said in2010 that"overseas propaganda should be comprehensive, multi-level and wide-ranging··· We should do well in establishing and operating overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes." Even President Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping's predecessor, endorsed the institutes as a way"to cultivate and prepare a group(or army) of people to make sure the CCP will be in power in the future··· and increase our CCP influence around the world."
Earlier this year Britain's Conservative Party Human Rights Commission published a report based on an inquiry into Confucius Institutes. It draws on evidence from experts, and from the documentary film In the Name of Confucius, and its conclusion is that Confucius Institutes threaten academic freedom and freedom of expression, and represent— as the CCP itself says— an endeavor by the Chinese regime to spread its propaganda and suppress its critics beyond its borders.
This conclusion is consistent with that reached by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) and intelligence agencies in Canada and Belgium. In2018, the CIA cautioned against Chinese funding to universities in exchange for academic censorship, and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Confucius Institutes are under investigation.
Congress has introduced legislation strengthening requirements for transparency of foreign funding for universities, requiring Confucius Institutes to register with the Department of Justice as agents of the Chinese government. And Canada's former Asia-Pacific intelligence chief Michael Juneau-Katsuya claims that Confucius Institutes are linked to China's intelligence services and"represent a clear and undeniable menace to our society."
Confucius Institutes have one common theme: the total suppression of discussion of three topics beginning with'T'— Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan.
Rachelle Peterson, policy director of the U.S.-based National Association of Scholars, says that Confucius Institutes represent a"subversive political agenda overseen by the Chinese government," while Nottingham Trent University lecturer Tao Zhang says that they"are strategically located in various foreign universities, allowing the Chinese authorities to gain a foothold for the exercise of control over the study of China."
They are, she adds,"an extension of the Chinese education system, directly controlled by the state and having the same ideological and propaganda roles as schools and universities in China."
Examples abound of universities withdrawing invitations to controversial speakers under pressure from China, or removing certain publications.
In2014, at a European Association for Chinese Studies conference in Portugal, Hanban director-general Xu Lin confiscated all the printed programs and ordered pages advertising a Taiwanese co-sponsor to be removed. Similarly, a book published by a Confucius Institute completely censored an entire section about Chinese dissident Wu Lihong's environmental activism in a chapter by China expert Isabel Hilton. Invitations to the Dalai Lama have been withdrawn or moved off campus.
Discrimination against personal beliefs
Perhaps most chilling is the alleged discrimination in hiring practices in Confucius Institutes. According to the National Association of Scholars, Hanban eligibility criteria for Confucius Institute teachers has included that they should"have no record of participation in Falun Gong."
Sonia Zhao, a Chinese teacher who practiced Falun Gong, a Buddha-school spiritual movement, was employed by Hanban and sent to the Confucius Institute at McMaster University in Canada. Prior to going to Canada, she was given a three-month training course in Beijing."We were told to tell the students that there is only one China, Taiwan is part of China,··· Tibet is part of China··· We were told not to talk about issues like Taiwan and Tibet," she says.
"We also had to sign a contract. In the contract it says that'we can't be Falun Gong practitioners'··· This contract takes effect in all Confucius Institutes in all countries. This contract shows discrimination against teachers' personal beliefs and this is how they violated freedom of belief worldwide."
In2011, Sonia Zhao alerted McMaster University to these concerns. She was afraid that, if she admitted to being a Falun Gong practitioner, she would be punished. As a result of her complaint, McMaster University terminated its relationship with the Hanban and closed its Confucius Institute. Since then, others have followed suit. At least30 universities and one school board have or will cut ties with Confucius Institutes.
Confucius Institutes are by no means China's only soft power tool. But when combined with the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations, they represent a powerful menace to academic freedom. They also serve to keep an eye on Chinese students studying abroad, who might otherwise find freedom of thought and expression appealing.
As Prof. Christopher Hughes of the London School of Economics says in a paper on the subject, when the LSE opened a Confucius Institute in2006,"Chinese students··· revealed that they were disappointed to arrive at a foreign university only to discover that their own government had established an organization on campus that made it feel as though they were still under the kind of surveillance that they had to live with in China." One student told Prof. Hughes that the Confucius Institute felt like closed-circuit television and"has the potential to scare away my critical thinking.".
So what should be done? Clearly, we cannot disengage with China. But as the UK's House of Commons foreign affairs committee report published last week argues, we need to recalibrate our relationship and put national security first.
As part of that recalibration, we should be re-examining not only the balance of trade versus human rights, and the security concerns around Huawei, and the questions of political influence detailed in a recent Royal United Services Institute report and in Clive Hamilton's excellent book in the Australian context, Silent Invasion, but also the question of Confucius Institutes.
"I know the pressure and fear," says Sonia Zhao."No one deserves that. I hope Confucius Institutes can be closed so that teachers can teach Chinese language freely and students can learn about the real China and Chinese culture, not the Chinese communists' culture."
If we are unwilling to go as far as to close Confucius Institutes just yet, we should at least consider measures similar to the U.S. legislation— conduct a thorough review, suspend any new deals with Confucius Institutes until a review is complete, and ensure measures are in place to guarantee academic freedom and freedom of expression, non-discrimination and complete transparency of funding sources.
We would do well to remember the words of retired British diplomat Roger Garside, who says that"academic freedom is inherently compromised by permitting a state agency controlled by the Communist Party of China to establish a teaching operation in any school or university."
Or, as Rachelle Peterson says,"there is a threat not only to the integrity of our institutions today but more importantly to the future of higher education and the future of all free countries." That, surely, is reason to act.
Benedict Rogers is deputy chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He is also East Asia team leader at international human rights organization CSW and chairman of Hong Kong Watch.[博訊來稿]
