The UK’s Conservative Party is holding an inquiry into Confucius Institutes, the so-called language and culture centres that have been set up at well in excess of 500 universities and tertiary institutions around the world, bought and paid for by the Chinese Communist Party.
The inquiry is being done under the auspices of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and began in the House of Commons in London on June 5.
This, sharp readers may remember, is the the same party that under previous prime minister David “Brexit” Cameron performed one of the most egregious kowtows to Beijing of any Western government in modern history and then proceeded to lead a £750 billion UK-China fund that has since “struggled”.
A day before the inquiry began, the United States Congress saw a new bill, Countering the Chinese Government and Communist Party’s Political Influence Operations Act, introduced. Part of the bill’s aim is to monitor the influence of Confucius Institutes. The bill’s introduction coincided with the 29th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre where, recent documents released by UK diplomats suggest, as many as 10,000 Chinese citizens may have been murdered by the People’s Liberation Army.
In Australia, more than a dozen major universities have Confucius Institutes. Of the Group of Eight universities, only Monash University and Australian National University do not have one (unkind people have suggested that is because no Chinese teachers would want to live in either the Melbourne suburb of Waverly or Canberra). This means that the universities of Sydney, News South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all have Confucius Institutes. So too do UTS, RMIT, QUT, LaTrobe, Victoria and Griffith universities.
Confucius Institutes have been labelled by several former diplomats and anyone who knows anything about the party as “the thin end of the wedge” of the United Front Work Department, China’s overseas propaganda arm. But Australia’s higher education sector seems so beholden to the roughly 170,000 Chinese students who study in Australia (representing around 30% of the foreign student market), that it would be a brave university indeed who would kick a Confucius Institute off their campus, as some in the US and Europe have done.
Independent research seen by Crikey shows that a whopping 38% of Chinese enrollments between 2010-2016 went to the big four (Sydney, Melbourne Monash and NSW) and that percentage, according to industry insiders, has grown in the past two years. There are also some conflicting headwinds as Chinese universities move up in global rankings. An anti-Australia propaganda campaign by Beijing, including dubious safety warnings for students posted on Chinese Education Ministry websites, is having an effect, and the pay differential in China between locally and overseas educated China is shrinking fast.
And yet there has been plenty around in recent months about Chinese influence-peddling in Australia’s tertiary sector, with billionaires tipping tens of millions into vanity projects. Teachers at the big four say that recruitment agents are being paid extra by fee-addicted unis to fill less popular courses.
Professor John Fitzgerald of Swinburne University, one of Australia’s most experienced and clear-eyed China watchers, put it this way:
Weighing the value of vibrant scholarship against the inclination of donors to have a say in how their donations are spent is a delicate balance. With Confucius Institutes, Australian universities clearly got the balance wrong.
In this case, a donor in China assigns a teacher to each program and sets clear limits on what can be said and done in the classroom.
In effect, a number of Australian universities that are keen to expand their Chinese language and studies offerings have undermined their academic integrity, autonomy and freedom by ceding control over staffing and content to a donor.
It’s not like the influence-wielding of the Confucius Institutes is something new. Diplomats and academics have been warning of it for more than a decade. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Yet, long time industry professionals say there are huge and largely untapped markets for Australian education right across the Americas, in the Middle East, Europe and Africa — as well as closer to home in southeast Asia. So ratcheting down a reliance on China in the $30 billion market would be good business practice for vice chancellors.
Concentrating on China has been an easy but lazy strategy, and has, if surveys are to be believed, been spoiling the university experience for Chinese and Australian students alike. The university sector needs to stand up to Chinese influence for the good of all in academia, showing the Confucius Institutes the door would be a good start.
The government likes to cut funding – someone’s going to fill their engineered vacuum – they don’t run on the smell of an oily rag.
Terrific piece.
Should the NTEU mount an anti-Confucius Centre campaign in the same vein as the Ramsay Centre one?
It’s not a gotcha question, or a smart-ass point. I’m genuinely curious about whether or not there’s an ‘academic freedom’ arguable equivalence in play.
“Of the Group of Eight universities, only Monash University and Australian National University do not have one [Confucius Institute] … ”
ANU does have The Australian Centre on China in the World. And if it manages without Confucius Institute money then it can manage without Ramsey Centre funding too.
Isn’t the overarching point the fact that universities have been starved of govt funds and so are more susceptible to prostituting themselves in order to grow or even maintain themselves?
Whether this has been the strategy all along or just unintended consequences, the outcome is the same.
The question that occurs to me is “has anyone at Crikey actually read anything on the topic of diplomacy over the last three or four years”? Yes agreed. Dawkins (via Hawke created the problem but all other governments have perpetuated the problem.
I can’t think of a mob (from Israel to Singapore) that hasn’t made some attempt to influence Australian Federal and Student politics. I think it is the norm nowadays. As for the USA Monroe mocked the Monroe Doctrine.
A second, rather serious, criticism of the article is the overt judgmental attitude where, for balance, a paragraph justifying the Treaty of Westphalia could have included (if the authors reading extended to such boundaries). Failing that some semblance of just how China’s 21 century colonialism operates might have served in its place.
As to books case and eye over Brown, K. “What’s Wrong with Diplomacy?” (Penguin 2015). Dare I mention it, Rudd has made some useful contributions (from the sidelines). As a PM I was glad to see him go – on account of the nano management alone.
The diplomatic (and economic) planing of the PRC is comprehensive and very long term. Chinese students in absolute terms will will decline (a foreign degree no longer has the regard that it once had) but influence in terms of World Order will increase. Consider the UK for example : what is it actually going to do – given that the matter is not, actually, a problem or, indeed, new!
I am confused, Kyle. Call me ‘thick as brick’, but I think the only paragraph I almost understood was para 2. Although the reference to the Monroe Doctrine found me struggling.
I am not being a smart-arse but my text analysis is usually of, at least, minimum understanding. I would say that you have some interesting points to make, but I can’t find them.
> I am confused, Kyle. Call me ‘thick as brick’,
From what you have written on these pages, Lorraine, you are quite some distance in terms of comprehension from (e.g.) the late Princess of Wales or indeed, I’m sorry to say, a number of female (and male) parliamentarians.
In a sentence the Monroe Doctrine asserted “we’ll [the USA] will say out of you [other country] back yard if you keep away from our back yard]. In large measure the declaration was responsible and encouraged the de-facto policy of isolationism that prevailed until 1917 (USA entry into WW1). As any diplomat would assert : “no policy is perfect” and the USA has contravened its own document [The Monroe Document] from inception – on any number of occasions. Nowadays, indeed from the de-facto annexation of the Philippines (1927) there isn’t a pot on the stove of which the USA hasn’t had its stirring spoon in.
From (about) the end of the Hundred Years War (perpetuated by the feuding families of England and France) there has been a concerted effort by country A to ‘interfere’ with the affairs of country B. The events prior to the Hundred Years War, (slightly over generalising) were ‘glorified’ raiding events with little desire to conquer. Even the Battle of Hastings occurred by ‘accident’ as it were. Had Harold shut his idiotic trap and not ranted on about what he reckoned he was promised the event would not have occurred. As an aside Provence smiled upon the (Anglo) Saxons because the Normans were infinitely superior in terms of culture and laws – but I digress.
Dawkins (et al) created the “pickle” that Australian tertiary education finds itself; in brief : being wholly dependent upon the $28b. overseas student (predominately Asian and from the PRC). Well, isn’t such a state of affairs a “talent-spotter’s” and an Ambassador’s paradise? Also, there is the age-old assumption/axiom that if one pays the piper one gets to nominate the tune. This little ‘thorn in the side’ of Australian universities isn’t going to leave any time soon. When the universities were on tri-annual funding (for the asking) they were independent and the problem didn’t exist to anything like the extent to which it exists today.
The Treaty of Westphalia (in a sentence or three) sought to prevent another Seven Years War. The approach was, anticipating the Monroe Document (to a large extent), NOT to remark upon, much less interfere, with the domestic proceedings of another country. Thus the Ottomans could do as they liked as could the Austrian-Hungarian Empire (issues in the Balkans (1890-1914) as could Germany in the 30s (or at any other time). Now, the UN, ironically, is wafting away from the convention of the Treaty of Westphalia to, if history is any judge, likely international calamity. As an aside, the ENTIRE front page of weekend China Daily was devoted to Putin (the colour photograph occupying 1/3 of the broadsheet-size page) receiving the Inaugural China Medal of Friendship; c.f with the treatment that Obama received in the last days of his presidency.
Conclusion : it is (1) idiotic and (2) futile to “single-out” China in respect of meddling in the affairs of Oz. The USA has been doing it (Iraq) since the end of WW2. Then, of course – who hasn’t.
As to wealth, historically, – to give you an idea – except for Paris and a few other minor locations the family of the wife of (England’s) Henry II, Eleanor, owned all of France. As to Eleanor she was fluent in a number of languages and considerably better educated than her husband.
Kyle, you seem to view me as a woman of limited understanding and/or historical knowledge. As for my comprehension I’m not sure whether you mean ‘behind’ in your reference to ‘distance’.
As for the Monroe Doctrine I remember years ago a friend stating: If the US views South America as its backyard, it can only view Australia as its nature strip.
Back around the turn of the Century, I used the Treaty of Westphalia as a reference in my argument against NATO’s invasion of Serbia. Whoever first thought of the term ‘humanitarian bombing’ should be strung up by their delicate parts, along with those who were fooled by it.
Your comment regarding ‘…pot…stirring spoon’, gave me a little chuckle.
As for Putin’s photo taking up 1/3 of the page in a major Chinese newspaper, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I wouldn’t equate it Stanley Baldwin’s ‘peace in our time’!
As for Eleanor of Aquitaine, marrying Henry II was a real come-down for her. At that time England was a mere shit-hole state and a vexatious appendage to the rest of Europe. Henry needed Eleanor much more than she needed him.
Unfortunately, Henry, being a man, couldn’t keep it in his pants and thus alienated Eleanor. He solved this marital spat by imprisoning her for many years. ‘Oh!’ I can hear you cry…’those were the days’!! I doubt matters would be any different if Henry’s older brother had lived. He was actually the previous winner of Eleanor’s hand. There wouldn’t have been an examination such as the Princess of Wales had to undergo because Eleanor had previously been married to the King of France. Although, as you state it would have been more accurate to call him the King of Paris
I don’t view China as being our only ally in the region. We must create strong ties with all those who will be happy to have us. Our standing in the region, due to current links and our own patronising attitude, isn’t high.
Whilst other countries from parts of Africa to Pakistan are forging friendships with China we are languishing behind the chariot wheels of the US and Britain. Russia has borders with China so, it too, has the common-sense to create diplomatic and trade ties with its neighbour. China is also aware of Russia’s oil fields.
Anyway, Kyle, I would say that our views have more in common than not.
> you seem to view me as a woman of limited understanding
on the contrary Lorraine. I thought I was rather clear on the point by offering (tongue-in-cheek) comparisons
“I used the Treaty of Westphalia as a reference in my argument against NATO’s invasion of Serbia”
Except that the divisions/borders of post 2nd WW were no less artificial than those (post Ottoman) of the 1st WW.
“As for Putin’s photo taking up 1/3 of the page in a major Chinese newspaper, you say that as if it is a bad thing”
I’m a spectator at the global (political) tennis match. I merely watch the ball go from A to B and note the number of sets. I am indifferent as to who gets a point (and who doesn’t). The remark was also intended for one or two of the Crikey readership. There are ONLY three players in this game; as asserted (previously) in no particular order : the USA, China and Russia. I have been chided for omitting the irrelevance of Europe! The overt association with Russia is no small thing. Xi and Putin will be chatting their heads off over Korea – with Putin, (I shouldn’t wonder) becoming privy to some detail of the conversation Xi had with Kim
in terms of “riding instructions”.
> Whoever first thought of the term ‘humanitarian bombing’
ditto for “collateral damage” – (or military ineptness) just flick across to Orwell – or Huxley.
> As for Eleanor of Aquitaine, marrying Henry II was a real come-down for her.
yes – but there wasn’t a lot of choice. Eleanor was in a similar situation (for similar reasons) to Catherine of Aragon (centuries later).
“At that time England was a mere shit-hole state and a vexatious appendage to the rest of Europe.”
Scotland and the Nordic countries perhaps : England no or very much less. The productive capacity of England was quite good – and hence the standard of living and its Archers generally superior to the French. 1,500 words here at least!
> Henry needed Eleanor much more than she needed him.
I’m not so sure. Henry inherited well from both parents. But overall, Eleanor more or less “ran the realm” for the better and to the annoyance of Henry.
> Unfortunately, Henry, being a man, couldn’t keep it in his pants and thus alienated Eleanor.
This was going to be the next card I was about to play with regard to your comment concerning “need” Despite Henry’s treatment of Eleanor, Eleanor gave Henry permission to marry again (a requirement for the divorce) but it didn’t happen.
Eleanor was no stranger to the infractions of guys to the 6th and 9th Commandments (Catholic version). What bothered Henry was Eleanor’s dabbling in politics (behind Henry’s back) in regard to her eligible sons. As an aside there are some guys, over history and now, that (contrary to your inference) have achieved the “impossible”!
Actually Henry did not wish Eleanor’s family to become unduly creative in respect of “rear-guard-actions”. The best approach to achieve “stability” in this respect to to acquire a significant hostage. The strategy extended to WW2 – or
perhaps Guanni-Bay nowadays!
“There wouldn’t have been an examination such as the Princess of Wales had to undergo because Eleanor had previously been married to the King of France.”
Deciding upon wives, for the aristocrats, was no less important as buying stock for the manor; one could not be too careful. As to opportune or inopportune deaths (or abdications) of the “great” – that is what makes history (1) non-linear and (2) interesting. As an aside Richard had barely a word of (12th century) English. He spoke French – as did the the majority of the English aristocrats.
“We must create strong ties with all those who will be happy to have us.”
And just how do we do that Lorraine? By a change of service (a’ la the tennis match)?
“Our standing in the region, due to current links and our own patronising attitude, isn’t high.”
From the perspective of our neighbours what is their opinion of Australia do you think? I’d say “Uncle Sam’s lackey” would be a fair guess. Its a description that does not inspire confidence.
There is the absurd suggestion that Australia is a “middle power”; as to the origin of the category I have no idea. What is clear is that China is the most significant trading “partner” that Oz has. Steering a middle course is the only option.
Neither do I have any idea as to what motivates the Foreign Minister in regard to announcements but it does’t seem to be facts – to say nothing of the variance to the statements of P.M. Turnbull. There is the ancillary consideration of the political corruption (i.e. partisan – not illegal) of the Senior Public Service. Permanent Heads, for all the faults that existed, DID provide the government of the day with impartial advice. Any government can whistle for impartial advice (perhaps the proposed Ramsay Centre?) nowadays.
> Anyway, Kyle, I would say that our views have more in common than not
Seems so Lorraine