Skip to content

Reports - 2. page

The CCP’s Confucius Institutes that Infiltrate U.S. College Operations Just Rebranded

During a June 21 press conference, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) announced that the Chinese government-backed Confucius Institute (CI) program that infiltrates U.S. colleges has been rebranded as a purported Chinese language learning center in order to circumvent U.S. policy. The previous CI’s parent organizaton, Hanban under the Chinese Ministry of Education, was also rebranded as the Center for Language Exchange and Cooperation (CLEC).

In the past four years, 104 of the 118 Confucius Institutes at American universities have closed. Yet many of the colleges’ CIs have shifted to become Chinese language learning centers in universities. In reality, however, nothing has changed except the name.

Rachelle Peterson, senior research fellow at NAS, told reporters during a press conference, “We looked at all 118 Confucius Institutes that have ever existed in the United States. At least 28 that closed as CIs were replaced with something similar, usually operated in partnership with CLEC.”

Peterson told reporters that, under the guidance of the CLEC, at least 58 schools maintained a relationship with their Chinese sister universities and at least five schools recruited a new host location for their CI program in order to maintain the relationship.

As an example, the report cites Northern State University in South Dakota, which signed an agreement with the CLEC after closing the CI in 2019. Peterson said The center sends Chinese language teachers and pays their salaries and travel expenses, while Northern State University provides classrooms, teacher housing and health insurance, exactly the same arrangement as for the CI program. “Nothing has changed except the name.”

The CCP has said that Confucius Institutes were established to promote Chinese language and culture. The official website of Hanban published a report on Nov 28, 2012, when Li Changchun, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CCP Central Committee, visited the CI headquarters. Li said that the Confucius Institute is a brand that, “has an affinity in itself” and is a “pure culture.” In an earlier official Xinhua report, Li also indicated that the CI is “an important part of the CCP’s grand foreign propaganda pattern.”

CIs have a lot of requirements for their host Western universities. For example, they require the host university to sign a confidentiality agreement not to disclose the amount of funding, and to follow the Chinese version of the supplied textbook. The CI  basically conducts self-censorship. Increasingly, critics see it as an overseas political propaganda machine for the CCP, and a tool to monitor and interfere with overseas campus speech and activities. For example, in 2009 North Carolina State University canceled a plan to invite the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, to speak at the university because the CI protested this action.

The 2020 U.S, Department of State designation of CI as a “foreign mission” was bolstered by the passage of the Confucius Act in March 2021. The act stipulated that schools which maintain CI programs were ineligible to receive most Department of Education funds.

U.S. Republican Congressman Jim Banks (R-IN) said in a recent report released on the CIs that although most of the CIs in American universities have been closed, the CCP’s United Front Work Department continues to promote influence on U.S. college campuses, and he called on Congress and the Administration to take the China threat seriously.

“The mission of the CCP’s United Front Work Department is to influence foreigners and foreign institutions, especially those in the United States, whose work is visible on college campuses across the United States. CIs and Chinese universities establish partnerships with U.S. universities to receive research funding from (Chinese) government agencies. Rep. Banks said that most of the partnerships are not random, and China’s United Front Work Department has specifically targeted university institutions with strong STEM programs, and in recent years, there have been many espionage operations.”

China has always insisted that CIs and similar cultural exchange programs should not be politicized. The CCP’s media Global Times said in an editorial that CIs and similar institutions are a “platform for a comprehensive and objective understanding of China, and China firmly opposes the politicization of academic and cultural exchange activities.”

Sources:
1. Creaders.net, June 23, 2022.
https://news.creaders.net/china/2022/06/23/2497297.html
2. Daily Caller, June 22, 2022.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/22/confucius-institute-national-association-of-scholars-rachelle-peterson-ian-oxnevad-jim-banks/

 

 

Reports | | |   Government/Politics

Beijing Highly Praised Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Election and Condemned the EU & G7

The election of the sixth-term chief executive of Hong Kong was held on May 8. The only candidate who ran for this office, Lee Ka-chiu (John Lee, 李家超) was elected with a vote of 99.16 percent of the 1,428 attending Election Committee members. China highly praised the election. The Council of the European Union and the G7 expressed their regret and their concerns. 

The CCP’s high praise of the election 

The official agents of China such as the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong, Global Times, a media affiliated with the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and others so affiliated all praised the election highly.

This shows that “patriots governing Hong Kong, ” who are deeply bolstered by all sectors of Hong Kong society, and the democratic development of Hong Kong have turned a new page after the improvement of the electoral system, which is the embodiment of quality democracy with Hong Kong characteristics. 

The success of the sixth-term chief executive election has further implemented the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong.” It fully demonstrated the advantages of the new electoral system and proved the new system is a good one that follows the “one country, two systems” principle and suits Hong Kong’s reality.

In addition, Lee Ka-chiu was congratulated. Lee has served Hong Kong for more than 40 years. He is very familiar with Hong Kong. In fighting the violent demonstrations against the extradition bill (in 2019). He played a key supporting role in restoring order and rebuilding confidence. His election represents the vivid practice of “patriots governing Hong Kong.”  

Hong Kong has entered the era of “patriots ruling Hong Kong.”

Comments from the EU and the G7

The Council of the European Union issued a declaration on May 8 after the Hong Kong chief executive’s election. The declaration indicated that the number of voters for the Election Committee was substantially reduced by the electoral overhaul, weakening the already limited democratic elements in the governance of Hong Kong and running counter to the commitments to greater representation enshrined in the Basic Law.  

The EU regrets this violation of democratic principles and political pluralism and sees this selection process as yet another step in the dismantling of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle. 

The EU calls on Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to abide by their national and international commitments, notably the ultimate aim of electing the Chief Executive and members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. 

On May 9, the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven (G7) countries and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a statement to underscore their “grave concern over the selection process for the Chief Executive in Hong Kong as part of a continued assault on political pluralism and fundamental freedoms.” 

The statement said, “Last year, the PRC and Hong Kong authorities moved away from the ultimate aim of universal suffrage as set out in Hong Kong’s Basic Law by increasing the number of non-elected members appointed to the Election Committee and dramatically curtailing the number of voters eligible to participate in the Committee elections.”

The current nomination process and resulting appointment are a stark departure from the aim of universal suffrage and further erode the ability of Hong Kongers to be represented legitimately. We are deeply concerned about this steady erosion of political and civil rights and Hong Kong’s autonomy.  

The CCP’s condemnation of the EU and theG7 

The CCP’s media, Xinhua and Global Times had some words on the Chinese Mission to the EU and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. 

Zhao Lijian, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said, at a routine press conference on Monday, that the EU couldn’t wait and “jumped out” by pointing fingers at and smearing the process, which fully exposes its true intention of interfering in China’s internal affairs.    

Zhao noted that those politicians applauded fake democracy and the pan-democratic camp that allowed the rioting and violence to rage, but they are afraid of true democracy with the implementation of the principle of “only patriots administering Hong Kong,” “Such tactics of interference won’t work in today’s Hong Kong.”   

On May 10, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong  firmly rejected and strongly condemned the comments by the G7 and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 

That office indicated that their statement smeared Hong Kong’s sixth-term chief executive election and attacked the Chinese central government’s policies towards Hong Kong. The words used were irresponsible remarks that only exposed their hypocrisy and their true intention of interfering in China’s internal affairs and trying to destroy Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity. The election is a successful practice of “only patriots administering Hong Kong,” and this can’t be defamed or smeared by any external forces. 

The rejection continued, saying that the ministers and the EU high representative have turned a blind eye to the structural flaws of their own democratic systems. They have wantonly attacked Hong Kong’s chief executive election and the Chinese government’s implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy, calling their statement, a serious violation of international law and the basic norms of international relations. 

The statement is full of arrogance and prejudice, ignoring the fact that the chief executive election was conducted in accordance with the law and that the result of the fair election is in line with the Hong Kong people’s aspirations.  

Behind the many problems that have emerged in Hong Kong in recent years, there is invariably the shadow of some US and Western hostile forces. The more chaotic Hong Kong becomes, the better it is in their interests.  They will continue to attempt to create problems in Hong Kong.  

“Patriots governing Hong Kong” will certainly make the U.S. and Western hostile forces as well as their proxy in Hong Kong desperate. Only when they are desperate, is there hope for Hong Kong. 

Sources:
1. Council of the EU, “Hong Kong: Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the Chief Executive election held on 8 May,” 8 May 2022.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/05/08/hong-kong-declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-the-chief-executive-election-held-on-8-may/.
2. Global Times, “Hong Kong CE-elect discusses tasks for transition, successful election plunges West into hysteria, fury,” May 9, 2022.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202205/1265177.shtml.
3. Global Times, “Huaqiu Commentary: G7 Played Another Farce,” May 9, 2022.
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/47wUl1GPIj4.
4. Global Times, “Commentary: Unity at Hong Kong Made Some Westerners Desparate,” May 9, 2022.
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/47vhQaooqNe.
5. Xinhua, “Liaison office of central gov’t slams G7 foreign ministers’ statement on HKSAR chief executive election,” May 10, 2022.
https://english.news.cn/20220510/1746b86eb7b74d09bdcd4c359637cc03/c.html.
6. U.S. Department of State, “G7 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on the Hong Kong Chief Executive Selection,” MAY 9, 2022.
https://www.state.gov/g7-foreign-ministers-statement-on-the-hong-kong-chief-executive-selection/.

Reports | | |   Government/Politics

Zheng Yongnian: Revelation for China from Russia-Ukraine Conflict – Open up More

In an exclusive interview with the Global Times on March 18, 2022, Zheng Yongnian, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) and the Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Global and Contemporary China, said that the revelation for China from the Russia-Ukraine conflict is that China should open up more. The economic ties with the West will make it difficult for the parties involved in the sanction to sustain it. Here are some main points from Professor Zheng’s statement: 

The Russia-Ukraine conflict may have an important effect on the international order

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has become more and more contemptuous of Russia, considering it a “troublemaker,” It considers China to be a major competitor or even an enemy. Therefore, over the past years, the U.S. has been building an “Asian mini-NATO” against China. The U.S. strategic focus is increasingly shifting from Europe and the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region. 

In general, the post-World War II international order is in the process of rapid disintegration. Many countries are seeking their own geopolitical sphere of influence. They are hoping to establish an international order that is beneficial to themselves.

What the United States is doing in Asia now is no different from what NATO did back when it was formed. The actual “Asian version of a NATO” prototype already exists. The reason why the conflict between the “Asian version of NATO” that the United States is trying to form and China has not escalated sharply is entirely because China does not want to follow the example of the former Soviet Union to form its own group. After the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the trend of Asia becoming the center of the world economy will become more obvious and U.S. involvement in Asia will further expand. 

Three Important Revelations for China from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The revelations for China from the Russia-Ukraine conflict have been huge. The biggest difference between China and Russia is that Russia is only a military power without  being a strong economic power, while China has both sufficient military power for self-preservation and it also has strong economic power. In addition, it has close economic ties with the West. Therefore, in the eyes of the American elite, China poses a far greater challenge to the United States than Russia does to the United States. (The following are the three revelations:) 

  1. China should open up more and Chinese companies must overcome all difficulties and continue to work hard to go global. Economic interdependence cannot absolutely prevent the outbreak of war, but it can moderate the intensity of the war. If the economic sanctions that the United States and Europe imposed on Russia are “to kill a thousand enemies, while only having a loss of five hundred oneself,” then supposedly to sanction China, which has an open and strong economy, that will become “to kill a thousand enemies, meanwhile having a loss of a thousand” oneself. So, it is difficult to sustain such sanctions. A mutually bound economy between China and the West has already caused the West real pain. 
  2. China cannot accept that the West completely binds China and Russia together, nor can it allow the United States to “kidnap” Europe. China and Europe have huge common interests but without geopolitical disputes. The ideological differences are entirely possible to bridge. Although the current security concerns of Europe override its economic considerations to a certain extent after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Europe is still an object for China to pursue.
  3.  How should China handle the relationship between “opening up” and “security”? Security is always a relative concept, and non-opening provides the biggest insecurity. What we should do is to explore our own security mechanism in an open state, rather than stop opening up to the outside world for the sake of so-called absolute security. 

Source: Global Times, March 18, 2022
https://world.huanqiu.com/article/47Ecx6AuEL5 

Reports | | |   Geo-Strategic Trend

China’s Small and Medium-sized Private Enterprises Shrink Rapidly: Forcibly Demolished or Had to Establish a CCP Branch

At the end of 2021, the South China Morning Post reported that small businesses, the perennial backbone of China’s economy, are shrinking at a rapid pace. During the first 11 months, 4.37 million small businesses were written off, while only 1.32 million were registered. This is the first time in many years that the number of small business cancellations in China has exceeded the number of registrations.

On March 1, the National Bureau of Statistics of China released the PMI (Purchasing Managers’ Index) operation of February 2022.  In terms of enterprise size, the PMI for large and medium-sized enterprises was 51.8 percent and 51.4 percent respectively, up 0.2 percent and 0.9 percent compared to that of the previous month. However, the small enterprises PMI was 45.1 percent, down 0.9 percent  from last month. This was lower than the critical point. (a PMI below 50 indicates that the economy is in contraction.)

Mr. Li (a pseudonym), a small private enterprise boss from Taizhou, Zhejiang Province, has been uprooted from his hometown and displaced overseas for more than 2 years. He had 10 stores in Xiaoxie old industrial park at Lu’nan Street, Taizhou. In 2018, the Taizhou government demolished four to five hundred enterprises in the industrial park under the name of old city renovation and took away the related land.  The vast majority of those small enterprise owners were not given resettlement funds.

Mr. Li said, “The local government offered a very low price for compensation. That’s ridiculously low, just like a robbery! If you did not agree, the government could use tax, public security, fire, or environmental protection . . . from six or seven departments to deal with you.” Now the industrial parks have moved to remote places, like the new Binhai Industrial Park. He’s not able to afford even one store. “There is no way for the business to go on. Now some people still go to Beijing in order to petition, but the suppression is very serious,” Mr. Li started In1992. They were led to the Xiaoxie industrial park as private enterprises. It’s because the land has appreciated in value, an incrrease of probably dozens or up to a hundred times. The government wants to take the land back forcibly for commercial development and make a big profit. A similar event happened in the Shuanggang Industrial Park in Quzhou, Zhejiang Province. Those companies were auctioned off at low prices, and the owners ended up not having enough money to cover their debts. Some of them even committed suicide with hatred (in their hearts).

Mr. Li revealed, “When they get bigger, the enterprises are forced to establish CCP (Chinese Communist Party) branches ” (the CCP controls everything in China.). There are three purposes: one is to organize some CCP’s activities in two in three days. Its aim is for brainwashing; the second is for donating money easily when necessary; and the third is that the enterprise’s patents will belong equally to the state.

For example, one of  Mr. Li’s friends runs a large enterprise. A few years earlier the local CCP committee let him establish a party branch. He had been shirking it. Later, the CCP’s street office, the mayor and secretary of the town and the party union organizations came to him together. Mr. Li’s friend said that although he had a hundred employees, there were no CCP members in his factory. It’s not enough to set up a branch. (To set up a party branch needs three party members at least). Unexpectedly, they said — it’s okay. We will assign CCP members to you.

Mr. Li also mentioned that another friend’s enterprise produces high-end products directly required by the CCP for military use. It wants the technology. Some private enterprises also have a lot of things that the CCP does not have. So, the friend’s enterprise was acquired by the CCP with generous conditions and enough money. However, his freedom is gone, — two CCP persons were assigned to him plus two armed police officers to be his servants — driving his car and even opening the door for him.

Source: Epoch Times, March 9, 2022
ttps://www.epochtimes.com/gb/22/3/8/n13631574.htm

Reports | | |   Economy/Resources