中文
By Andrew Korybko
It was reported on September 18 that cross-party MPs in the United Kingdom are planning to phase out Confucius Institutes in the coming future. This disturbing development, if it comes to pass, would align with the trend of the UK engaging in unprovoked aggression against China. Not only would it turn innocent Confucius Institutes teachers into victims of recent geopolitical tensions, but it would also hurt the UK's national interests. The present piece will focus on the second predictable consequence of this possible move.
The UK is struggling to add substance to its post-Brexit "Global Britain" framework of prioritizing renewed engagement with the Global South, which is expected to be mostly economic, at least officially. The most obvious solution is to focus on expanding trade with China, which is the world's second-largest economy. From there, the UK can have an easier chance of building upon that success by diversifying its business outreaches to nearby countries in the Asia-Pacific from its companies' regional Chinese hubs.
The problem is that China-UK ties have been politicized in recent years, with many suspecting that the U.S. is behind this as part of its divide-and-rule strategy. In particular, Washington wants to worsen relations between its NATO allies (who it mistreats as vassals) and China. Its strategists seemingly believe that this will make Europeans disproportionately dependent on trade with the U.S. in response, which can in turn be leveraged and even weaponized to coerce political concessions.
Regardless of the true reason behind this trend, there's no doubt that it veritably exists, which has resulted in deteriorating China-UK ties across the board. Instead of trying to repair the relations that it unilaterally worsened, London appears dead-set on further worsening them. The latest reports that circulated over the weekend suggest that it wants to gradually replace the Confucius Institutes with alternative programs from the Chinese region of Taiwan.
That would be counterproductive for UK interests if it comes to pass for five primary reasons. First, it would punish innocent teachers for geopolitical reasons as was earlier said, which erodes London's credibility in claiming that it's supposedly a bastion of democracy that doesn't discriminate against anyone for any reason. Second, that move would represent another unprovoked aggression against China on the UK's part, which will accelerate the deterioration in their relations.
Third, the Taiwan-related alternatives will actually function as the propaganda Institutes that the UK's American ally (or rather, senior partner) falsely claims that the Confucius Institutes are. To elaborate on this point, some of the reporting over the weekend cites campaigners' accusations that the Confucius Institutes allegedly limit free speech in their classrooms. All that's really taking place is that Chinese teachers inform students of the facts connected to their country's policy on sensitive issues.
Far from being the form of so-called "brainwashing" that it's maliciously spun as, this is a crucial aspect of the cultural education that students receive at the Confucius Institutes. It's not enough for business people, diplomats, or enthusiasts with an interest in China simply to learn that country's language in order to succeed since they must also understand its policies. There have already been several instances of Western brands being boycotted by the Chinese for supporting separatism, for instance.
If someone wants to have mutually beneficial engagements of whatever nature with China and its people, then they must absolutely learn to respect their principled positions. That doesn't mean that those same people have to change their own opinions, but just that they should be aware of the Chinese side too so that they don't inadvertently disrespect them and ruin the relations that they're seeking to cultivate. This is the global standard whenever it comes to intercultural communication and always has been.
Returning to the reasons why the reported proposal would be counterproductive to the UK's national interests, the fourth is that those who complete these proposed courses taught by people from the island will therefore have a twisted interpretation of reality that'll raise the risks of them ruining their relations with the Chinese mainland. Those UK residents will be indoctrinated with positions that are only shared by fringe members of the international community that continue to decrease in number.
And lastly, the combined consequences would further hamstring the UK's already struggling post-Brexit "Global Britain" framework by making it practically impossible to ever repair bilateral relations with China to what they were prior to London unilaterally worsening them.
This country's objective interests rest in pioneering a rapprochement with China and not in virtue signaling support for America's Taiwan puppets. The first will lead to success while the second will lead to failure.
Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst.
