Sometime before the end of the year, China Communist party will hold its 18th Congress, when the old batch of leaders will step aside for a new crop. Rumours are flying about what will happen then, from the almost certainty that Xi Jinping will become China’s next president to suggestions that the Politburo Standing Committee will be cut from nine members to seven, demoting the power of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee.
Index joins civil society groups in voicing concerns about proposals made by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that would threaten the openness of the internet (more…)
Woeser, a Tibetan writer who has authored online articles and non-fiction books about her birthplace, has been prevented from attending a ceremony in which the Dutch Ambassador in China was to present her with an award from the Prince Claus Fund.
The writer was prevented by police from leaving her house in Beijing to accept the award at the Dutch Embassy last Thursday.
Woeser wrote Notes on Tibet in 2003 and has been widely published in Taiwan. It is rare for Tibetan writers (she is three-quarters Tibetan) to write in Mandarin Chinese, Woeser maintained two blogs within China before they were shut down in 2007. Woeser now maintains a blog outside of China, which is also sometimes hacked.
She blogged about the prize, reposting a statement released by the Dutch embassy:
Woeser is honoured for her courage in speaking for those who are silenced and oppressed, for her compelling combination of literary quality and political reportage, for recording, articulating and supporting Tibetan culture, and for her active commitment to self-determination, freedom and development in Tibet.
It is a politically sensitive time for the Tibetan writer — who cannot travel abroad without permission. The Chinese capital is in the midst of its annual National Legislative Sessions and March also marks the fourth anniversary of the Tibet uprisings.
Immolations in Tibet have escalated recently, the Western media have reported around 25 Tibetans self-immolating since last March, 18 of whom are believed to have died.
As the number of Confucius Institutes continues to increase, there have been renewed concerns about how these organisations restrict free expression, particularly from among the international community.
The centres, which are dedicated to Chinese language and culture, education and research, are funded by the Chinese government — just as the UK has its British Council, Germany its Goethe Institut and France its Alliance Française. These European organisations don’t shy away from their purpose: to promote their nation’s culture and win allies. As the British Council states: “Put simply, the British Council exists to build trust between the UK and other countries and people and thereby win lifelong friends for Britain.” So why is it wrong when China tries to do it?
By last August, in just over six years, China had set up over 350 Confucius Institutes and 473 Confucius Classrooms in over 104 different countries, according to the Institute’s website. No small feat, as the British Council, set up in 1934, has only 220 offices in 110 countries and territories.
These organisations, which spread the teaching of Chinese language and culture (including activities as harmless as cooking classes) and provides advice to people looking to do business on the mainland, are overseen by Hanban, ostensibly an NGO but broadly controlled by the Chinese Ministry of Education. In some more prestigious universities the institutes also sponsor research programmes into sinology.
According to a USA Today story last week, some academics have voiced concerns that the money and resources that Confucius Institutes bring in can also help stifle what can be discussed, researched and taught in western universities where the institutes are located.
The article says that in the US, a partnership with a Confucius Institute typically brings in funds “in the range of $100,000 to $150,000”.
It quotes Anne-Marie Brady, associate professor of political science at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand as saying that Confucius Institutes will “ always [have] no-go zones, and the no-go zones are obvious: Tibet, Taiwan, Falun Gong.”
But academics at some American universities that have collaborated with Hanban vehemently deny these claims.
Richard Saller, dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University told USA Today: “I said what I always say, which is we don’t restrict the freedom of speech of our faculty, and that was the end of the discussion. I’ve had domestic donors walk away because of that, and in this case Hanban did not walk away.”
Other academics interviewed by the paper also said that having a Confucius Institute on campus had not restricted their freedom to hold talks on Taiwan, Tibet or any other sensitive issue. Yet.
While the western press were busying querying the Confucius Institutes, as reported by The New York Times, Chinese president Hu Jintao was bitterly critical of western culture: “We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernising and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration”. He also urged the country to put more energy into spreading Chinese culture and ideas, precisely through organs such as the Confucius Institutes.
Hu did not address the issue of just what is Chinese culture. Just 30 years ago under Mao, Confucius was a dirty word and his ideas were vigorously opposed. Today, he is the Communist Party’s golden boy, representing historical greatness, culture, and stability.