Tagging Confucius Institute ‘naive provocation’

No need for China to react every time US makes hysterical moves: experts

The US State Department’s designation of the Confucius Institute US Center (CIUS) as a Chinese “foreign mission” in its latest malicious move against China proves that it is in a state of hysteria and that the US is losing confidence as it creates trouble to nonofficial exchanges, experts said.

China refrained from a strong reaction to the US’ latest move as it is already bored with the naive provocations the US likes to play. As the Foreign Ministry spokesperson said at Thursday’s media briefing, it’s a waste of time to refute US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s lies. China has no need to react every time the US provokes, experts said.

This move is meant to politicize cultural and peopleto-people exchanges, but more symbolic, which won’t have much of an impact on the already floundering people-topeople exchanges caused by the US, Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.

The US Department of State on Thursday designated the CIUS, which manages Confucius Institutes co-established with American schools, as a Chinese “foreign mission.”

Some 75 Confucius Institutes are operating on campuses and elsewhere in the US. There are around 500 Confucius classrooms in the country, the Department of State said.

While these institutes are not required to register yet, it’s expected that the rule will force a breakup between US universities and Confucius Institutes after their contracts expire, as they would need to consider the background of the institutes when cooperating, said Wu Xinbo, director of Fudan University’s Center for American Studies.

“We reserve the right to respond to this matter,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told Friday’s media briefing.

A specific countermeasure to the CIUS designation is unclear, but Chinese branches of US universities may face increased scrutiny, Li said.

Prominent American universities that have branches in China include Duke University and New York University. Other joint projects include cooperation between Sichuan University and the University of Pittsburgh, and the Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute.

CIUS said in a statement that it disagrees with its designation, and hopes to clear up this fundamental misunderstanding.

“We know there are a lot of pressing issues between our two countries, but the Confucius Institutes are not one of them, and we are working hard to keep it that way,” it said.

US losing confidence

Li noted that the China-US confrontation is not only about the economy and military but also about morale, which the US is losing. “The US has lost its confidence, and anxiety has prompted it to take extreme measures,” he said.

Wu said China should have its own pace, and that there is no need to react every time the US makes provocative moves.

Washington is trying to build an anti-Beijing coalition; that’s nothing new. As it turns out, the US ability to unite its allies has been met with increasing setbacks. When CNN picked up the topic again on Tuesday, commentator David A. Andelman adjusted the formulation, arguing President Donald Trump is cobbling together “a coalition-ofthe-willing” against China.

Andelman named Australia, India, Japan, Britain, France and Canada, listing their recent frictions with China, including the China-India border brawl, the UK’s ban on Huawei, Beijing-Tokyo territorial disputes, Australia’s cooling ties with China, and the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou by Canada.

The cases are used as an excuse to claim those countries are “prepared” and “ready” to participate in an anti-China alliance.

The real question is how willing are they to join the coalition. The author just randomly listed countries with differences with China, which does not mean anything. Disputes between the same countries and the US can also be easily enumerated.

Anyone with a sober mind can tell a major reason of London’s decision to ban Huawei is to appease Washington to secure easier access to the US market after Brexit. If it were not for the high pressure from the US, London would be more interested in seeking maximum benefits by cooperating with both Beijing and Washington, which explains the UK’s previous changes in Huawei policy, and its earlier undecided posture over the issue.

The US and Canada seem to be good neighbors, but their relations are filled with ups and downs. Setting aside their territorial disputes, Washington is quite bossy to Ottawa. Take the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump threatened to leave Canada out of the deal more than once to coerce the latter to concede to terms preferred by the US.

Washington has imposed waves of economic sanctions on Tokyo. The past few years saw Japan change its tough attitude toward China while adopting a flexible and pragmatic tactic in dealing with China and the US.

France has long been dissatisfied with Europe relying heavily on the US on security, and is proactively promoting EU’s strategic autonomy.

India’s anti-China policy is more like a cheap copy of US bipartisan political fights, to win more votes.

Australia seems to be reckless by following the US too closely in its anti-China rhetoric. Yet, some Australian politicians call for diplomatic independence from time to time.

Even if Washington establishes such a coalition, it is hardly a coalition of the willing, but a coalition of the coerced with different calculations.

Such a coalition resembles ties between the Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War, when there were no diversified diplomacies, but only unified ideology-based policies.

Could US allies possibly be unaware of the fact that Washington’s primary goal is to promote antiChina policies to secure Trump’s position in the Oval Office? How much benefit would that bring to US allies? They will not take real action in following Washington, apart from verbally endorsing the US’ decision. In the end, economic and social development, tackling the crisis and an independent diplomacy are those countries’ own realistic pursuits.

When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Denmark in July, he wanted to shake hands upon arrival, yet was only offered shoulder pats and elbow bumps instead, which showed that Europe is unwilling to sacrifice its interests when seemingly showing a welcome attitude toward the US.

The “willingness” to stand by the US’ side is probably the most difficult thing the US could obtain from its allies today.

The “willingness” to stand by the US’ side is probably the most difficult thing the US could obtain from its allies today.