Thursday, October 26, 2017

CCP - 21stC Propaganda

22-3-28 China's Economic Rise—End of the Road - cfr > .
22-3-26 Cornell University is in Bed With The CCP - cfc > .
22-2-14 Arrogant Bullying Punishment of China's Enemies - VP > . skip ad > .
> PLA > 

CCP - 21stC Propaganda ..

Censorship

.
Victory at any Cost? - Allied Censorship (UK, USA) - WW2 > .

Censorship was not just a practice in totalitarian regimes. During WW2, democratic liberties in Allied countries often clashed with propaganda and restrictions of the press.

The British government declared war on Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939. "The declaration came after eleven days of mounting international tension and was just one part of a flurry of governmental activity. Over three million people had already been evacuated, five million posters had been printed, 15 million ration books awaited delivery, thousands of temporary civil servants had been employed, and a handful of new government departments were ready to organise life on what was referred to as the ‘Home Front’.

The Ministry of Information was among the most high profile of these new departments. The Ministry was in many ways an unprecedented experiment in the British government’s control of communication. It was designed as ‘the centre for the distribution of all information concerning the war’. This meant that, unlike its First World War namesake, it would be responsible for both the issue and censorship of news.

Formed on September 4th 1939, the day after Britain's declaration of war, the Ministry of Information (MOI) was the central government department responsible for publicity and propaganda in the Second World War. The initial functions of the MOI were threefold: news and press censorship; home publicity; and overseas publicity in Allied and neutral countries. Planning for such an organisation had started in October 1935 under the auspices of the Committee for Imperial Defence, largely conducted in secret; otherwise the government was publicly admitting the inevitability of war. Propaganda was still tainted by the experience of the First World War. In the ‘Great War', several different agencies had been responsible for propaganda, except for a brief period when there had been a Department of Information (1917) and a Ministry of Information (1918) Planning for the new MOI was largely organised by volunteers drawn from a wide range of government departments, public bodies and specialist outside organisations.

In the 1930s communications activities had become a recognised function of government. Many departments however had established public relations divisions, and were reluctant to give this up to central control. In early 1939 documents noted concern that the next war would be ‘a war of nerves' involving the civilian population, and that the government would need to go further than ever before with every means of publicity ‘utilised and co-ordinated', as it fought against a well-funded and established Nazi machine. Threatened by censorship, the press reacted negatively to the MOI, describing it as shambolic and disorganised, and as a result it underwent many structural changes throughout the war. Four Ministers headed the MOI in quick succession: Lord Hugh Macmillan, Sir John Reith and Duff Cooper, before the Ministry settled down under Brendan Bracken in July 1941. Supported by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the press, Bracken remained in office until victory was obvious.

The Ministry was responsible for information policy and the output of propaganda material in Allied and neutral countries, with overseas publicity organised geographically. American and Empire Divisions continued throughout the war, other areas being covered by a succession of different divisions. The MOI was not, in general, responsible for propaganda in enemy and enemy-occupied countries, but it did liaise directly with the Foreign Office.

For home publicity, the Ministry dealt with the planning of general government or interdepartmental information, and provided common services for public relations activities of other government departments. The Home Publicity Division (HPD) undertook three types of campaigns, those requested by other government departments, specific regional campaigns, and those it initiated itself. Before undertaking a campaign, the MOI would ensure that propaganda was not being used as a substitute for other activities, including legislation.

The General Production Division (GPD), one of the few divisions to remain in place throughout the war, undertook technical work under Edwin Embleton. The GPD often produced work in as little as a week or a fortnight, when normal commercial practice was three months. Artists were not in a reserved occupation and were liable for call up for military service along with everyone else. Many were recalled from the services to work for the Ministry in 1942, a year in which £4 million was spent on publicity, approximately a third more than in 1941. £120,000 of this was spent on posters, art and exhibitions. Many extra designs were pre-prepared in order to cope with short lead-times and the changing events of war. Through the Home Intelligence Division, the MOI collected reactions to general wartime morale and, in some cases, specifically to publicity produced.

Press censorship in the Second World War worked on a principle of self-enforcement. Newspapers were issued with guidance about topics that were subject to censorship and invited to submit any story that might be covered by these so-called ‘Defence Notices’. Submitted stories would be scrutinised by the censor and redacted in accordance with the guidelines. Any information of potential military significance – from weather reports, to the exact location of troops – would be removed.

If a story were suitable for publication, it would be returned to the newspaper bearing an official stamp, with any changes marked in blue pencil. Any story that was not ‘Passed for Censorship’ was liable for prosecution if it were found to contravene the guidelines. Reports directly issued by the Ministry of Information were censored before release.

The system was designed to strike a balance between press freedom and national security. But it was only a week before it came to the brink of collapse. This was a result of a chaotic attempt to apply retrospective censorship to news about the arrival of the British Expeditionary Force in France. Subsequent events led to a crisis in government, stoked press hostility, and threatened the very existence of the Ministry of Information.

The crisis began at midday on Monday 11 September when an official broadcast in Paris wrongly announced that British troops were engaged in offensive action against Nazi forces. The claim was subsequently repeated in a second broadcast by the French author Roland Dorgeles. Before long, it had been cabled to the USA and spread worldwide by the United Press and Reuters press agencies.

In London, where news about the British Expeditionary Force had been subject to a D-Notice since the first landings on 4 September, officials in the Ministry of Information concluded that any military value in the news had been lost. And so they wrote to the War Office requesting that reports about the existence of British troops in France should be released.

It was 9pm before the War Office confirmed to the Chief Censor that the story could be released and 9.40pm before the decision was transmitted to the Ministry of Information’s Press Room. With the assembled journalists anxious to make their morning editions, many decided to submit drafts that had been prepared from the press agency reports of Dorgeles broadcast. These reports included the claim that British troops were engaged in active combat. Because the Censorship Division was under strict orders to confine the news to the bare fact that troops had arrived in France, all such reports were passed back to the War Office for further vetting. Their contents caused the military authorities considerable worry.

Leslie Hore-Belisha, the Secretary of State for War, was informed of the situation within an hour of the first reports reaching the War Office. He held an emergency telephone conversation with the Ministry of Information’s Deputy Director at 11pm but was unconvinced by the Ministry’s assurances. Fearing that the censors would not be able to protect vital information from leaking out, Hore-Belisha decided that the War Office would re-impose its original ban on the news at 11.30pm.

This decision forced the Ministry of Information to make a desperate request for retrospective self-censorship. It was explained that the previous decision was void and that any such mention could result in prosecution. Indeed ‘All possible steps’ would be taken to protect ‘the national interest’.

The Ministry was certain that editors would alter their front pages to ensure compliance with the new ruling. The Home Office, which had been contacted directly by Hore-Belisha, was not so sure and one unnamed senior official decided additional measures were necessary. Scotland Yard were instructed to arrange the seizure of all newspapers, police officers were deployed to newspaper offices and wholesale newsagents throughout Britain, roadblocks were erected in Fleet Street, and newspaper trains were stopped en route from London. The situation was widely described as one of ‘chaos’ and ‘complete confusion’.

The Ministry of Information continued to petition the War Office but their pleas were ignored. Things became almost farcical when the Ministry’s French equivalent (the Commissariat Génèral à l’Information) released additional information about the British troops in the early hours of 12 September. This led to a second change of heart in the War Office and the ban was finally lifted at 2.55am. However, the decision came too late for some newspapers to include the story in their early editions, and many papers were delivered hours late on the morning of Tuesday 12 September.

The events of 11-12 September led to a storm of criticism in the press. An editorial in the Daily Mirror attacked ‘muddle-headed bureaucrats’ and accused the government of acting in a ‘true Gestapo manner’. The Daily Mail pointed out that ‘all of the details originally given were originally passed by Ministry of Information censors’ and claimed that some had been ‘suggested by Ministry officials’. This theme was continued by the Daily Express which singled out Hore-Belisha for blame.

The situation became more serious when Francis Williams, the editor of the Daily Herald, pressed the opposition Labour Party to find out why he had been woken at 1.45am to be told that the police had seized control of his office. The parliamentary debate held on Wednesday 13 September served to shift the blame back onto the Ministry of Information. This changed the nature of debate within government and the Ministry came under pressure to undertake radical reform.

This was a defining moment in the British government’s relationship with the press. After two weeks of further criticism, it was decided that the current system was broken beyond repair. The Ministry of Information’s responsibility for issuing and censoring news was duly removed on 9 October 1939 and passed to an independent Press and Censorship Bureau. This episode brought the Ministry to the brink of collapse and necessitated a lengthy process of rebuilding that was not completed until 1942.

The War proved to be a tough test of the BBC's independence. At times the Government and the military wanted to use the BBC to counter crude propaganda from the Nazis, and there was talk in Westminster of taking over the BBC.

The temptation to interfere was greatest in the early days of the war, when the Government was confronted with the startling success of William Joyce, known as 'Lord Haw-Haw' to the millions of British listeners who tuned to Radio Hamburg. Through the first months of the war - the 'phoney war', in which no direct threat to the UK was evident - Haw Haw's humorous take on Britain and the British proved light relief from the dull diet of the Home Service.

But the Corporation argued that to put out clumsy rebuttals at the behest of Government would dignify Haw-Haw's propaganda, and undermine the trust of the audience. In the long run, a trusted news source for audiences at home and abroad would be a more potent weapon.

In fact the Government had recognised this long before hostilities broke out. Throughout the 1930s, as the Nazi threat was looming over Europe, then Director-General John Reith was in secret discussion with the Cabinet over broadcasting arrangements in the event of war. It was agreed that the BBC should seek to report events truthfully and accurately, but not in such detail as to endanger the civilian population or jeopardise operations.

The result was that the BBC did report setbacks as well as successes. It would say, for instance, that bombs had fallen and that there were casualties. But precise number of casualties and the location and time of a bombing would often be withheld, so that the enemy would not know which of its missions had found the target.

In practice, the BBC and the Goverment did not always see eye to eye in squaring what the nation needed to know with what the Ministry of Information felt should be concealed, and at times the relationship was difficult. Frederick Ogilvie, who had succeeded John Reith as Director-General in 1939, found the pressure too great, and he resigned early in 1942.

Listening to BBC broadcasts (or any other banned broadcasts) in occupied countries was often punishable by death. In Poland it was illegal to even possess a radio. For these audiences the BBC broadcast a special news service in morse code, so that sympathisers could publish the reports in their illegal newspapers.

The correspondents were equally frustrated. Frank Gillard's report of the futile assault at Dieppe in 1942, when more than 3,000 Canadian troops were killed, wounded or captured, was heavily censored, to his life-long disgust. And after the German surrender in 1945, Richard Dimbleby threatened to quit if the BBC did not put out his report on the horrors of Belsen. As it was, the Corporation delayed the broadcast for a day while it considered the impact that such stark revelations about the Holocaust would have at home and abroad..

In many ways the World War 2 made the BBC. The fact that for decades after the war people in the Iron Curtain countries risked their lives to listen to the BBC is testimony to the reputation for integrity that it built up in the face of the Nazi threat.

Lord Haw-Haw: William Joyce was a UK citizen who, at the height of his popularity as a Hamburg Radio announcer, drew audiences of six million with his entertaining commentary on British life each evening after the 9 o'clock news. But there was a sinister side to his broadcasts, which sought to undermine the allied war effort, and which were worryingly well-informed.

In one broadcast he gave a special mention 'to all of the BBC based out in Evesham', to the infuriation of the staff. Two curious facts about Joyce: his brother worked at the BBC until he was persuaded by events to join the army; and the Germans bombed the family home in London during the blitz. After the Nazi surrender Joyce was tried and hanged for treason.

The Battle of the Beams: During World War 2 BBC engineers were engaged in a secret and highly technical battle with the Luftwaffe.

The Nazis introduced their 'Knickebein' (crooked leg) navigation system, which used two radio signals, transmitted from two different sites in occupied Europe, to guide bombers to their targets in Britain. The two beams would be aimed so that they crossed above the target. Pilots would fly along one beam, and release their bombs when they picked up the signal from the other.

But after the British thwarted these assaults by putting out spoiler signals from UK transmitters on the same frequencies, the Germans devised the X-Gerat system. This was similar, but used several cross-signals to give greater accuracy. The destruction of Coventry on 14 November 1940 is testimony to just how devastating it could be.

Then, when the British worked out how to jam that system, the Nazis introduced even more sophisticated technology, the Y-Gerat system. A single transmitter, using two signals of different frequencies, would point the bombers in the right direction, and then tell them when they were over the target.

But by now, thanks to information gleaned from German PoWs, the British were ahead of the game, and BBC engineers based at Alexandra Palace deployed their London transmitters - idle since the closure of the television service on the day war was declared - to beam Y-Gerat signals back at the advancing aircraft, and thus confuse their instruments.

The Unmentionables: For most of the war the broadcasters were banned from mentioning the weather. No references to conditions more recent than the day before could be given out, as this would reveal conditions for bombing. Other unmentionables were names of military regiments, or the whereabouts of members of the Royal Family.

On the outbreak of war in September 1939 responsibility for postal and telegraph censorship was placed on the Army Council operating through the director of military intelligence. In April 1940 responsibility for the postal and cable censorship sections was transferred to the Ministry of Information, though they remained distinct elements within the ministry's organisation. On 6 April 1943, on Treasury authority, the Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department was established as a separate department with its own director general, though the Minister of Information remained responsible to Parliament for its work.

The department undertook all measures in connection with the imposition of postal and telecommunications censorship in the United Kingdom, together with the censorship of documents carried by travellers departing from and arriving in the country. It was also responsible for the co-ordination, through its overseas staff, of censorship measures in the field throughout the Empire and other areas of British interest and in association with Allied postal and telegraph censorship organisation. The broad framework of the department consisted of a central secretariat and other branches serving the whole department; Postal and Telegraph Censorship Branches, each maintaining units in London and other large centres in the United Kingdom; a Regional Organisation in the civil defence regional headquarters throughout Great Britain; and Overseas Organisation consisting of controllers or liaison officers in foreign, dominion and colonial centres; and a number of small specialised sections.

On 30 September 1945 all censorship operations in the United Kingdom ceased, except those in respect of correspondence of enemy prisoners of war. 

In March 1946, the MOI was dissolved. Its residual functions passed to the Central Office of Information (COI), a central organisation providing common and specialist information services. The Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department was wound up and those residual functions transferred to the charge of the Home Office on 1 April 1946. A Planning Section was established on 7 May 1946, the responsibility for the work of which was transferred to the Ministry of Defence on 26 May 1959.

The Ministry of Information is the subject of a major AHRC-funded research project being undertaken by the School of Advanced Study in collaboration with The National Archives and the Department of Digital Humanities at King’s College London.

More http://www.moidigital.ac.uk .

The Office of Censorship was an emergency wartime agency set up by the United States federal government on December 19, 1941 to aid in the censorship of all communications coming into and going out of the United States, including its territories and the Philippines. The efforts of the Office of Censorship to balance the protection of sensitive war related information with the constitutional freedoms of the press is considered largely successful.

The agency's implementation of censorship was done primarily through a voluntary regulatory code that was willingly adopted by the press. The phrase "loose lips sink ships" was popularized during WW2, which is a testament to the urgency Americans felt to protect information relating to the war effort. Radio broadcasts, newspapers, and newsreels were the primary ways Americans received their information about WW2 and therefore were the medium most affected by the Office of Censorship code. The closure of the Office of Censorship in November 1945 corresponded with the ending of WW2.

20th

21st

Cinema & Propaganda

.


● Film, Photographs, Posters, TV ..

Colourized

'Colour allows us to understand in a deeper sense': Hitler, Churchill and others in a new light: The story of global conflict is all the more powerful when it isn’t seen in black and white. Artist Marina Amaral explains her latest work

CONfucius Xuānchuán CCP Institutes

2020 CONfucius Institutes | Full Measure > .
24-4-17 [Open Translation Act 2024 - translating & interpreting X's OS ] - Update > .
22-10-17 China Rebrands Confucius Institutes to Hide Subversive Past - Unc > .
22-9-9 No, China is Not A Peaceful Nation - laowhy86 > .
22-2-14 Arrogant Bullying Punishment of China's Enemies - VP > . skip ad > .

videoA recent report released by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reported that, of the 118 Confucius Institutes (CIs) opened at U.S. universities over the past few years, at least 104 have closed their doors. However, the report warns, at least 38 universities have reportedly replaced the programs run at the CIs with identical activities, but under a different name. This would have allowed the universities to continue their relations with the Chinese communist regime that promoted these Institutes, but disassociating themselves from the CIs themselves, which in recent times have been the subject of much controversy and criticism.
...
Since 2004, the Chinese government has sponsored Confucius Institutes on college and university campuses around the world, providing teachers, textbooks, and operating funds. NAS’s 2017 report, Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education, found that Confucius Institutes undermine academic integrity and import censorship.
...
Some are urging American colleges to shut down their China-funded Confucius Institutes. Critics claims the learning centers could be used as tools for China to spy, and influence our students. Defenders say the threat is overblown.

Xuānchuán - CCP Propaganda ..

The Standard Chinese word xuanchuan "dissemination; propaganda; publicity" originally meant "to announce or convey information" during the 3rd-century Three Kingdoms period, and was chosen to translate Russian propagánda пропаганда in the 20th-century People's Republic of China, adopting the Marxist-Leninist concept of a "transmission belt" for indoctrination and mass mobilization. Xuanchuan is the keyword for propaganda in the People's Republic of China and propaganda in the Republic of China.

As China's involvement in world affairs grew in the late 20th century, the CCP became sensitive to the negative connotations of the English word propaganda, and the commonly used Chinese term xuanchuan acquired pejorative connotations. In 1992, Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin asked one of the CCP's most senior translators to come up with a better euphemistic English alternative to propaganda as the translation of xuanchuan for propaganda targeting foreign audiences. Replacement [euphemistic] English translations include publicity, information, and political communication domestically, or media diplomacy and cultural exchange internationally.

Confucius Institutes (CI; 孔子学院; Kǒngzǐ Xuéyuàn) are public educational and cultural promotion programs funded and arranged currently by the Chinese International Education Foundation and formerly by Hanban, an organization affiliated with the Chinese government. The stated aim of the program is to promote Chinese language and culture, support local Chinese teaching internationally, and facilitate cultural exchanges. The organization has been criticized over concerns of the Chinese government's undue overseas influence and suppression of academic freedom.

The Confucius Institute program began in 2004 and was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education-affiliated Hanban (officially the Office of Chinese Language Council International, which changed its name to Center for Language Education and Cooperation in 2020), overseen by individual universities. ...

Some commentators argue, unlike [other national language instruction] organizations, many Confucius Institutes operate directly on university campuses, thus giving rise to what they see as unique concerns related to academic freedom and political influence.

Confucius Institutes are used as a form of "soft power" by China, and the Chinese government spends approximately $10 billion a year on CIs and related programs to exercise these initiatives. Communist Party of China general secretary Xi Jinping in 2013 stated that the intentions are to "give a good praise-filled Chinese narrative". Being affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education, CIs have received increasing scepticism over its censorship of content taught, such as topics related to individual freedoms and democracy, Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.

There have been a number of reports pointing to controversial incidents in the past, including a former senior CCP official, Li Changchun's comment that Confucius Institutes are "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". In July 2020, Hanban announced its renaming to the Center for Language Education and Cooperation, stating that The Confucius Institute was handed over to Chinese International Education Foundation, a self-described "non-governmental private organization" [as though the CCP permits non-governmental organizations!]. On 13 August 2020, the United States Department of State designated the headquarters of the Confucius Institute in the U.S. as a foreign mission of China. This designation has been protested [of course!] by the Center in an open letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

In the short time-frame of their rapid expansion, the institutes have been the subject of much controversy. Criticisms of the institutes have included administrative concerns about finance, academic viability, legal issues, and relations with the Chinese partner university, as well as broader concerns about improper influence over teaching and research, industrial and military espionage, surveillance of Chinese abroad, and undermining Taiwanese influence. There has also been organized opposition to the establishment of a Confucius Institute at University of MelbourneUniversity of ManitobaStockholm UniversityUniversity of Chicago and many others. More significantly, some universities that hosted Confucius Institutes decided to terminate their contracts. These include Japan's Osaka Sangyo University in 2010; Canada's McMaster University and Université de Sherbrooke, and France's University of Lyon in 2013; the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, and the Toronto District School Board in 2014, the German Stuttgart Media University and University of Hohenheim in 2015, and Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2019.

Controversy regarding Confucius Institutes in the US, Australian, and Canadian press includes criticism that unlike other governments' language and culture promotion organizations, the Confucius Institutes operate within established universities, colleges, and secondary schools around the world, providing funding, teachers and educational materials. This has raised concerns over their [oppressive] influence on academic freedom, the possibility of industrial espionage, and concerns that the institutes present a selective and politicized view of China as a means of advancing the country's soft power internationally.

Underlying such opposition is concern by professors that a Confucius Institute would interfere with academic freedom and be able to pressure the university to censor speech on topics the CCP objects to. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education asserts that there is little evidence of meddling from China, although the same article did go on to say the institutes were "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government." After interviewing China scholars, journalists and CI directors, a writer for The Diplomat, a publication covering politics, society, and culture in the Indo-Pacific region, also found little support for the concern that CIs would serve as propaganda vehicles, though some of her sources did note that they would face constraints in their curriculum on matters such as Tibet and human rights. An article in The New York Times quotes Arthur Waldron, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, saying that the key issue is academic independence. "Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus, you have a second source of opinions and authority that is ultimately answerable to the Chinese Communist Party and which is not subject to scholarly review."

In October 2013, University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins published an extensive investigative article criticizing the Confucius Institutes and the universities hosting them. Later, more than 100 faculty members signed a protest against the Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago. In September 2014, the University of Chicago suspended its negotiation for renewal of the agreement with Hanban. Two months later, the Canadian Association of University Teachers urged Canadian universities and colleges to end ties with the Confucius Institute.

In June 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a statement urging American universities to cease their collaboration with the Confucius Institute unless the universities can have unilateral control of the academia affairs, that the teachers in Confucius Institutes can have the same academic freedom enjoyed by other university faculty members, and that the agreements between universities and Confucius Institutes are available to the community. The AAUP statement was widely noticed by US media and prompted extensive further debate in the US.

Two months later, in August 2014, Xu Lin, Director-General of the Hanban and Chief Executive of the CIs worldwide, became embroiled in an incident in Braga, Portugal, when Xu ordered her staff to rip pages referring to Taiwanese academic institutions from the published program for the European Association for Chinese Studies conference in Braga, claiming the materials were "contrary to Chinese regulations". When Roger Greatrex, president of the EACS, learned of this censorship, he ordered that 500 copies of the original program immediately be printed and distributed to participants. He later wrote, "The seizure of the materials in such an unauthorized manner, after the conference had already begun, was extremely injudicious, and has promoted a negative view of the Confucius Institute Headquarters". The EACS letter of protest said this had been "the first occasion in the history of the EACS that its conference materials have been censored." It concluded, "Such interference in the internal organization of the international conference of an independent and democratically organized non-profitable academic organization is totally unacceptable." The Wall Street Journal described Xu's attempted censorship as the "bullying approach to academic freedom".

In September 2014, the University of Chicago closed their CI after pressure from faculty members, blaming Xu's comments that her threatening letter and phone call forced the university to continue hosting the institute. The Business Spectator concludes that the Xu Lin's hardline behavior highlights one of the biggest problems for Beijing's charm offensive. "It still relies on officials like Xu, who still think and act like party ideologues who like to assert their authority and bully people into submission." Less than a week later, Pennsylvania State University also cut ties with the Confucius Institute after coming to the conclusion that "its objectives were not in line with the Institute's".

In December 2014, Stockholm University, the first university in Europe to host a Confucius Institute, announced it was terminating the program. Press coverage of the Braga incident in the Swedish press was said to have influenced the decision. "Generally it is questionable to have, within the framework of the university, institutes that are financed by another country," said the university's chancellor.

In the same month, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations held a hearing entitled "Is Academic Freedom Threatened by China's Influence on U.S. Universities?" Chairman Chris Smith said, "U.S. colleges and universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight or curriculum to a foreign government", and called for a GAO study into agreements between American universities and China. On 5 December 2014, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied the House testimony and said "We have assisted with supplying teachers and textbooks at the request of the U.S. side but have never interfered with academic freedom."

Controversy continued in 2018 as U.S. Congress members from Texas wrote a letter to four universities in that state urging them to close their Confucius Institutes. Texas A&M did so shortly after receiving the letter. Throughout 2018 and 2019, all of the institutes in Florida were closed: the University of West Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of South Florida, and Miami Dade College.

A U.S. law passed in 2019 that prohibits universities hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving funding for Chinese language studies from the Department of Defense led to more closures of Confucius Institutes. Unable to obtain a waiver from the Department of Defense, Indiana University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Rhode Island, San Francisco State University, the University of Oregon, Western Kentucky University, Arizona State University, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and San Diego State University closed their programs in 2019. In 2020, the University of Maryland also announced the closure of its Confucius Institute, the oldest one in the U.S.

On 19 February 2019, Leiden University in The Netherlands promised to end its agreement with Confucius Institute in August 2019. On June 30, 2021, Baruch College - The City University of New York - ended its agreement with the Confucius Institute.

In 2020, Sweden ended agreements with all Confucius Institutes in the country. Management consultant Ross Feingold said the closure of the Confucius Institutes was the result of Sweden taking a much tougher view of China, as a result of Swedish national Gui Minhai being imprisoned for 10 years, and also comments by China's ambassador to Sweden, Gui Congyou, who threatened Sweden during an interview with broadcaster Swedish PEN in November 2019 saying that "We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we got shotguns." over the decision to award Gui Minhai with the Tucholsky Prize, the ambassador later clarified saying that China would impose trade restrictions on Sweden for this award. The embassy has systematically worked to influence the reporting on China by Swedish journalists.

On 13 August 2020, U.S. Department of State designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of the PRC. On 8 March 2021, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would restrict colleges hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving some federal funding.

According to the Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine report on July 3, 2021, the Göttingen Young Union (Junge Union) City Association is striving for the University of Hannover and the University of Göttingen to terminate their cooperation with the Confucius Institute. The Youth League promoted a motion on the grounds that the Confucius Institute is under the control of the CCP and "is aimed at strengthening the propaganda of Beijing's totalitarian ideology and exerting harmful influence on German universities." Yuhan Huang from Kunming, Yunnan Province of China wrote the motion proposal. He came to Germany in 2018 and is a member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), a main German political party, and a member of the Young Union youth organization. He introduced the situation of the Confucius Institute to the members of the organization, and organized related activities in Germany to request the termination of the cooperation between the Confucius Institute and German universities.

On August 4, 2021, the Human Rights Foundation published a report stating that Confucius Institutes "cultivated a climate of intimidation and surveillance within American classrooms." and "Both information censorship and self-censorship are especially prevalent, as educators, researchers, administrators, and students alike are steered away from learning and critically thinking about topics that may be deemed sensitive to the Chinese government such as democracy, “the three T’s,” Hong Kong, the Uyghur genocide, and the CCP’s other prevailing human rights infringements."

The Confucius Institute has been alleged to have non-academic [political] goals. Li Changchun, the former 5th-highest-ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee said in 2007 that the Confucius Institutes were "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". Some foreign scholars have characterized the CI program as an exercise in soft power, expanding China's economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach through the promotion of Chinese language and culture, while others have suggested a possible role in intelligence collection. The soft power goals also include assuaging concerns of a "China threat" in the context of the country's increasingly powerful economy and military.

Retired British diplomat and China expert Roger Garside concludes in his submission to the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission that academic freedom is "inherently compromised by permitting a state agency controlled by the Communist Party of China to establish a teaching operation in any school or university".

While Chinese authorities have been cautious not to have CIs act as direct promoters of the party's political viewpoints, a few critics suggest that the Confucius Institutes function in this way. Officials say that one important goal of the institutes is to influence other countries' understanding of China. Peng Ming-min, a Taiwan independence activist and politician, claims that colleges and universities where a Confucius Institute is established have to sign a contract in which they declare their support for Beijing's "One China" policy. As a result, both Taiwan and Tibet become taboos at the institutes.

The CI's soft power goals are seen as an attempt by the PRC to modernize away from Soviet-influenced propaganda of the Maoist era. Other initiatives include Chinese contemporary art exhibitions, television programs, concerts by popular singers, translations of Chinese literature, and the expansion of state-run news channels such as Xinhua News Agency and China Central Television.

sī vīs pācem, parā bellum

igitur quī dēsīderat pācem praeparet bellum    therefore, he who desires peace, let him prepare for war sī vīs pācem, parā bellum if you wan...