The Times has published a thought-provoking editorial titled 'Safeguarding Scholarship'. It references the guidelines 'Managing risks in Internationalisation: Security related issues', which were published by @UUKIntl today 1/10
While there is much to like about this timely and important @UUKIntl initiative, there are also shortcomings which need to be addressed. Let me highlight the strengths of the report and then point out areas for improvement 2/10
The report is country agnostic and calls for 1. Protecting your reputation and values, 2. Protecting your people, 3. Protecting your campuses, and 4. Protecting your partnerships. This is a comprehensive list of activity areas 3/10
In terms of 1. Protecting your reputation and values @UUKIntl rightly emphasizes the need for due diligence and promoting the values of UK higher education. As @adrianzenz pointed out, even animal husbandry could get a NZ university into hot water 4/10
When it comes to 2. Protecting your people the guidelines become less useful. The joint statement "The Hong Kong National Security Law is an assault on academic freedom" made clear that unis struggle to protect the sanctity of the classroom 5/10
As The Times reports today "some Hong Kong students ... told The Times that the guidance 'only addressed the symptom, not the cause' of China's influence on campuses. They spoke anonymously to protect their families from retribution" 6/10
The Times cites Prof Chris Hughes saying: "A good example would be making all agreements public, such as with Confucius Institutes ... which are kept secret.' Asking students to be anonymous was a slippery slope: 'Are we really going down the route of self-censorship?'" 7/10
To their credit @UUKIntl is fully aware that in order to manage the risks in internationalisation British universities need "transformational and cultural change, as well as changes to institutional systems, processes and policies" 8/10
Relevant British government departments and @UUKIntl should consider the Code of Conduct promoted by the newly established Academic Freedom and Internationalisation Working Group @AcFreeWorldUK 9/10
The key to success is for all stakeholders to work together. As I have said before, a democratic united front of academic leaders, politicians and senior government officials is needed to mount a common defence of our academic freedoms /End
Over 100 leading scholars have called for a united front in defence of academic freedoms amid increasing pressure from the Chinese government since the passing of Hong Kong’s National Security Law. 1/32
The group of international signatories includes some of the world’s leading authorities on Chinese politics, law, and modern history. The statement notes that the universal jurisdiction claimed by Article 38 of the National Security Law ... 2/32
... raises the unsettling prospect of students travelling through Hong Kong and China facing the possibility of being handed lengthy prison sentences on the basis of academic work deemed to be ‘subversive’ by Chinese authorities. 3/32
Why is it taking so long for the German government to abandon its failed China policy of 'change through trade'? A thread 1/11
When it comes to the People's Republic of China (henceforth #China), the German government has largely engaged in foreign trade promotion (Außenwirtschaftsförderung) 2/11
In his PhD thesis Norbert Schultes has pointed out that in foreign trade promotion the German government has let the private sector take the lead, which explains the highly corporatist approach 3/11
Germany's new policy paper on the Indo-Pacific region has led to speculation that Berlin may be about to change its traditionally Beijing-friendly foreign policy approach.
Not so fast. Here are the key takeaways from my @RUSI_org Commentary 1/13
While paying lip service to security matters, a more active German role is not aimed at strengthening the US-led security architecture in East & Southeast Asia.
In the guidelines' preface Foreign Minister Maas seeks to distance Germany from the increasing US–China rivalry 2/13
The new policy announcement also offers no critical self-reflection about Germany's failed 'change through trade' policy vis-a-vis China 3/13
An "Interim Statement on the Implications of China’s New National Security Law for UK Universities" has been published by the British Association for Chinese Studies (BACS) @bacs_china. What follows is the statement as a thread. 1/22
"China’s new National Security Law of 1st July 2020 brings forth new considerations and challenges for employees in UK Universities as line-managers, mentors and teachers" 2/22
"BACS has signed the (US) Association for Asian Studies statement on the National Security Law, joining over twenty other scholarly societies." 3/22
What does it mean to teach and research contemporary China under the conditions of the so-called Hong Kong National Security Law? 1/10
The key problem facing any scholar who deals with mainland China is Chinese Communist Party (CCP) censorship and the fear of losing access by being an outspoken critic of the regime 2/10
The CCP's so-called National Security Law effectively codifies the illiberal tenets of previous oral and written party directives such as the '7 Don't Speaks' and 'Document No 9'. It now directly endangers scholars, even those who work outside mainland China & Hong Kong 3/10
Those who argue that Western China engagement led to the development of China’s civil society are only partly right. Civil society assistance has always been limited to few selected grant makers. Much more could have been done /1
For more context see also my open access research paper on how foundations—foreign and domestic, public and private, operating and grant making—have engaged with Chinese civil society organisations in an authoritarian political context /2
Another open access research article of mine showed how German development aid failed to comprehensively support participatory development in the PR China. The German government did too little to support China’s civil society /3