The Chinese government’s insistence on a pledge of allegiance to the Communist Party from its students studying abroad has proved costly to China, as several foreign universities have severed ties with Chinese institutions or suspended student exchange programs. The Chinese government demands that students studying abroad pledge loyalty to the Communist Party and agree to obey the Chinese embassy in the respective countries where they are studying or planning to study. This behavior has raised serious security concerns, in addition to other issues.
Taiwan’s recent decision to ban university exchanges with Chinese institutions has placed the spotlight on China. Taiwan has barred its universities from collaborating with three mainland Chinese institutions on the grounds that these institutions have close ties with Beijing’s overseas propaganda apparatus. In total, there are seven Chinese universities under MIIT, known as the “national defense seven.” These include Beihang University, Beijing Institute of Technology, NorthwesternPolytechnical University, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, and Harbin Engineering University.
By taking such action, Taiwan has joined a growing list of countries that have suspended student exchange programs with China due to concerns over trust. In October of last year, two prestigious Dutch universities discontinued their scholarship programs for Chinese PhD students, citing security reasons. Eindhoven University of Technology ended its CSC program, and Maastricht University refused to renew its contract with China. Dutch universities have also shown reluctance to admit PhD candidates with Chinese scholarships, a topic that was covered in an investigative report by the Dutch newspaper Trouw.
In January, the University of Michigan (U-M) in the U.S. decided to end its partnership with China’s Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), a highly ranked institution known for its science and engineering programs. This decision followed a U.S. government report on national security concerns. The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) report specifically identified U.S.-China academic joint institutes as “core channels” through which sensitive U.S. technologies and research knowledge are transferred to China’s defense and research sectors. The report raised alarms over the role of SJTU, which is home to several defense-related laboratories contributing to China’s most sensitive defense programs, including nuclear weapons, carrier rockets, satellites, nuclear submarines, and fighter jets.
John Moolenaar, chair of the Select Committee, wrote to U-M President Santa Ono in October, urging the university to “conduct a comprehensive national security review of this partnership.” He further stated that research conducted at the joint institute advanced the PRC’s defense and intelligence capabilities. Moolenaar requested U-M to end its partnership with SJTU in order to protect the integrity of federally funded research and carefully vet international students studying on U-M’s campus.
Four years ago, the U.S. State Department ended five cultural exchange programs with China, as these programs were found to be fully funded and operated by the Chinese government as soft power propaganda tools. These terminated programs included the Policymakers Educational China Trip Program, the U.S.-China Friendship Program, the U.S.-China Leadership Exchange Program, the U.S.-China Transpacific Exchange Program, and the Hong Kong Educational and Cultural Program.
In late 2020, the Georgia Institute of Technology also found it difficult to maintain ties with Tianjin University. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had accused the Chinese Communist Party of “poisoning the wells” of American higher education institutions. Tianjin University was subsequently placed on the U.S. Entity List by the Commerce Department.
The breakdown of university exchanges threatens international understanding and collaborative research. For example, Cornell University’s plans to establish a dual degree program faced significant opposition from its Faculty Senate, citing concerns about academic freedom, transparency, and Beijing’s human rights violations, including the mass detention of Uyghurs.
These incidents have sparked discussions within both academic and political circles around the world regarding partnerships with China and the true intentions behind university-level ties and student exchange programs. The role of Confucius Institutes has also come under scrutiny, with Taiwan imposing a ban on its citizens from working at these institutes, which are often seen as tools for political influence. Taiwan blacklisted several organizations, including the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), China’s semi-official body handling relations with Taiwan, and the All-China Youth Federation.
The growing reluctance to engage in academic exchanges with China signals a significant shift in global attitudes toward Chinese influence in higher education. With several countries taking a cautious stance, this could have a lasting impact on international educational collaborations and people-to-people exchanges.
The Chinese government’s demands for loyalty pledges from students abroad and its use of educational exchanges for political purposes are creating significant challenges for international academic cooperation. As more countries, including Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the U.S., impose restrictions or sever ties with Chinese institutions, China is increasingly losing credibility on the global stage. It is high time that the global community takes a firm stand against China’s nefarious designs and safeguard the integrity of international academic exchanges.