Minxin Pei advises how to deal with a China, that is exerting influence across the globe, amid growing concern about Beijing’s attempts to shape policy-making and public opinion in countries overseas. China maintains that it – unlike Western powers – does not interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. Yet each country seeks to attract support abroad and sway other countries towards its own priorities, interests and perspectives.

With its economic might, China is “investing resources in efforts to do some inducing of its own in the world’s democracies.” It has also taken “a page from their own playbook, as it exploits their openness to advance its ideological and geopolitical objectives,” as well as to win sympathy. In the West, Beijing’s “influence-peddling” is strategic and multifaceted, which “has been the subject of media reports and think tank studies.”

China’s “influence operations” – according to the author – include “cultivating ties with Western politicians,” and appointing them to high-profile roles in Chinese companies. Its non-profit organisation – the Confucius Institutes around the world “to promote Chinese language and culture, expanding the global reach of China’s official propaganda networks, and donations to and exchange programs with academic institutions” – is said to be a vehicle for the projection of soft power, using the guise of education to subvert academic freedom worldwide.

Other not benign activities are to “guide” the diaspora and enlist it for political activity; to control Chinese-language media overseas through acquisition by entrepreneurs with ties to Beijing; to promote partnerships with universities in order to shape research and limit critical debate. Rather than coercing, China manipulates, preferring to act in moral and legal gray areas. The political motives behind laudable cultural projects are well hidden, blurring the battle line with its adversaries. Critics say the method is subtle, with the other side not realising it had been gamed, or that a strategic game was even going on.

The author says “Western leaders and institutions should distinguish between state-sponsored activities and legitimate, mutually beneficial cultural, civic, and educational exchanges among private citizens and entities.” He warns against the “United Front Work Department” which is linked to the Chinese Communist Party and oversees a dozen organisations that do political networking, through both persuasion and infiltration overseas.

Some “ostensibly independent or private activities” with Chinese individuals “can carry political and reputational risks for Western organizations, which may be accused of acting as ‘agents of influence’ for China.” While it is well-advised to exercise “vigilance”, one should not over-react and miss a valuable “opportunity for cooperation with Chinese entities and individuals.” When a donation is transparent with no strings attached, it should not be pose a problem.

Chinese state media has complained about “hysterical paranoia” with racist undertones in Australia, which introduced a bill banning foreign donations. In an era of xenophobia there is good reason to worry that members of the Chinese diaspora could face unfair suspicion. They could be exposed to “discrimination and potentially even subjecting them to surveillance.” The author says it would be “grave injustice,” because China already has a “long record of exploiting its diaspora for economic and political gain.”

China’s cultural exchanges with the West and its language institutes would unlikely undermine Western “liberal-democratic values” and the “unparalleled resilience” of these institutions. “In fact, what is most notable about China’s efforts to spread its influence abroad is not their success, but the ease with which they are exposed. Portraying them as a genuine threat to the world’s democracies not only betrays the West’s own insecurity, but also gives China more credit than it deserves.”