This essay will examine modern Chinese nationalism and its implications for U.S. education and national security policy. As a case study in transnational identity, this essay considers U.S. study abroad policy in the context of the global balancing act between neo-liberalism and national objectives. Globalization has removed many obstacles to study abroad throughout the world. Open, liberalized foreign enrollment policies have provided a means to develop strong cultural, economic, and diplomatic ties among many of the world’s nation-states. In the developing world, this trend has provided an opportunity for nations to send their talent abroad with the expectation that they return with skills necessary to develop their respective societies. In many Western countries, the dominant destination for study abroad, this trend has also served as a means to generate revenue as institutions struggle with finances. As Lingard and Rizvi (2009) have observed, “the educational rationale underlying international education is largely concerned with the development of skills, attitudes and knowledge so that, upon their return, graduates can make a robust contribution to national development…in the developed countries, universities see student mobility as a major source of revenue to replace the declining level of public funds” (p.169). Additionally, in a globally competitive market, internationalized education has brought highly skilled potential workers into mainstream U.S. society to contribute to various companies competing in the global knowledge economy. While the tangible benefits for internationalized higher education are clear to see, potential drawbacks are also prevalent, particularly in the context of post-9/11 society.

Globalization discourse suggests that the role of the traditional nation-state is being reduced with the growing influence of international corporations. However, in many cases, the nation-state and subsequent state-led nationalism remain strong. In the case of China, a nation with an ever strong central government presence, several scholars have noted the emergence of a growing nationalism, commonly at odds with the U.S., as the country’s economic growth continues to boost national confidence. As a developing country, China’s educational needs focus on science and engineering fields for its emerging infrastructure and the knowledge economy. In most cases, this knowledge is applied in a non-threatening manner, but policy makers need to be aware that there is the potential for it to be applied in a military capacity. This essay will briefly examine U.S. international education objectives; consider the depth of modern Chinese nationalism and its potential threats to U.S. security interests, and present a brief outline of policy recommendations which maintain a cultural tradition of openness while maintaining security.

This section will examine the educational policy objectives pertaining to study abroad for the United States and China. For the U.S., the focus will be on the policy incentives for the continued influx of international students into higher education institutions. For China, the focus will be on the policy incentives of sending students abroad, especially to the U.S., for higher education. Theoretical discourse stems from the notion of an educational security state, a concept developed by Joel Spring (2006). According to Spring, in an educational security state nations combine economic and educational planning into economic security states. Elements of the educational security state combine with an industrial-consumer paradigm to produce education policy measures focusing on maintaining and/or producing national strength to counter the strength of perceived rival states. Additionally, Spring discusses the role of the ‘other’ in the globalization of educational structures as international military and economic rivalries spark competition between educational systems. Under Spring’s thesis, notions of global camaraderie and cultural cohesion through international educational cooperation are functionally nonexistent as underlying rivalries between nation-states form the functional policy objectives of globalizing education policy. In the case of the U.S., a developed country which has shifted to a service-based economy, internationalization of higher education serves as a practical means for maintaining economic longevity. For China, a developing country, study abroad is a means to procure the necessary knowledge for developing its economic, technological, and military structure as quickly as possible.

Without question, educational services have become an integral part of the U.S. post-industrial economy. With the ideological shift to the neo-liberal economic model and subsequent outsourcing of primary manufacturing infrastructure to developing regions in the latter half of the twentieth century, U.S. economic policy hedged its bets on sustaining its strength via a secondary, service-based, economy. Information, financial, media, and educational services have become the backbone of American economic hegemony. In regard to educational services, especially higher education, the highly developed and internationally admired quality of the U.S. higher education system makes it an attractive destination for international student’s collegiate experience. In turn, the high revenue generating possibilities from international student fees make an open, liberalized policy towards a large influx of foreign students a highly desirable goal. As Fareed Zakaria (2009) asserts, “higher education is America’s best industry….with 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States absolutely dominates higher education, having either 42 or 68 percent of the world’s top fifty universities (depending which study you look at). In no other field is America’s advantage so overwhelming” (p.190). With such a strategic advantage in the education field of the global economy, maintaining high levels of international student enrollment remains a desired outcome of U.S. education policy, with particular emphasis on revenue earnings for a staggering economy and goodwill diplomacy effects for a government with a mistrusted foreign policy.

However, the post-9/11 context and the global economic crisis have raised challenges to the sustainability of international student enrollment. A 2007 report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined some of these challenges. The report touted the positive diplomatic potential of an open study abroad policy and the high number of international students earning post-graduate credentials in knowledge economy fields, yet expressed concerns about a recent drop in enrollment numbers as a result of stricter visa regulations in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Additionally, the report cited a changing educational landscape in which increasing educational alternatives are available to students due to the development of distance education programs, an improved educational capacity in other countries and the high cost of obtaining a U.S. degree as major challenges to U.S. international education competitiveness. In sum, the report stated, “The United States must maintain an appropriate balance between protecting national security interests and ensuring our long-term competitiveness” (GAO, 2007). Aside from post-9/11 visa restrictions, increasing global competition for international students represents another major challenge, especially in an unstable global economic environment. The global economic crisis has increased the worldwide competition for the financial gains of international enrollment (Labi, Birchard, & Overland, 2008). In this context, the temptation to loosen national security measures related to international education to maintain competitiveness is strong, yet such a response is not without substantial national security risks.

Despite expectations that the global financial crisis would decrease the numbers of foreign students enrolled in U.S. universities, the National Science Foundation (2010) has noted increases, particularly in science and engineering fields. According to the NSF report, “foreign enrollment in U.S. universities and colleges increased by 3% in fall 2009 to 586,000, rising 2% for non-S&E fields (to 327,000) and 4% for science and engineering (to 259,000). The increase in S&E enrollment was larger than in recent years, but for the 2006–09 period, S&E students accounted for a steady 44% of total foreign enrollment” (Burnelli, p.1). Of the foreign students enrolled in science and engineering programs at U.S. institutions, a significant portion came from China. According to the report, “overall enrollment…from China increased in 2009, enrollment of new S & E students from China increased 25% (ibid, p.3). In fact, Chinese students, along with India, “accounted for almost half (47%) of all foreign S & E students in the United States in December 2009” (et al., p.3). These numbers might suggest the need to loosen any existing visa or enrollment restrictions on Chinese students in order to fully capitalize on what appears to be strong market for educational revenues and therefore, an opportunity to expand on policy incentives to maximize the U.S. “educational security state.” However, an examination of the policy objectives of China’s own “educational security state” is needed to ensure that U.S. national security is not at risk.

As a developing country with an enormous need for gaining the skills necessary to compete in the global knowledge economy, it is no surprise that the bulk of Chinese students enrolled in U.S. universities would be seeking skills gained from science and engineering programs for application to their country’s development. However, as a country with historical precedents and a political ideology at odds with the U.S., policy makers ought to be conscious of the potential of these skills to be applied in a manner detrimental to the national security of the U.S. This raises a key question in the role of a liberalized international education policy; do the financial incentives brought on international student revenue outweigh the risk that skills learned by Chinese students in the U.S. could conceivably be used to cause economic or political damage to the country that trained them? According to Spring (2006), the globalization of education has “caused Chinese leaders to look abroad for ways of improving their educational system as a stimulant for industrial development that it was believed, would lead to improved military technology” (p.20). The Education Law of the People’s Republic of China explicitly states that “a key role of schools in [the Chinese] educational security state is the promotion of nationalism and loyalty to the state. Article 6 requires: ‘The State conducts education among educatees in patriotism, collectivism, socialism, as well as in the importance of ideals, ethics, discipline, the legal system, national defense and national unity” (et al., p.205). While the desire to learn skills to develop one’s country is a noble endeavor, to do so at the behest of a clearly stated tone of nationalism in a nation’s education policy objectives is problematic and should be a concern for those other nations contributing to these goals.

An examination of the China’s Ministry of Education website on the role of study abroad for Chinese students reveals that the underlying principle is “to bring home knowledge that could help build a stronger country…bearing in mind the ideas of fighting against the capitalist Western Bloc and speeding up the development of a socialist country”. (MOE, 2010). Given that the U.S. represents a member of the so-called “capitalist Western Bloc”, it should be alarming that the U.S. is the recipient of large numbers of students from a national with this ideological mindset. Additionally, the website lists a number of CCP-sponsored incentive programs for Chinese international students returning from abroad to carry these educational objectives such as the “Fund for Returnees to Launch S & T Research”, the “Program for Training Talents Toward the 21^st Century”, the “Chunhui” or spring bud program, the “Changjiang Scholar Incentive Program”, and the “Program of Academic Short-return for Scholars and Research Overseas Program” (et al.). The range of government programs for study abroad scholars suggests that a large number of Chinese international students are directly funded by the CCP and thus, their educational goals are likely in line the central government’s developmental and foreign policy goals.

While the suggestion that the influx of Chinese international students into U.S. higher education institutions represents a threat to U.S. national security might be attacked as sensationalist or even xenophobic, a number of recent reports and high profile espionage cases show this assertion holds merit and deserves consideration for educational policymakers. A 2007 report to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) cites Chinese espionage as the greatest risk to the U.S. technology industry (Claburn, 2007). Additionally, an April 4, 2008 address on National Public Radio discussed an FBI report on Chinese spies operating inside the U.S. (NPR, 2008). A 2009 article in the Asia Times discussed the depth of Chinese espionage in the U.S. in regard to two high profile cases in recent U.S. history, with particular emphasis on the case of Dongfan Chung, an engineer at several U.S. defense contractors convicted of selling secrets to the Chinese government (Brown, 2009). Richard Fisher, a Chinese military expert at the Washington D.C.-based International Assessment and Strategic Center stated, "This has to tell us that China's general espionage effort is growing. The…cases tell us that China places a very high priority on targeting ethnic Chinese working in the US defense sector with nationalist and other appeals. Sadly, the…cases are proof that China has and will continue to succeed with ... appeals to convince Chinese-Americans to undermine the security of a nation that has enabled their professional and personal success” (et al., 2009). While it could be argued that instances of Chinese espionage have no direct correlation to study abroad policies, given that the bulk of Chinese international students are enrolled in S & E programs whose graduates have appeal to U.S. corporations, these students would be in line for direct employment, internships, etc with these firms and thus, posing a security risk to U.S. interests.

In order to fully understand the depth of Chinese nationalism and the potential risks to U.S. national security, a brief analysis of modern Chinese nationalism is needed. The following section will examine the theoretical context, provide some anecdotal evidence, and consider the role of education in forming modern nationalists. It is hoped that this will reveal the importance of taking the nationalistic ideologies of many Chinese students into account when forming U.S. study abroad policy.

So far, we have examined the concept of the educational security state in relation to U.S. and Chinese global educational policy objectives. While the U.S. desires the revenue potential and acknowledges the diplomatic possibilities, China seeks to gain the necessary skills for application to a developing economy. Significant numbers of U.S. international students are coming from China and primarily enrolled in science and technology majors. While one cannot criticize young Chinese students for their desire to contribute to their country’s development, evidence of nationalism in CCP education policy statements and instances of espionage in the U.S. make it necessary to consider the depth of modern Chinese nationalism in terms of its relation to the U.S. and require U.S. policymakers to take into account this nationalism when considering how open international education should be. Castells (1997) has highlighted legitimizing, resistance, and project identity as the three major forms and origins of identity and nationalism. Chinese nationalism seems to represent a unique combination of all three in that the CCP requires a legitimization strategy in a communist-irrelevant world, maintenance of traditional efforts of resistance to foreign ideologies and a means to present its reform and development strategy as a collective national project. While these factors make Chinese nationalism unique, they also make the projection of collective nationalism an absolute necessity and could make for a dangerous turn in geo-political stability as China continues its economic rise.

Modern globalization, and the subsequent mobilization of educational content and students themselves, has made the intellectual conceptualization of identity building and the institutionalization of education targets for re-evaluation. Besley and Peters’ (2007) analysis of Michael Foucault’s discourse on the politics of space and its role in emerging power structures within globalized education has presented some key perspectives. The politics of space in the context of education are important in that “every social space is structured by power...buildings became spatial models for government rationality. They provided the basis for the exercise of social control and manipulation” (p. 79). For centralized governments like China, the bureaucratic structures of institutions are the roots of national identity indoctrination. As renowned sociologist Manuel Castells asserts, “identities can…be originated from dominant institutions (1997, p.6-7). Globalization and the internationalization of education have brought instructional opportunities outside of the institutional framework of national government systems. The emergence of alternative identity forming opportunities in the globalized world is a threat to nations dependent on citizen and patriot-building mechanisms in educational institutions, thus despite the emergence of a “borderless” world, nationalism can remain strong in regions whose institutional frameworks consciously attempt to counteract the effects of globalization with aggressive citizen-building. In this case: China.

Any scholars keen to examine trials and tribulations of modern Chinese history can easily find themselves sympathetic to the modern Chinese historical experience. From the Opium War to the War of Resistance against Japan, Chinese history is marked by a state of perpetual struggle against foreign aggression. With that in mind, it is easy to acknowledge where the roots of Chinese nationalism lie and that its presence does indeed have merit. However, as China begins to emerge as a legitimate global power, policymakers need to be conscious of how this nationalism is manifesting itself in Chinese foreign policy objectives. As the quotation from my former student at the prelude to this essay suggests, modern Chinese nationalism may now be beginning to show signs of vengeful aspirations towards the nation’s perceived aggressors. With that in mind, U.S. educationalists need to consider the kind of knowledge that Chinese international students have access to and whether it can be applied in a detrimental manner to the host nation of Chinese study abroad destinations.

Recent discourse on Chinese nationalism has revealed an emerging assertiveness growing concurrently with China’s rapid economic ascension. Peter Hays Gries (2005) has noted this assertive nationalism is especially strong among China’s younger generations, referred to as the fourth and fifth generation. According to Gries, the younger generation, growing up without the lived experience of liberating wars and revolutionary fervor of previous generations and enjoying the material comfort of a developing consumer culture, are forming their patriotic identity through an increasingly aggressive stance towards their foreign competitors, namely Japan and the United States. Numerous scholars have noted this brand of assertive nationalism works in favor of central government authorities as it easily distracts the masses from the numerous internal problems and shifts the idealism of politically active Chinese youth towards external “enemies” (Gries, 2005, Zakaria, 2009, Shirk, 2008, Vickers, 2009). While politically useful for maintaining CCP legitimacy, what are the implications for these despised nations that are receiving these youth on domestic campuses?

In 1993, a popular mainland television program told the story of a Chinese businessman living in New York. The program was a sensation among the masses; at one point in the series, the main character becomes frustrated with his cross-cultural experience and exclaims, “‘fuck them! They were still monkeys up in the trees while we were already human beings. Look at how hairy they are, they’re not as evolved as us’” (Gries, 2005, p.42). In 1997, after the news broke of the computer program Deep Blue defeating Kasparov in chess, a cover of the Beijing Youth Weekly proclaimed that “we have the best brains” as it was learned that two of Deep Blue’s engineers were of Chinese descent (et al., p.8). A 1996 issue of the provincial magazine Love our China highlighted a meeting between Chinese and U.S. officials. The cover featured photos of smiling Chinese officials juxtaposed by less than flattering images of their U.S. counterparts, the headline was titled, “A Colossus and a Bandit Test their Strength” and included the subheading, “the grand rules of Sino-American relations are that the kind discipline the barbaric” (et al., p. 32-33). In 1999, in response to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by U.S. warplanes, “cyber-nationalists…hacked into the U.S. embassy’s web site in Beijing, inserting ‘Down with the Barbarians!’ on the homepage” (et al., p.16). While one could argue that these instances are not unlike the hawkish sentiments released by ultra-conservative media outlets in the U.S., or that anger in the aftermath of the Belgrade bombing was justified, the dehumanizing tone is rather alarming and problematic in that thousands of students from a nation with such a viewpoint are matriculating at U.S. institutions and gaining access to vital knowledge which could conceivably be applied to modern weapons technology and cyber-warfare. The hacking of a U.S. Embassy website, presumably administered by the State Department, reveals the increasing technical aptitude of Chinese nationalists and begs the question of where did they learn learn such a skill?

As this study examines Chinese nationalism in relation to international education it is necessary to briefly consider the educational context in which Chinese international students are coming from when they matriculate to the U.S. Specifically, it is essential to consider the nationalistic indoctrination that Chinese student are exposed to prior to beginning their study abroad experience. A 2008 study by Zhao, Zhou, and Huang examined Chinese high school students’ perceptions of the United States in terms of viewpoints presented in the national social studies curriculum. Their findings revealed a recurrent theme of a “double-edge sword” among student perceptions of the U.S. Chinese students simultaneously held a favorable view of U.S. accomplishments, while maintaining a deep resentment of U.S. hegemony in world affairs (Zhao, Zhou, & Huang, 2008). While this resentment is reasonable given recent U.S. foreign policy endeavors, the dual-perception is problematic. Psychological discourse on cognitive dissonance would reveal that holding such different views on a topic creates an uncomfortable feeling within the conscious of the individual and thus, there is a tendency to seek out a means to justify one view or the other. Thus, we can assume that significant numbers of Chinese students are choosing to lean to an anti-U.S. perspective in order to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. Additionally, in response to the 1989 uprising in Tiananmen Square, the CCP initiated the Patriotic Education Campaign in 1993 to instill state-sponsored nationalism into the national school curriculum. Susan Shirk’s (2008) analysis of this policy suggests this has been the catalyst for assertive anti-foreign nationalism in the education system (p.62-63). Cognitive dissonance in conjunction with state-led nationalism in school curriculum provides a dangerous recipe for militant nationalism in contemporary China.

In terms of textbook content, Edward Vickers (2009) has provided an excellent analysis of the explicit nationalistic tone of Chinese national social studies textbooks, which are comprised of four textbooks: Economic Life, Life and Philosophy, Political Life, and Cultural Life. While “Economic Life” justifies the current economic model and “Life and Philosophy” absolves the Party of any obligations of social equity or any real notion of socialism, “Political Life” and “Cultural Life” lay the foundation of nationalism. It is in these texts that “patriotic themes come more explicitly to the force…an intensification of international competition in the contemporary world is invoked to underline the importance of national strength” (Vickers, 2009, p.527). In order to propel nationalistic tendencies and avoid any questioning of the development model and lack of socialism, the Party now focuses on China’s history as a whole, rather than just the post-1949 history. This process has involved, “the progressive peeling away of layers of Communist veneer, exposing what is essentially a nationalist narrative of ‘5,000 years’ of glorious Chinese achievement” (et al., p.644). By restoring China’ s role as one of the world’s great civilizations, the educational security state begins to assert itself in the international order. While the content of the texts gives particular focus to development of science and technology for national strength, it simultaneously invokes the historical memory of past transgressions of foreign entities against the great nation. Additionally, the texts make vague reference to the international criticism of China’s internal problems, such as Tibet, Xinjiang, social stratification, the environment, and government corruption. By linking these issues to nationalism and suggesting some global conspiracy to undermine China’s inevitable ascendance to global power, any opportunity to critically examine these issues is silenced by patriotic hysteria. Additionally, the moralizing theme and historical chauvinism in social studies curriculum also justifies the leadership role of the majority Han ethnicity over minority groups and the growing social stratification by suggesting that marginalized groups in modern Chinese society simply lack the moral fiber to compete in the modern economy and are to blame for their own woes, further devolving social responsibility from the Party. While inspiring patriotic feelings and the desire to engage in the competition of the global economy, this trend of nationalism is worth further examination. Since the development of the Nazi regime and the Japanese Empire were premised on rapid industrial growth and rampant nationalism, two conditions currently prevalent in modern China, the depth of this nationalism and potential ramifications are worth close monitoring.

This paper has examined the study abroad policy of objectives of the United States and China. Additionally, it has considered the depth of modern Chinese nationalism and the potential threats it may pose to U.S. national security. To conclude, I would like to offer some educational policy recommendations that consider how to maintain the benefits of international education for the United States while ensuring national security.

Under such a proposal, visa restrictions and/or limited acceptance rates to U.S. higher education institutions would not have to be implemented in the name of national security. International students would not be restricted in pursuing the academic fields which make the U.S. higher education system such a desired destination for study abroad, regulatory measures would simply be put in place that ensure that research content is not of the kind with the potential to undermine the host country’s security interests. International education remains a vital piece of long term U.S. financial security and should remain as open as possible, but with a sober and realistic acknowledgement that such a policy includes security risks for the nation as a whole

To conclude, I would like to make clear that my intention was not to promote any sort of xenophobic viewpoint on U.S. study abroad policy or on the Chinese as a whole. It is my hope that U.S.-Chinese educational and economic cooperation remains strong for as long as possible. The diplomatic benefits of an open international education policy remain a vital tool for maintaining cross-cultural understanding and providing an equitable distribution of key knowledge for developing economies, thus contributing to world stability. However, a realistic assessment of Chinese nationalism and espionage potential reveal that there indeed are hawkish elements within the Chinese mainstream which would seek to undermine U.S. national security and stability. The vast majority of Chinese matriculating in the U.S. are likely not of such a viewpoint, but the mere existence of even a few have the potential to cause catastrophic damage and thus, protective, yet balanced, measures need to be implemented to avoid a worst-case scenario where closed borders and counter-nationalism on the U.S side wreak havoc on long term Sino-U.S. relations.

Besley, T & Peters, M. (2007). Subjectivity and truth: Foucalt, Education, and the Culture of Self. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Brown, P.J. (2009, July 31) A midsummer tale of two Chinese spies. Asia Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG31Ad01.html

Burrelli, J. (2010) Foreign Science and Engineering Students in the United States (NSF 10-324) National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10324/

Castells, M. (1997). Communal heavens: identity and meaning in the network society. In M. Castells (Ed.) The power of identity: the information age-economy, society, and culture (pp. 5-63) Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.

Claburn, T. (2007, November 19) Chinese espionage cited as top risk to U.S. technology industry. Information Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203103255

Cohen, R. and Kennedy P. (2007) Global sociology. New York: New York University Press.

FBI: Spies from China operating in U.S. (2008, April 4) National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89369488

Fishman, T. C. (2006). China Inc., How the rise of the next superpower challenges America and the world. New York: First Scribner.

Forbes, J.R. (2008, March 18) Chinese espionage. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/18/chinese-espionage/

Gries, P.H. (2005) China’s new nationalism: pride, politics, and diplomacy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Guthrie, D. (2009). China and globalization: The social, economic, and political transformation of Chinese society. (2nd.ed), New York and London: Routledge.

Huntington, S.P. (2003) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Kraidy, M.M. (2005) Hybridity or the cultural logic of globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Labi, A., Birchard, K., & Overland, M.A. (2008) As world economies struggle, competition heats up for students from abroad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(13):A22.

Lingard, B. and Rizvi, F. (2009). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2010) Work Related to Students and Scholars Studying Abroad. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/english/international_2.htm

Shirk, S. (2008) China: Fragile Superpower. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spring, J. (2006) Pedagogies of globalization: the rise of the educational security state. Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2007) Higher Education: Challenges in Attracting International Students to the United States and Implications for Global Competitiveness. (GAO Reports) Testimony before subcommittee on international organizations, human rights and oversight, committee on foreign affairs, House of Representatives. Washington DC. Government Accountability Office.

Vickers, E. (2009) Selling ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ ‘thought and politics’ and the legitimization of China’s development strategy. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(5):523-531

Zakaria, F. (2009) The post-American world. New York: W.W Norton and Company.

Zhao, Y., Zhou, X., & Huang L. (2008) Chinese students’ knowledge and thinking about America and China. The Social Studies, 99(1): 13-22