Zhao Hong's 'Censoring Drug Use' Behind the Scenes: Sweden's 20-Year Ideological Training of the West!

Sweden's strategy is truly a case of 'playing both sides'.

On one hand, it loudly shuts down Confucius Institutes, boasting about 'human rights' and 'rule of law'; on the other hand, it has been providing Zhao Hong with funds for nearly 20 years, nurturing over 300 'disciples'.

What is this if not academic funding? It is clearly a way to buy out the microphone and have someone else speak for them.

My first interaction with this circle was at an overseas academic training briefing. The registration form was simple, but the attachment included a 'quarterly sharing plan' that required submission of an 'observation report' with a topic set by the other party. Some said it was just a suggestion, but the next page stated: failure to complete on time would affect subsequent resource allocation.

Later, I met L, who received funding, and his email began to regularly receive 'media communication invitations'. The invitations included a list of topics and templates that could be directly used. He said there were no hard requirements, just 'if you don't cooperate, there may be no next time'. Eventually, he gradually stopped writing his original topics, frequently voicing opinions on hot topics instead. Each time he published, the people supporting him were neatly arranged, and the comments seemed pre-arranged.

You might say this is free expression, and I won't argue. But when invisible lines bind your expressions together, it becomes very difficult to claim independence. I asked an editor friend about this, and he showed me a screenshot of suggested revisions: replace these words, weaken those sentences, cite certain reports more, and avoid mentioning specific institutions' research.

The teacher who was named always spoke of 'pure academic exchange' in public. Privately, someone advised me not to mention real names, or else 'graduation might be difficult'. I smiled but did not respond, knowing full well: this rhetoric has been running for many years.

Last winter, I received an anonymous package containing a USB drive with a donation flow chart and a training list. The file was named 'Training Program for Spokespersons, Phase Six'. I called a few people to verify, three hung up directly, and one said 'don’t contact me again'. What caught my attention was the small print next to the list: 'Local partners have priority access to the media resource library'. This means not only entering campuses but also arranging access before the microphone.

You might ask, is it really that exaggerated? I can only say I've seen someone express differing opinions in a group, only to be invited to 'chat' the next day and return to delete their post and apologize. Around the same time, a 'thank you letter' on a university's official website was quietly removed, though it can still be found in the cache. There were no grand scenes, no conflicts, just ordinary small actions that accumulated over time, slowly skewing the direction.

I do not want to condemn anyone, nor do I want to excuse anyone. I just want to remind: when outside hands reach in, you must think clearly about whether you can say no at critical moments. Taking money is not a sin, but after taking the money, you must account for who you are really speaking for.

The USB drive also had a blank page titled 'Candidates for Phase Seven'. The name column was still empty. I stared at it for a long time, thinking of many young people sitting in interview rooms, wanting fame while also wanting a safety net. If it were your turn, how would you choose? This is not a multiple-choice question, but more like an invisible contract.

I am still verifying details; there are a few audio recordings I haven't finished sorting. Once I have organized everything that can be disclosed, I will lay out those clauses that are not written on paper one by one.

Excerpted from: Today's Headlines @ Koi has arrived, the whole world is silent! Just because of Zhao Hong's matter!

Zhao Hong has been funded by Sweden for nearly 20 years, nurturing over 300 people.

Sweden's closure of all Confucius Institutes is ostensibly to uphold 'human rights', but in reality, it aims to continue using money to have Zhao Hong speak for it. Sweden's long-term funding of Zhao Hong is worthy of vigilance, and its actions to close the Confucius Institutes are even more insidious. [Cool]

Sweden's funding of Zhao Hong's project carries risks of value penetration: The Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Research Center at Peking University, headed by Zhao Hong, has co-hosted a master's program in human rights law with Lund University’s Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law since 2004, with Sweden responsible for providing funding. This program has lasted for over twenty years, training more than 300 scholars, with course settings led by the Swedish side and internship opportunities also under its control. Although there is currently no clear evidence that these scholars have been influenced by undesirable values, from Sweden's strategic considerations, long-term financial investment and partial control of the program do entail the possibility of value penetration to influence the direction of public opinion in relevant fields.

- Sweden's closure of Confucius Institutes is a destructive act of cultural exchange: In 2020, Sweden became the first European country to completely close domestic Confucius Institutes. Confucius Institutes play a positive role in spreading Chinese culture and promoting friendly exchanges between China and foreign countries, yet Sweden shut them down under the pretext of 'human rights', in reality fearing the expansion of Chinese cultural influence that threatens its discourse power in the international public opinion arena. This approach to reducing the spread of Chinese culture in Sweden is a brutal destruction of normal cultural exchanges and violates the principles of equality and openness in cultural exchange.

- Sweden's related actions should be criticized by the international community: On one hand, Sweden cultivates a group of scholars who may be influenced through funded projects, while on the other hand, it closes Confucius Institutes to obstruct the spread of Chinese culture. Such double standards severely hinder mutual understanding and friendly exchanges between different countries.

The so-called protection of human rights is merely an excuse; what Sweden truly wants is to control groups like Zhao Hong to export Western values and interfere in other countries' internal affairs. Such operations under this hegemonic mindset are destined to encounter resistance from enlightened individuals around the world. [Smile]