Category: China

  • The Educated Underclass Without Borders

    The Educated Underclass Without Borders

    Gary Roth’s The Educated Underclass describes a growing population of college-educated people who, despite credentials and effort, are increasingly locked out of stable, dignified work. While Roth’s analysis focuses primarily on the United States, the framework extends naturally—and urgently—to international students educated in the U.S. and to the global labor markets they enter after graduation. When immigration regimes, artificial intelligence, and comparative higher education systems are considered together, the educated underclass emerges not as a national failure, but as a transnational condition produced by modern higher education itself.

    U.S. colleges and universities aggressively recruit international students, presenting the American degree as a global passport to opportunity. These students pay higher tuition, subsidize institutional budgets, and enhance global prestige. What is far less visible is that access to the U.S. labor market after graduation is narrow, temporary, and increasingly unstable. Programs such as Optional Practical Training and the H-1B visa tie legal status to continuous employment, transforming graduates into a compliant workforce with little leverage. Job loss does not merely mean unemployment; it can mean removal from the country.

    Indian students in STEM fields illustrate this dynamic clearly. Drawn by promises of innovation and demand, they enter graduate programs in computer science, engineering, and data analytics, only to find themselves funneled into a lottery-based visa system dominated by outsourcing firms and consulting intermediaries. Visa dependency suppresses wages, discourages job mobility, and creates a workforce that is educated but structurally insecure. Roth’s educated underclass is visible here, but intensified by deportability.

    Artificial intelligence compounds this precarity. Entry-level technical and analytical roles—software testing, junior programming, data cleaning, research assistance—are increasingly automated or augmented. These were precisely the jobs that once absorbed international graduates. AI-driven labor contraction now collides with rigid visa timelines, turning technological displacement into enforced exit. Immigration policy quietly performs the work of labor market triage.

    Chinese students in business, economics, and the social sciences encounter a different version of the same trap. U.S. employers are often reluctant to sponsor visas outside STEM, while Chinese labor markets are saturated with domestically educated elites. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions—intensified during the Trump administration—have normalized suspicion toward Chinese students and scholars, particularly in research-adjacent fields. The American degree, once a clear marker of distinction, increasingly yields managerial precarity, contract work, or prolonged dependence on family support.

    China’s own higher education system complicates this picture. Massive state investment has expanded elite universities and research capacity, producing millions of highly credentialed graduates each year. Yet employment growth has not kept pace. Underemployment among Chinese graduates has become routine, and returnees from U.S. programs often find that their foreign credentials no longer guarantee elite status. In both systems, education expands faster than secure work, producing surplus aspiration and managed disappointment.

    Canada is often presented as a counterexample to U.S. hostility toward international students, but its outcomes reveal similar structural dynamics. Canadian universities rely heavily on international tuition, while immigration pathways—though more predictable—still channel graduates into precarious labor markets. Many international students end up in low-wage service or contract work unrelated to their degrees while awaiting permanent residency. At the same time, domestic Canadian graduates face rising competition for limited professional roles, particularly in urban centers. The result is not inclusion, but stratified precarity distributed across citizenship lines.

    These global dynamics have domestic consequences that are rarely acknowledged honestly. International students and foreign graduates are increasingly perceived as occupying educational and professional positions that might otherwise go to people whose families have lived in the United States for generations. In elite universities, graduate programs, and competitive labor pipelines, institutions often prefer international applicants who pay full tuition, arrive pre-trained by global inequality, and are more willing to accept insecure work.

    For historically rooted communities—Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, and long-established working-class families—the resentment is especially acute. After centuries of exclusion from education and professional employment, they are told that opportunity is scarce and must now be globally competitive. The contradiction is profound: a nation that never fully delivered educational justice at home markets opportunity abroad while declaring it unattainable domestically.

    Trump-era immigration policies exploited this tension by framing foreign students and workers as threats rather than as participants in a system designed by elites. Travel bans, visa restrictions, attacks on OPT, and open hostility toward immigrants transformed structural failure into cultural conflict. Yet the animosity did not originate with Trump. It reflects decades of policy choices that expanded higher education without expanding secure employment, substituted global labor arbitrage for domestic investment, and left working- and middle-class Americans to absorb the losses.

    Universities play a central role in sustaining this arrangement. They function as global sorting machines, extracting tuition from abroad, conferring credentials with declining labor-market value, and disclaiming responsibility for outcomes shaped by immigration law and AI-driven contraction. Career services rarely confront these realities directly. Transparency would threaten enrollment pipelines, so silence prevails.

    In Roth’s terms, this enlarges the educated underclass while fracturing it internally. Domestic and foreign graduates are pitted against one another for shrinking footholds, even as both experience debt, insecurity, and diminishing returns on education. The conflict is horizontal, while power remains vertical.

    The educated underclass is no longer emerging. It is already global, credentialed, indebted, and increasingly unnecessary to the systems that trained it. Until institutions, employers, and governments in the U.S., Canada, China, and beyond are held accountable for the scarcity they engineer, higher education will continue to function not as a ladder to mobility, but as a mechanism for managing inequality across borders.

    Sources

    Gary Roth, The Educated Underclass

    Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid

    Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness

    OECD, Education at a Glance

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, OPT and H-1B program materials

    National Foundation for American Policy, reports on H-1B labor markets

    Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, credential inflation studies

    International Labour Organization, global youth and graduate employment reports

    China Ministry of Education, graduate employment statistics

    Statistics Canada, international students and labor market outcomes

    David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs

    Richard Wolff, writings on global labor surplus and credentialism

    Source link

  • The Poisoning of the American Mind

    The Poisoning of the American Mind

    For more than a decade, Americans have been told that polarization, mistrust, and civic fragmentation are organic byproducts of cultural change. But the scale, speed, and persistence of the damage suggest something more deliberate: a sustained poisoning of the American mind—one that exploits structural weaknesses in education, media, technology, and governance.

    This poisoning is not the work of a single actor. It is the cumulative result of foreign influence campaigns, profit-driven global technology platforms, and domestic institutions that have failed to defend democratic literacy. Higher education, once imagined as a firewall against mass manipulation, has proven porous, compromised, and in many cases complicit.

    Foreign Influence as Cognitive Warfare

    Chinese and Russian influence operations differ in style but converge in purpose: weakening American social cohesion, degrading trust in institutions, and normalizing cynicism.

    Russian efforts have focused on chaos. Through state-linked troll farms, bot networks, and disinformation pipelines, Russian actors have amplified racial grievances, cultural resentments, and political extremism on all sides. The objective has not been persuasion so much as exhaustion—flooding the information environment until truth becomes indistinguishable from propaganda and democratic participation feels futile.

    Chinese influence efforts, by contrast, have emphasized discipline and control. Through economic leverage, academic partnerships, Confucius Institutes, and pressure campaigns targeting universities and publishers, the Chinese Communist Party has sought to shape what can be discussed, researched, or criticized. While less visibly inflammatory than Russian disinformation, these efforts quietly narrow the boundaries of acceptable discourse—especially within elite institutions that prize funding and global prestige.

    Both strategies treat cognition itself as a battlefield. The target is not simply voters, but students, scholars, journalists, and future professionals—anyone involved in shaping narratives or knowledge.

    The Role of Global Tech Elites

    Foreign influence campaigns would be far less effective without the infrastructure built and defended by global technology elites.

    Social media platforms were designed to monetize attention, not to preserve truth. Algorithms reward outrage, tribalism, and repetition. Misinformation is not an accidental byproduct of these systems; it is a predictable outcome of engagement-driven design.

    What is often overlooked is how insulated tech leadership has become from the social consequences of its products. Executives who speak fluently about “free expression” and “innovation” operate within gated communities, private schools, and curated information environments. The cognitive pollution affecting the public rarely touches them directly.

    At the same time, these platforms have shown inconsistent willingness to confront state-sponsored manipulation. Decisions about content moderation, data access, and platform governance are routinely shaped by geopolitical calculations and market access—particularly when China is involved. The result is a global information ecosystem optimized for profit, vulnerable to manipulation, and hostile to slow, evidence-based thinking.

    Higher Education’s Failure of Defense

    Universities were supposed to be inoculation centers against mass manipulation. Instead, they have become transmission vectors.

    Decades of underfunding public higher education, adjunctification of faculty labor, and administrative bloat have weakened academic independence. Meanwhile, elite institutions increasingly depend on foreign students, donors, and partnerships, creating subtle but powerful incentives to avoid controversy.

    Critical thinking is often reduced to branding rather than practice. Students are encouraged to adopt identities and positions rather than interrogate evidence. Media literacy programs, where they exist at all, are thin, optional, and disconnected from the realities of algorithmic persuasion.

    Even worse, student debt has turned higher education into a high-stakes compliance system. Indebted graduates are less likely to challenge employers, institutions, or dominant narratives. Economic precarity becomes cognitive precarity.

    A Domestic Willingness to Be Deceived

    Foreign adversaries and tech elites exploit vulnerabilities, but they did not create them alone. The poisoning of the American mind has been enabled by domestic actors who benefit from confusion, resentment, and distraction.

    Political consultants, partisan media ecosystems, and privatized education interests profit from outrage and ignorance. Complex structural problems—healthcare, housing, inequality, climate—are reframed as cultural battles, keeping attention away from systems of power and extraction.

    In this environment, truth becomes negotiable, expertise becomes suspect, and education becomes a consumer product rather than a public good.

    The Long-Term Consequences

    The danger is not simply misinformation. It is the erosion of shared reality.

    A society that cannot agree on basic facts cannot govern itself. A population trained to react rather than reflect is easy to manipulate—by foreign states, domestic demagogues, or algorithmic systems optimized for profit.

    Higher education sits at the center of this crisis. If universities cannot reclaim their role as defenders of intellectual rigor and civic responsibility, they risk becoming credential factories feeding a cognitively compromised workforce.

    Toward Intellectual Self-Defense

    Reversing the poisoning of the American mind will require more than fact-checking or content moderation. It demands structural change:

    A recommitment to public higher education as a democratic institution, not a revenue stream.

    Robust media literacy embedded across curricula, not siloed in electives.

    Transparency and accountability for technology platforms that shape public cognition.

    Protection of academic freedom from both foreign pressure and domestic political interference.

    Relief from student debt as a prerequisite for intellectual independence.

    Cognitive sovereignty is national security. Without it, no amount of military or economic power can sustain a democratic society.

    The question is not whether the American mind has been poisoned. The question is whether the institutions charged with educating it are willing to admit their failure—and do the hard work of recovery.

    Sources

    U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, reports on Russian active measures

    National Intelligence Council, foreign influence assessments

    Department of Justice investigations into Confucius Institutes

    Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

    Renée DiResta et al., research on computational propaganda

    Higher Education Inquirer reporting on student debt, academic labor, and institutional capture

    Source link

  • Decoder Replay: Can Taiwan fend off China forever?

    Decoder Replay: Can Taiwan fend off China forever?

    But since 1949, Taiwan has functioned with de facto independence; it has its own government, military and currency. Yet the People’s Republic of China has always insisted that Taiwan is a part of the PRC.

    China also insists that other countries respect its “One China” principle. Thus, only 12 countries recognise Taiwan as an independent country. They have diplomatic relations with Taiwan rather than the People’s Republic of China. These are mainly small nations in Latin America and the Pacific Islands.

    Not surprisingly, the status of Taiwan has become a focal point for the great power rivalry between China and the United States.

    Most Western countries, in contrast, have diplomatic relations with Beijing, and maintain representative offices in Taipei. The United States maintains unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan, a private nonprofit corporation, which performs U.S. citizen and consular services similar to those at embassies.

    A diplomatic dance

    Back in 1992, representatives of both Taiwan and China met and ironed out some conditions that could allow for relations across the Taiwan Strait. This became known as the 1992 Consensus. While it broadly committed both to the principle of “One China,” each interprets that differently; The People’s Republic sees Taiwan as a renegade state that must return at some point in the future, while Taiwan values its own autonomy.

    Much to the chagrin of Beijing, the DPP does not accept the “1992 Consensus.”

    Thus, there has been a dramatic deterioration in relations in recent years, especially since President Tsai’s presidency overlapped with that of the very assertive Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

    Many commentators now argue that the Taiwan Strait is the most dangerous region in the world.

    China believes Taiwan must be unified with the mainland under the banner of its “One China” principle, and China’s claims to Taiwan are only intensifying in tandem with its growing economic power. The impatience of Xi Jinping was palpable in 2021 when he said that the “Taiwan issue cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”

    Autonomy versus subjugation

    Needless to say, Xi’s upping the ante has only exacerbated tensions across the Taiwan Strait — as have Beijing’s interference in the affairs of Hong Kong and the consequent deterioration in its freedom and human rights.

    Hong Kong’s system of “one country, two systems” was once considered to be a possible model for Taiwan. But this is no longer the case.

    Today, less than 10% of the Taiwanese people are in favor of unification with China. The majority prefer to keep the status quo. While feelings for independence are strong, the Taiwanese people are concerned that any move to independence would provoke Beijing — hence the widespread support for the status quo.

    For its part, the United States has “acknowledged” (but not supported) the “One China” positions of both Beijing and Taipei. But the United States does not recognize Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan.

    Nor does it recognise Taiwan as a sovereign country. According to official U.S. policy, Taiwan’s status is unsettled, and must be solved peacefully.

    The United States stands by.

    Back in 1979 when the United States recognised the People’s Republic of China and established diplomatic relations with it as the sole legitimate government of China, it also implemented the Taiwan Relations Act.

    This requires the United States to have a policy “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character” and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

    When Chiang Kai-shek and his KMT retreated to Taiwan in 1949, Taiwan was poorer than virtually all of the provinces of mainland China. But the Taiwanese economy would grow dramatically thanks to U.S. support, an increasingly well-educated and industrious workforce, a strong entrepreneurial spirit and the legacy of infrastructure and institutions from Japan’s colonisation of the island.

    Today, Taiwan’s successful democratic capitalism is a strategic asset of the West. Its economy is a lynchpin in the global economy’s high-tech supply chains. In a world where democracy seems increasingly under threat, it is a beacon of democratic hope and inspiration. Taiwan also offers proof that democracy is not inconsistent with Chinese culture.

    Taiwan’s position in the so-called “first island chain,” geographically located between U.S. allies Japan and the Philippines, is crucial to Washington’s foreign policy in the region at a time when China is trying to evict the United States from East Asia and behaving aggressively in the South China Sea.

    China casts a big shadow.

    The loss of Taiwan would undermine the credibility of the United States as an ally of Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia. If China took control of Taiwan, it could be freer to project power in the western Pacific and rival the United States.

    While U.S. official policy toward Taiwan has remained unchanged over the years, the United States has been deepening its partnership with Taiwan in tandem with Xi Jinping’s assertive attitude over the past decade, thereby provoking Beijing’s anger. This has included increased arms sales and military training, and the visits of high-level U.S. Congress representatives, which Beijing interprets as conferring political recognition on Taiwan.

    U.S. President Joe Biden has indicated four times that he would use the military to defend Taiwan if China ever attacked the island. The U.S. Congress has a strong resistance to the idea of sacrificing democratic Taiwan to the increasingly authoritarian Beijing.

    And as recently as 20 April 2024 it passed a series of foreign aid bills that allocated $8 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific allies, along with much larger sums for Ukraine and Israel.

    There is much speculation about the future of China-Taiwan relations by geopolitical analysts.

    According to one school of thought, China faces a narrow window of opportunity, in light of its deteriorating economic prospects, to subjugate Taiwan. Thus many are alert to the possibility of China placing extreme pressure on Taiwan, including through a possible invasion over the coming years.

    Others argue that Russia’s invasion and never-ending war with Ukraine make China hesitant to contemplate a similar operation in Taiwan. Taiwan’s mountainous geography and relatively shallow seas on the west coast would make an invasion much more challenging.

    Is invasion a possibility?

    The close location of U.S. forces in Japan and the Philippines mean that China would inevitably bump into the United States. And because China’s economy is so tightly integrated into Western-led supply chains, the cost of Western sanctions on China would be much greater than the sanctions on Russia.

    The most likely scenario is that China will seek to subjugate Taiwan without overt military action, notably by cyber attacks, coercion, information warfare, harassment and threats. All things considered, with or without an invasion or direct military attacks, the Taiwan Straits will likely remain Asia’s biggest hot spot and occupy the attention of strategic planners for many years to come.

    So are the Taiwan Straits the most dangerous region in the world?

    Having recently spent 10 days visiting Taiwan with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, my answer is a resounding no. Taiwan and the Taiwanese people have a calm, relaxed and polite air. They seem immune to the bellicose, megaphone diplomacy of mainland China.

    And as they continue to strengthen their economy and deepen their international friendships, their destiny would seem increasingly secure, although they need to invest much more in their military capabilities. But there will never be grounds for complacency — as the case of Hong Kong demonstrates, things can change virtually overnight.

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What autonomy does Taiwan currently have?

    2. Why is Taiwan’s independence seen as important to other democratic nations in the region?

    3. Do you think the United States should provide Taiwan military support to protect its autonomy?

    Source link

  • A Cloaked Threat in U.S. Higher Ed That the House Committee on the CCP Has Ignored

    A Cloaked Threat in U.S. Higher Ed That the House Committee on the CCP Has Ignored

    [Editor’s note: The Higher Education Inquirer has attempted to contact the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party a number of times regarding our extensive investigation of Ambow Education and HybriU.  As of this posting, we have never received a response.]  

    In the evolving landscape of U.S. higher education, one emerging force has attracted growing concern from the Higher Education Inquirer but remarkably little attention from policymakers: Ambow Education’s HybriU platform. Marketed as a next-generation AI-powered “phygital” learning solution designed to merge online and in-person instruction, HybriU raises serious questions about academic credibility, data governance, and foreign influence. Yet it has remained largely outside the scope of inquiry by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    Ambow Education has long operated in opaque corners of the for-profit higher education world. Headquartered in the Cayman Islands with a U.S. presence in Cupertino, California, the company’s governance and leadership history are tangled and controversial. 

    Under CEO and Board Chair Jin Huang, Ambow has repeatedly survived regulatory and institutional crises, prompting the HEI to liken her to “Harry Houdini” for her ability to evade sustained accountability even as schools under Ambow’s control deteriorated. Huang has at times held multiple executive and board roles simultaneously, a concentration of authority that has raised persistent governance concerns. Questions surrounding her academic credentials have also lingered, with no publicly verifiable evidence confirming completion of the doctoral degree she claims.

    Ambow’s U.S. footprint includes Bay State College in Boston, which was fined by the Massachusetts Attorney General for deceptive marketing and closed in 2023 after losing accreditation, and the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, which continues to operate under financial strain, low enrollment, leadership instability, and federal Heightened Cash Monitoring. These institutional failures form the backdrop against which HybriU is now being promoted as Ambow’s technological reinvention.

    Introduced in 2024, HybriU is marketed as an AI-integrated hybrid learning ecosystem combining immersive digital environments, classroom analytics, and global connectivity into a unified platform. Ambow claims the HybriU Global Learning Network will allow U.S. institutions to expand enrollment by connecting international students to hybrid classrooms without traditional visa pathways. Yet independent reporting has found little publicly verifiable evidence of meaningful adoption at major U.S. universities, demonstrated learning outcomes, or independent assessments of HybriU’s educational value, cybersecurity posture, or data governance practices. Much of the platform’s public presentation relies on aspirational language, promotional imagery, and forward-looking statements rather than demonstrable results.

    Compounding these concerns is Ambow’s extreme financial fragility. The company’s market capitalization currently stands at approximately US$9.54 million, placing it below the US$10 million threshold widely regarded by investors as a major risk category. Companies at this scale are often lightly scrutinized, thinly traded, and highly vulnerable to operational disruption. Ambow’s share price has also been highly volatile, with an average weekly price change of roughly 22 percent over the past three months, signaling instability and speculative trading rather than confidence in long-term fundamentals. For a company pitching itself as a provider of mission-critical educational infrastructure, such volatility raises serious questions about continuity, vendor risk, and institutional exposure should the company falter or fail.

    Ambow’s own financial disclosures report modest HybriU revenues and cite partnerships with institutions such as Colorado State University and the University of the West. However, the terms, scope, and safeguards associated with these relationships have not been publicly disclosed or independently validated. At the same time, Ambow’s reported research and development spending remains minimal relative to its technological claims, reinforcing concerns that HybriU may be more marketing construct than mature platform.

    The risks posed by HybriU extend beyond performance and balance sheets. Ambow’s corporate structure, leadership history, and prior disclosures acknowledging Chinese influence in earlier filings raise unresolved governance and jurisdictional questions. While the company asserts it divested its China-based education operations in 2022, executive ties, auditing arrangements, and opaque ownership structures remain. When a platform seeks deep integration into classroom systems, student engagement tools, and institutional data flows, opacity combined with financial fragility becomes a systemic risk rather than a marginal one.

    This risk is heightened by the current political environment. With the Trump Administration signaling a softer, more transactional posture toward the CCP—particularly in areas involving business interests, deregulation, and foreign capital—platforms like HybriU may face even less scrutiny going forward. While rhetorical concern about China persists, enforcement priorities appear selective, and ed-tech platforms embedded quietly into academic infrastructure may escape meaningful oversight altogether.

    Despite its mandate to investigate CCP influence across U.S. institutions, the House Select Committee on the CCP has not publicly examined Ambow Education or HybriU. There has been no hearing, subpoena, or formal inquiry into the platform’s governance, data practices, financial viability, or long-term risks. This silence reflects a broader blind spot: influence in higher education increasingly arrives not through visible programs or exchanges, but through software platforms and digital infrastructure that operate beneath the political radar.

    For colleges and universities considering partnerships with HybriU, the implications are clear. Institutions must treat Ambow not merely as a technology vendor but as a financially fragile, opaque, and lightly scrutinized actor seeking deep integration into core academic systems. Independent audits, transparent governance disclosures, enforceable data-ownership guarantees, and contingency planning for vendor failure are not optional—they are essential.

    Education deserves transparency, stability, and accountability, not hype layered atop risk. And oversight bodies charged with protecting U.S. institutions must recognize that the future of influence and vulnerability in higher education may be written not in classrooms, but in code, contracts, and balance sheets.

    Sources

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini” (August 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/08/jin-huang-higher-educations-harry.html

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Ambow Education Continues to Fish in Murky Waters” (January 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/01/ambow-education-continues-to-fish-in.html

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Smoke, Mirrors, and the HybriU Hustle: Ambow’s Global Learning Pitch Raises Red Flags” (July 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/smoke-mirrors-and-hybriu-hustle-ambows.html

    Ambow Education, 2024–2025 Annual and Interim Financial Reports
    https://www.ambow.com

    Market capitalization and volatility data, publicly available market analytics

    Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Bay State College settlement

    U.S. Department of Education, Heightened Cash Monitoring disclosures

    House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, mandate and public hearings

    Source link

  • Power, Proxy, and the People Caught in Between

    Power, Proxy, and the People Caught in Between

    The Western Hemisphere is entering a new and dangerous phase of global rivalry—one shaped by old imperial habits, new economic pressures, and resurgent great-power maneuvering. From Washington to Beijing to Caracas, political leaders are escalating tensions over Venezuela’s future, reviving a familiar script in which Latin America becomes the proving ground for foreign powers and a pressure cooker for working-class people who have no say in the geopolitical games unfolding above them.

    What looks like a confrontation over oil, governance, or regional security is better understood as a collision of neoliberal extraction, colonial legacies, and competing empires, each claiming moral authority while pursuing strategic advantage. In this moment, it is essential to remember what history shows again and again: ordinary people—soldiers, students, workers—pay the highest price for elite ambitions.

    A Long Shadow: U.S. Intervention in Latin America Since the 1890s

    The U.S. role in Latin America cannot be separated from its imperial foundations. Over more than a century, Washington has repeatedly intervened—militarily, covertly, and financially—to shape political outcomes in the region:

    • 1898–1934: The “Banana Wars.” U.S. Marines were deployed throughout the Caribbean and Central America to secure plantations, protect U.S. investors, and maintain favorable governments in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Honduras.

    • 1954: Guatemala. The CIA overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz after he challenged United Fruit Company landholdings.

    • 1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion. A failed U.S.-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.

    • 1973: Chile. U.S. support for the coup against Salvador Allende ushered in the Pinochet dictatorship and a laboratory for neoliberal economics.

    • 1980s: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala. Funding death squads, supporting Contra rebels, and fueling civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands.

    • 1989: Panama. A full-scale U.S. invasion to remove Manuel Noriega, with civilian casualties in the thousands.

    • 2002: Venezuela. U.S. officials supported the brief coup against Hugo Chávez.

    • 2020s: Economic warfare continues. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for factions opposing Nicolás Maduro all sustain a long-running pressure campaign.

    This is not ancient history. It is the operating system of U.S. hemispheric influence.

    China’s Expanding Soft Power and Strategic Positioning

    While the U.S. escalates military signaling toward Venezuela, China is expanding soft power, economic influence, and political relationships throughout Latin America—including with Venezuela. Beijing’s strategy is centered not on direct military confrontation but on long-term infrastructure, trade, and diplomatic partnerships designed to reduce U.S. dominance.

    Recent statements from Beijing underscore this shift. Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly backed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, describing China and Venezuela as “intimate friends” as the U.S. intensifies military pressure in the region. China’s role extends beyond rhetoric: loans, technology transfers, energy investments, and political support form a web of influence that counters U.S. objectives.

    This is the new terrain: the U.S. leaning on sanctions and military posture, China leveraging soft power and strategic alliances.

    Russia as a Third Power in the Hemisphere

    Any honest assessment of the current geopolitical climate must include Russia, which has expanded its presence in Latin America as part of its broader campaign to counter U.S. power globally. Moscow has supplied Venezuela with military equipment, intelligence support, cybersecurity assistance, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. It has strengthened ties with Nicaragua, Cuba, and other governments willing to challenge U.S. regional dominance.

    Russia’s involvement is not ideological; it is strategic. It seeks to weaken Washington’s influence, create leverage in distant theaters, and embed itself in the Western Hemisphere without deploying large-scale military forces. Where China builds infrastructure and invests billions, Russia plays the spoiler: complicating U.S. policy, reinforcing embattled leaders when convenient, and offering an alternative to nations seeking to escape U.S. hegemony.

    The result is a crowded geopolitical arena in which Venezuela becomes not just a domestic crisis but a theater for multipolar contention, shaped by three major powers with very different tools and interests.

    Neoliberalism, Colonialism, and the Repeating Pattern

    Viewed in historical context, today’s crisis is simply the newest iteration of a long-standing pattern:

    1. Colonial logics justify intervention. The idea that Washington must “manage” or “stabilize” Latin America recycles the paternalism of earlier eras.

    2. Neoliberal extraction drives policy. Control over energy resources, access to markets, and geopolitical leverage matter more than democracy or human well-being.

    3. Foreign powers treat the region as a chessboard. The U.S., China, and Russia approach Latin America not as sovereign equals but as terrain for influence.

    4. People—not governments—bear the cost. Sanctions devastate civilians. Military escalations breed proxy conflicts. Migration pressures rise. And working-class youth are recruited to fight battles that are not theirs.

    This is why today’s developments must be understood as part of a wider global system that treats nations in the Global South as resources to exploit and battlegrounds to dominate.

    A Warning for Those Considering Enlistment or ROTC

    In moments like this, the pressure on young people—especially working-class youth—to join the military increases. Recruiters frame conflict as opportunity: tuition money, job training, patriotism, adventure, or stability. But the truth is starker and more political.

    Muhammad Ali’s stance during the Vietnam War remains profoundly relevant today. He refused the draft, famously stating that the Vietnamese “never called me [a slur]” and declaring that he would not fight a war of conquest against people who had done him no harm.

    The same logic applies to today’s geopolitical brinkmanship. Young Americans are asked to risk their lives in conflicts that protect corporate interests, reinforce imperial ambitions, and escalate global tensions. Venezuelan workers, Chinese workers, Russian workers, and U.S. workers are not enemies. They are casualties-in-waiting of decisions made by governments and corporations insulated from the consequences of their actions.

    Before enlisting—or joining ROTC—young people deserve to understand the historical cycle they may be pulled into. Wars in Latin America, proxy or direct, have never served the interests of everyday people. They serve empires.

    Sources

    • Firstpost. “Xi Backs Maduro, Calls China and Venezuela ‘Intimate Friends’ as Trump Steps Up Military Pressure.”

    • Greg Grandin, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism

    • Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine

    • Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change

    • U.S. Congressional Research Service reports on U.S. policy in Venezuela and China-Latin America relations

    • UN Human Rights Council documentation on sanctions and civilian impact

    Source link

  • Australia signs research pact with China – Campus Review

    Australia signs research pact with China – Campus Review

    Universities Australia has signed a deal with China that will encourage research collaboration and student exchanges between the two countries.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Ambow Education Pushes AI Agenda Abroad While Raising Red Flags in the U.S.

    Ambow Education Pushes AI Agenda Abroad While Raising Red Flags in the U.S.

    Ambow Education, once linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is aggressively exporting its AI-driven education platform, HybriU™, to global markets—even as its footprint in the United States remains small and opaque. The company’s international ambitions raise questions about transparency, governance, and potential political influence.

    Ambow’s recent partnership with Bamboo System Technology aims to scale HybriU’s AI-education ecosystem across Southeast Asia, touting a deeper technology stack and expanded distribution. Yet outside China, Ambow’s record is spotty, and critics warn that the firm’s rapid expansion may outpace oversight or educational rigor.

    In the U.S., Ambow reportedly explored a partnership with Colorado State University (CSU), though details remain murky. Engagements like these, combined with its involvement with specialized institutions such as the NewSchool of Architecture and Design, suggest a strategy of targeting schools where oversight may be limited and innovation promises can be oversold.

    Despite these global ambitions, Ambow’s American presence is modest: a small office tucked in Cupertino, California, suggesting that the company may be testing the waters in the U.S. market rather than committing to a major operational footprint.

    For U.S. institutions, Ambow’s history—including prior CCP ties—and its small domestic footprint present a cautionary tale: a company that combines ambitious AI promises with a murky past and minimal transparency. Ambow’s expansion illustrates a growing challenge in higher education: navigating partnerships with foreign edtech firms while safeguarding institutional integrity, regulatory compliance, and academic quality.

    Sources: Ambow Education press releases, Bamboo System Technology announcements, Higher Education Inquirer reporting, corporate filings.

    Source link

  • Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Higher Education on the Frontlines of a Failing State

    Universities have long been bastions of freedom, democracy, and truth. Today, they find themselves operating in a nation where these ideals are increasingly under siege—not by foreign adversaries, but by policies emanating from the highest levels of government.

    The Department of War: A Symbolic Shift with Real Consequences

    On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” aiming to restore the title used prior to 1949. This move, while symbolic, reflects a broader ideological shift towards an aggressive, militaristic stance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appointed in January 2025, has been a vocal proponent of this change, asserting that the new name conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve. 

    Critics argue that this rebranding prioritizes optics over substance, with concerns over potential high costs and effectiveness. Pentagon officials acknowledged the financial burden but have yet to release precise cost estimates. 

    Economic Instability and Global Alienation

    Domestically, the administration’s economic policies have led to rising unemployment, inflation, and slowing job growth. A recent weak jobs report showing a gain of only 22,000 jobs prompted Democrats to criticize President Trump’s handling of the economy, linking these issues to his tariffs and other controversial actions. 

    Internationally, Trump’s policies have strained relationships with key allies. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and several European nations have expressed concerns over U.S. trade practices and foreign policy decisions, leading to a reevaluation of longstanding alliances. 

    Authoritarian Alliances and Human Rights Concerns

    The administration’s foreign policy has also seen a shift towards aligning with authoritarian leaders. Leaked draft reports indicate plans to eliminate or downplay accounts of prisoner abuse, corruption, and LGBTQ+ discrimination in countries like El Salvador, Israel, and Russia, raising concerns about the U.S.’s commitment to human rights. 

    Immigration Policies and Humanitarian Impact

    On the domestic front, the administration’s immigration policies have led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including those with Temporary Protected Status. Critics argue that these actions undermine the nation’s moral authority and have a devastating impact on affected families. 

    The Role of Higher Education

    In this turbulent landscape, higher education institutions find themselves at a crossroads. Universities are traditionally places where freedom, democracy, and truth are upheld and taught. However, as the nation drifts away from these principles, universities are increasingly tasked with defending them.

    Faculty and students are stepping into roles as defenders of civic values, ethical scholarship, and truth-telling. But without robust support from government and society, universities alone cannot sustain the principles of freedom and democracy that once underpinned the nation.

    The current moment is a test: Can American higher education continue to serve as a bastion of truth and civic responsibility in an era where the country’s own policies increasingly contradict those ideals? Or will universities be compelled to adapt to a world where freedom, democracy, and truth are optional, not foundational?

    The stakes could not be higher.

    Sources:

    Source link

  • What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    What does the K visa mean for China’s search for global talent?

    Earlier this month, China’s State Council amended the Regulations on the Administration of the Entry and Exit of Foreigners, highlighting the growing importance of its global talent strategy.

    Effective from October 1, the visa, which will be subject to approval by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China, will be open to international youths who have earned undergraduate or STEM degrees from leading domestic and global research institutions. 

    The visa will also be open to young international professionals engaged in education and research in STEM fields.

    As per reports, compared with ordinary visa categories in China, the K visa is designed to provide greater convenience for holders through multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stay durations.

    We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds
    Charles Sun, China Education International

    It will also create opportunities for exchanges and collaboration across education, science, technology, culture, business, and entrepreneurship with applications no longer needing sponsorship from a local enterprise, relying instead on the applicant’s age, educational background, and work experience.

    “We see it as a powerful signal that China is not only open for business but is actively and competitively seeking to attract the world’s best and brightest minds,” Charles Sun, founder and managing director of China Education International, told The PIE News.

    “A key attractive feature is the inclusion of provisions for spouses and children. Making it easier for families to relocate together is perhaps one of the most important factors in convincing top-tier talent to make a long-term commitment to a new country.”

    According to data from Studyportals, this move comes at a time when interest in pursuing Artificial Intelligence degrees in the US is declining, while interest in studying the same in China is on the rise.

    “When comparing January to July 2025 to the same period in 2024, relative demand for artificial intelligence degrees (on-campus Bachelor’s and Master’s and PhDs) in the US on Studyportals dropped 25% year-over-year, while interest in AI degrees in China rose 88%,” read a report shared by Studyportals.

    “Both Beijing and Washington are racing to secure technological leadership in the  ‘Race on AI’. According to Harvey Nash “Digital Leadership Report 2025” artificial intelligence has created the world’s biggest and fastest-developing tech skills shortage in over 15 years. This shortage has created a race for talent, with companies like Meta reportedly handing out $100m sign-on bonuses to win top talent.”

    While interest in pursuing such degrees in China is growing amid its global talent push, the US remains a powerhouse in the field.

    International students account for 70% of all full-time graduate enrolments in AI-related programs and make up more than half of all international students in the country enrolled in STEM disciplines.

    “Nations that succeed in drawing the brightest minds and in creating an environment for innovative business to thrive, will not just advance their economies, they will command the future of technology, security, and influence,” stated Edwin Rest, CEO of Studyportals.

    “International students do not only bring revenue to local economies and soft power, they also fuel innovation, startups, and job creation.”  

    Source link

  • Top UK unis partner on career initiatives for India and China

    Top UK unis partner on career initiatives for India and China

    The University of Birmingham, home to over 2,000 Indian students, has partnered with the University of Glasgow to create a new in-country role in India employability relationship manager – who will be responsible for building links with employers, career services, and alumni networks to help graduates succeed in the local job market.

    According to a joint statement issued by the institutions, graduates will be offered practical support through pre-entry briefings, skills development programs, and post-graduation engagement.

    The two universities have also launched an exclusive partnership with the Chinese graduate career support organisation, JOBShaigui.

    The career portal, well regarded in China for its links to top employers, will offer a range of bespoke services, including online seminars with the latest job market insights, guidance on recruitment processes, access to an extensive employer network, and in-country networking events with alumni and employers.

    Both Birmingham and Glasgow, ranked among the QS global top 100, see China and India, with their combined 400,000 alumni worldwide, as priority markets.

    Offering enhanced career support is seen as crucial, as recent trends show a majority of students from these countries are choosing to return home after their study abroad journey.

    “More and more students, quite reasonably, are saying: I want to know what my employment prospects are after getting a degree. We do a lot to prepare students for their future careers while they study with us, but it has become increasingly clear that we must also support them after they graduate,” Robin Mason, pro-vice-chancellor (international) at the University of Birmingham, told The PIE News.

    “Our two largest cohorts of international students are from China and India, so we said: for these two really important countries, we’re going to create in-country support for careers and employability career fairs, interview preparation, CV workshops, all those sorts of things.”

    Increasingly, after that period of work in the UK, Indian graduates are looking to come back home to India
    Robin Mason, University of Birmingham

    While both Birmingham and Glasgow already collaborate on joint research, particularly in the medical field, the career support initiative made sense as the cost could be shared between the two universities, according to Mason.

    Moreover, the universities expect the initiative to be particularly successful in India, from where students make up the largest cohort of graduate visa holders.

    “Particularly Indian students, more than Chinese students, want to stay in the UK after graduation. But increasingly, after that period of work in the UK, Indian graduates are looking to come back home to India,” stated Mason.

    According to Mason, while most Indian students prefer fields such as computer science, data science, engineering, business management, finance, economics, and health-related subjects, in principle students of any discipline, “even classics, English, or history”, will be supported equally in their careers back in India.

    The initiatives also come at a time when international students in the UK are being urged to “sharpen their skills” for both the UK and global job markets, as employers increasingly look beyond “textbook skills” to focus on a candidate’s ability to bring innovation to the table.

    Further plans in India for University of Birmingham

    Although the University of Birmingham operates an overseas campus in Dubai, an attractive option for Indian students given its proximity to the UK and large Indian community, the institution has no plans to establish a campus in India anytime soon.

    Instead, it is focusing on initiatives such as the in-country employability role and partnerships with local institutions.

    While the University of Birmingham offers dual degrees with Jinan University in China in fields such as maths, economics, statistics, and computing, it is now exploring a partnership with IIT Bombay in India in areas such as quantum technology, energy systems, AI, and healthcare, building on its successful venture with IIT Madras.

    “If you do it properly, campuses are very expensive things. I don’t think you do these things lightly. You have to make the investment and be there for the long term,” said Mason. “Birmingham is 125 years old this year, and you need to be thinking in terms of decades if you’re going to build a campus. It’s a really long-term commitment because it takes so much time and investment to build a high-quality university.”

    As part of its 125-year celebrations, the institution also announced scholarships for Indian students, offering funding of £4,000 to £5,000 for a wide range of postgraduate taught master’s degrees starting in September 2025.

    “As part of our 125th anniversary celebrations, we introduced a special scholarship, offering up to 40% funding for students joining our Dubai campus,” stated Devesh Anand, regional director, South Asia and Middle East, University of Birmingham.

    “This was combined with academic and merit-based scholarships, giving students the opportunity to access multiple forms of support. The response has been fantastic, as students saw it as a real achievement and recognition of their efforts.”

    The number of Indian students studying in the UK remains high, with the Home Office data showing 98,014 study visas granted in the year ending June 2025.

    However, not everything is rosy, as students are increasingly concerned about their future in light of the immigration white paper, which proposes reducing the Graduate Route by six months and imposing a levy on international student fees.

    In such a situation, the aim for institutions like the University of Birmingham is to remain attractive to graduates seeking employment opportunities.

    “What we have to ensure is that University of Birmingham graduates are career-ready and can get the sorts of jobs that allow them to continue working in the UK if they want to, so they can be sponsored by an employer at the required graduate-level salary,” said Mason.

    “To put it delicately, I think the universities that will struggle with the immigration changes are those not paying enough attention to employability. If your graduates are employable, it’s not an issue.”

    Source link