Created in 2004 to promote Chinese language instruction and cultural exchange, Confucius Institutes have become one of the most visible instruments of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) soft power. In 2009, Li Changchun, then a member of the CCP Politburo, described them as “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda apparatus.”
In just over two decades, Confucius Institutes have expanded to hundreds of universities and schools in more than 160 countries. In Latin America, where the first Confucius Institute opened in Mexico in 2006, more than 40 are now operating. In recent years, however, growing concerns over Chinese influence, the limited transparency of these institutes and potential national security risks have prompted numerous countries with strong academic traditions and well-established democratic institutions across North America, Europe and Australia to close these centers.
“A university is an institution rooted in a liberal tradition, founded on critical thinking and academic freedom. When an organization based on campus attempts to shape or constrain these principles, a structural conflict emerges,” Parsifal D’Sola Alvarado, director of the Colombia-based Andrés Bello Foundation, told Diálogo Americas, a publication of U.S. Southern Command.
The gradual closure of Confucius Institutes across many countries also is prompting Latin America to reassess the role these centers play. The concerns stem not only from developments in other countries, but also from the way Confucius Institutes expanded throughout the region, closely linked to the CCP’s growing strategic outreach and the advance of the Belt and Road Initiative. In countries such as the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Panama, the expansion of these cultural initiatives took place during the same period that their governments switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing, reinforcing the role of these initiatives in building support for the CCP and shaping public debate.
China’s influence apparatus
The overlap between cultural diplomacy and Beijing’s strategic interests has intensified debate over the risks these institutes pose to university autonomy and the security of host countries. Unlike major Western cultural organizations, Confucius Institutes are overseen by entities directly linked to the Chinese state, which selects instructors and defines the curriculum.
Numerous experts have pointed to links between the Confucius system and the United Front, the CCP body responsible for building consensus, gathering information, monitoring overseas Chinese communities and identifying influential people to cultivate over the long term. “The goal is to advance the United Front agenda by making foreigners serve China,” wrote University of Canterbury sinologist Anne-Marie Brady.
According to experts, Confucius Institutes contribute to what is known as “elite capture.” Through funding, scholarships, exchange programs and cooperation opportunities, they help build long-term networks of influence designed to discourage criticism of Beijing.
In Latin America, their expansion has found fertile ground in public universities with limited financial resources. According to D’Sola, however, the financial support offered by Beijing can become a source of dependency that facilitates control over academic programs and the censorship of topics that the Chinese government considers sensitive.
“There is solid evidence that Confucius Institutes have interfered with academic freedom at universities in several countries, particularly on issues that are sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, such as Taiwan, Tiananmen and human rights, among others,” D’Sola said.
The expert also warned about the close relationship between these institutes and Chinese embassies. Confucius Institutes do not operate in isolation but rather form part of a broader Chinese influence strategy that combines diplomacy, media, academic cooperation, think tanks, exchange programs and economic relations.
A significant example occurred in May 2026, when the Chinese Embassy in Argentina, according to Infobae, pressured the University of Belgrano to cancel the presentation of a book critical of the Beijing government. “The logic of pressuring a university to cancel a panel is another step toward narrative control, and it also represents clear interference in another country aimed at restricting freedom of expression,” said the book’s author, Roberto Iglesias.
Withdrawal of Confucius Institutes
Considering these concerns, numerous countries that host some of the world’s most prestigious universities have concluded that the benefits offered by Confucius Institutes do not outweigh the risks to the autonomy of their host institutions. Eleven countries — Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States have closed some or all of their Confucius Institutes.
The U.S. represents the most significant case: Between 2010 and 2022, nearly all 118 Confucius Institutes operating in the country ceased operations. Sweden became the first European nation to eliminate both Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms from primary and secondary schools. Australia also experienced a significant wave of closures; by 2025, six universities had either closed their Confucius Institutes or allowed their agreements to expire amid heightened scrutiny of foreign interference and the protection of academic freedom.
Most universities involved did not discontinue Chinese language or cultural studies. Instead, they transferred these activities to structures under their direct control, replacing programs funded or supervised by Beijing with courses independently managed by the universities to ensure greater academic autonomy, transparency and freedom of inquiry.
For Latin America, this evolution offers an important lesson. If universities with greater resources, stronger oversight mechanisms and a long tradition of academic independence identified significant problems with Confucius Institutes, countries across the region also should carefully examine the strategic implications of their presence. “The Chinese government exercises strong narrative control over its history and political reality, creating friction in environments where critical analysis is valued,” D’Sola said.