Students are being taught that Britain must forge closer links with China in a textbook accused of peddling “propaganda”, The Telegraph can reveal.

The A-level book, widely used in schools by British teenagers studying Mandarin, says the UK should “deepen cooperation” with Beijing in the wake of Brexit.

Using language associated with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), it also promotes:

• China’s Belt and Road Initiative
• The “positive impact” of Chinese students coming to the UK
• The “crucial role” of Confucius Institutes

...

Pearson, the UK’s largest education and assessment company, which endorses the textbook for students taking its Edexcel A-level Chinese qualification, launched a review on Monday night.

....

Luke de Pulford, co-founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an international group of legislators working to reform the approach of democratic countries to China, likened parts of the textbook to “approved CCP propaganda”.

He said: “This is not an education, but an indoctrination. It would be an understatement to call these passages one-sided.”

...

The book titled “Chinese for A-Level” is published by Cypress Books, which describes itself as the largest distributor for Chinese publications in the UK. A spokesman denied the book was propaganda.

The London-based company is under the overall control of the China International Communications Group (CICG) – the public relations and publishing arm of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

...

In one section of the textbook, students are asked to translate into Mandarin a 124-word passage written in English that describes how Brexit has weakened the UK’s financial standing.

The passage states that the growth of trade between the UK and China has “stalled” in recent years as “the market uncertainty created by the UK’s exit from the EU has weakened its influence in the global financial system, causing China to be more cautious about investing in the UK”.

It says that “in light of these circumstances”, the two countries “must enhance communication, seek win-win cooperation opportunities, and find mutually beneficial solutions”.

The phrase “win-win cooperation” is a favourite of the CCP. It was first used by Xi Jinping, the CCP’s general secretary, during a state visit to Russia in 2013, where he reportedly proposed a “new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation”. Chinese officials use it frequently in official statements about foreign policy and international relations.

The phrase is used again in another passage – this one written in Mandarin that students are asked to translate into English – which states that the UK and China should “deepen their cooperation”.

...

The textbook also repeatedly states that the UK and China should seek cooperation and trade outcomes that are “mutually beneficial”, which is another commonly used phrase by the CCP.

Mr de Pulford said: “These excerpts are – word for word – approved CCP propaganda. When Beijing says ‘win-win cooperation’ they mean that Xi Jinping’s Party-State wins twice.”

...

In an exercise, students are asked to describe the “positive impact” of the presence of Chinese students in the UK.

The book describes some “challenges”, including visa restrictions and funding limitations, but makes no mention of the growing concerns about Chinese interference at British universities in recent years or the fears of espionage.

Last month, MI5 issued an unprecedented public alert to universities warning that China’s intelligence service was using a front company to fund research by UK academics which it was using to improve its spying capabilities.

...

This chapter also praises the “crucial role” of the Confucius Institutes, the controversial units embedded in universities around the world which are run and part-funded by an arm of the Chinese state.

The institutes have been accused of acting as a front for the CCP to spread propaganda, spy on students, and clamp down on critical views of Beijing.

The UK has been reported to have 30 of the institutes – more than any other country – including at the universities of Manchester, Coventry and Liverpool.

...

Removepaywall

[Edit typo.]

Oh no, we can't have children indoctrinated to believe Brexit was a dumb decision and that the best and brightest coming over is beneficial to the history country.

Please read the article before commenting.

By paraphrasing one of the key points in the article, it does actually look like they read it before commenting.

This ml account (is it the same as @alcoholicorn@hexbear.net?) either hasn't read the article or has (intentionally?) misunderstood the content. Brexit is bad, but the article puts this in a completely different context.

@alcoholicorn@hexbear.net

the article puts this in a completely different context.

No it doesn't, you just don't like that I'm critical of your silly xenophobic article.

"Brexit was bad" is not what the article makes a key point when arguing the textbook spreads CCP propaganda though.

I shouldn't be surprised .ml-tankies showing up misrepresenting this though.

The article criticizes both the notion of children being taught Brexit was economically stupid and that chinese students have a positive impact on Britain, among other equally xenophobic points.

I am not misrepresenting anything, I am mocking the writer and anybody who accepts this conservative horseshit uncritically.

Sorry, but the article is behind a paywall, so I'm assuming the copy/paste in the OP is accurate to the original article. In the OP, the brexit argument is literally the 1st point the author makes after claiming "This is not an education, but an indoctrination". That makes it sound rather important to the basis of their argument.

But, please, go ahead and claim "tankies" are misrepresenting the issue.

I mean, you can read the article with Firefox's read mode easily and then you'd read that it's not about Brexit in general but about how Brexit has stalled economic relations with China in particular.

And yes, when you are too lazy to press one button in your browser's address bar, I'lo accuse you of misrepresentation.
There is nothing c&p-ed here, btw.

You're leaving out half of the argument you're criticising in the first place.