Hua, did you see that U.S. report? It recommends increasing investment in Chinese immersion programs and makes “studying in Taiwan” a main model.

I saw it. My first reaction was that it’s contradictory: on the one hand, it acknowledges that Chinese is important; on the other, it stresses being “independent of China’s influence” and proposes many restrictions and reviews.

Exactly. Language learning is originally meant for understanding and communication, but if you look at the other side with suspicion from the start, it’s easy to treat Chinese as a tool rather than a bridge.

But from their perspective, perhaps they want to train people who can read materials directly and deal with China. It’s just that describing the motivation in such a “confrontational” way makes learning feel very cold.

They also mentioned linking federal funding to schools’ partnerships and requiring greater transparency. This may reduce risks, but it could also make normal cultural exchange tense.

I’ve encountered similar issues when teaching English. Students ask me, “Does learning English mean I have to like a certain country?” I tell them that learning a language is not about taking sides; it’s about broadening your view.

Well said. True Chinese ability is not just knowing how to say a few sentences, but being able to understand different viewpoints and think with evidence. We can read critically, but we shouldn’t start with prejudice.

So I hope their Chinese education won’t be reduced to only “competition.” If more students can truly encounter real people and real life, misunderstandings between each other will become fewer.