[Senate Prints 112-15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress
1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT S. Prt.
112-15
_______________________________________________________________________
ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT
--CHINA AND AMERICA--
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE
AGE OF THE INTERNET
__________
A MINORITY STAFF REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
First Session
February 15, 2011
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-768 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
Frank G. Lowenstein, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ v
Executive Summary................................................ 1
Findings, Observations and Recommendations....................... 4
Introduction..................................................... 7
Public Diplomacy (PD)........................................ 7
Why Does China Even Need PD?................................. 7
PD As A Mirror: How China Views Itself........................... 9
Chinese PD--Modern Day Reliance on a Distant Past............ 9
Chinese PD Platforms: The Rise of the Confucius Institute.... 10
American PD Platforms in China--Too Small, Too Few To Matter. 12
U.S.-China People to People PD............................... 15
How Mighty is ``100,000 Strong''?--Higher Education as PD.... 16
Introducing the World to China--the 2008 Olympics;
Introducing China to the World--the 2010 World Expo........ 18
Chinese PD in Uniform........................................ 22
PD Realities: The World's View of China.......................... 23
KFPD--``Kung Fu Panda Diplomacy'' and the Role of Cinema in
PD......................................................... 24
No Nobel for Liu Xiaobo--Poor Human Rights Undermine China's
PD Efforts................................................. 25
China--First or Third World?................................. 29
Commercial Dominance and Territorial Saber Rattling Strain
Local Relationships........................................ 30
An iPhone Does Not Equal Democracy........................... 34
The ``Google-ization'' of Internet Freedom................... 35
``The Web is Fundamentally Controllable''--The Great Firewall
of China................................................... 36
China's Answer --Create Our Own Internet Sites We Can Control 39
Beating the Censors at Their Own Game--Proxies and VPNs...... 40
U.S. Broadcasting--Already Practicing Internet Censorship
Circumvention Every Day.................................... 43
Appendixes
Appendix A.--List of Confucius Institutes in USA by Year......... 45
Appendix B.-- U.S. Legislation Regarding Funding of International
Expositions.................................................... 47
Appendix C.--Foreign Film Box Office Gross in China 1999-2010.... 49
Appendix D.--October 11, 2010 Open Letter to the Standing
Committee of the National People's Congress Calling for Greater
Press Freedom.................................................. 55
Appendix E.--Committee to Protect Journalists' 2010 List of
Imprisoned Chinese Journalists................................. 63
Appendix F.--Screen Shots of Baidu Searches as Seen from Inside
the Great Firewall............................................. 65
Liu Xiaobo................................................... 65
Tiananmen Square............................................. 66
Tibet........................................................ 67
Radio Free Asia (RFA)........................................ 68
Cairo's Tahrir Square........................................ 69
(iii)
?
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2011.
Dear Colleagues: Official U.S. interest in China for
political, economic and strategic reasons has been part of our
foreign policy for decades. Most Americans, on the other hand,
when they have thought about issues outside our borders, have
tended to focus on events in Europe and more recently the
Middle East. But no more. The latest Pew Research poll shows
that for the first time Asia has now overtaken Europe, by a
wide margin, as the area of the world most important to
Americans.
This is not that surprising given the extent to which the
United States and China are currently entwined in our most
complex bilateral relationship. While we are increasingly
dependent on each other for credit and markets, we nonetheless
eye each other warily as each country copes with the economic
challenges confronting it. At the same time, U.S. global
strategic dominance will face pressures from China's growing
military expenditures and nascent but rising nationalist
sentiment. Greater focus on China is necessary not only to
enhance our national and economic security but to improve our
ability to compete with China in markets overseas as well.
One way to address these issues is through our public
diplomacy with China. Yet in the same way that our trade with
China is out of balance, it is clear to even the casual
observer, that when it comes to interacting directly with the
other nation's public, we are in another lop-sided contest.
China has a vigorous public diplomacy program, based on a
portrayal of an ancient, benign China that is, perhaps, out of
touch with modern realities. Nonetheless, we are being
overtaken in this area of foreign policy by China, which is
able to take advantage of America's open system to spread its
message in many different ways, while using its fundamentally
closed system to stymie U.S. efforts.
Chinese obstruction of our efforts to engage their citizens
through both U.S. Government and commercial means is of
particular concern given how China restricts its own
population's access to information about the outside world and
even the very workings of its own government and society.
Internal scandals involving tainted milk, shoddy construction
of schools that collapsed in recent earthquakes and corruption
by high ranking officials or their family are but some of the
many topics deemed too sensitive, risking the ``harmonious
balance'' in Chinese society.
(v)
But Beijing's efforts to suppress information are beginning
to produce stresses on its political system that will have
lasting repercussions as more and more Chinese grow frustrated
with their own government's ``Great Firewall of China.''
China's suppression of news regarding the awarding of the Nobel
Peace Prize to jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo, cyber attacks on
Google and repeated harassment of those who voice their opinion
on the Internet are but a few illustrations.
China is also beginning to export its Internet censorship
technologies to other countries bent on controlling
information. In part because of this, and because U.S.
international broadcasting must already use Internet
circumvention technology on a daily basis to reach its audience
in countries such as China, Iran, Cuba, Belarus and other
closed societies, I have come to the conclusion that the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees these
operations--and not the State Department, which has been
somewhat dilatory in disbursing the $50 million in Internet
Freedom funds granted by Congress--should be the primary driver
in the U.S. Government on this issue.
One manner of communication that cannot be blocked by
technology is interaction with American officials, academics,
authors and ordinary citizens. However, the United States has
only five American Centers in all of China, while China has
some 70 Confucius Institutes throughout the United States. This
disparity is indicative of the aggressive push China is making
to project itself on the world's stage. It is also simply
unacceptable. We must do more to establish greater
opportunities for Chinese citizens to meet with and discuss
issues of mutual concern with American diplomats, scholars and
visiting citizens. Our recent efforts at the Shanghai World
Expo drew some 7,000,000 Chinese visitors to the USA Pavilion
but also drew criticism for its hastily organized presentations
and lack of a cogent message.
With these issues as a back-drop, I asked the Foreign
Relations Committee staff under the leadership of Senior
Professional Staff Member Paul Foldi to continue the
committee's oversight on this issue by visiting the region and
preparing the following report. This is now the committee's
third report aimed at reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy in
order to address the continued challenges that confront our
nation in the new century. I hope this report will stimulate a
dialogue within the Congress and I will welcome any comments
you might have.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar,
Ranking Member.
ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT
--CHINA AND AMERICA--
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE
AGE OF THE INTERNET
----------
Executive Summary
Concern in the United States over events in China is
nothing new, dating back to the ``loss'' of China in 1949,
through the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, Congress's 1999
``Cox Report'' on Chinese military espionage activities and the
attempted Chinese cover-up of the SARS epidemic in 2003. In
part because of recent events, Americans now believe, for the
first time, that Asia is more important to the United States
than Europe--a truly historic shift.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Pew Research January 12, 2011 poll which shows Europe's
decline as ``the area most important to the U.S.'' from 50 percent in
1993 to 37 percent in 2011 while Asia rose from 31 percent to 47
percent for the same period.
http://people-press.org/report/692/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that China's recent explosive economic
advances are of new concern to Americans with our ever-mounting
bilateral trade deficit (which has exceeded $200 billion every
year since 2005) \2\ coupled with China's continued dominance
as the number one holder of U.S. Treasury securities\3\ and its
$2.4 trillion in foreign currency and gold reserves.\4\ This
erosion of our economic position in the world, and the
concomitant loss of manufacturing jobs, blamed by many on
China,\5\ has only added to the rising tensions between our two
nations. China's recent actions in the South China Sea and
Beijing's refusal to join the rest of the world in trying to
contain North Korea's nuclear program and Pyongyang's
aggression towards South Korea are further stress points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html.
\3\ Some $880 billion as of September 2010 according to the US
Treasury:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt.
\4\ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
rankorder/2188rank.html.
\5\ See New York Times ``Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China''
from January 14, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/
15solar.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic liberalizations that began slowly in the late
1970's and grew exponentially in the last decade have
transformed much of China's urban landscape as virtually every
major city, particularly those on the coast, are gleaming
beacons of China's new wealth, with their towering skyscrapers,
the ultra-modern, efficient public transportation systems and
traffic packed with brand-new luxury cars. One need not even
visit China to experience this new level of confidence; a trip
to any retail store in America, and indeed most of the world,
will demonstrate the economic export dominance coming from
China today. Everything from inexpensive apparel to high-end
sophisticated electronics is now stamped ``Made in China.''
Meanwhile, state-sponsored troupes of Chinese dancers,
acrobats and orchestras criss-cross the United States packing
philharmonics and community centers alike. China's hosting of
the globally televised 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing and the
2010 World Expo in Shanghai drew millions of viewers and
visitors alike, with the former serving to ``introduce China to
the world,'' the second as the ``world coming to China.''
The new China now presents itself as an alternative center
of power, and financial largesse, to the United States--and has
the resources to back it up. Having flexed its muscles to
reinforce this new position, Beijing sought to allay growing
fears that China's success might pose either an economic or
military threat with the establishment in 2005 of the
``Peaceful Rise of China'' Public Diplomacy campaign.\6\
China's successful implementation of this campaign in playing
down the possible negative consequences of China's ever-
increasing dominance was illustrated in President Obama's
response to a question during the recent 2010 state visit by
Chinese President Hu, ``I absolutely believe that China's
peaceful rise is good for the world, and it's good for
America.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Zheng Bijian's ``China's `Peaceful Rise' to Great Power
Status'' in the Sep/Oct 2005 volume of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61015/zheng-bijian/chinas-
peaceful-rise-to-great-power-status. This same language/imagery is used
in 2011; see Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang's piece in the Financial
Times ``The World Should Not Fear a Growing China'' from January 9,
2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64283784-1c23-11e0-9b56-
00144feab49a.html#axzz1AevrpiPL.
\7\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/19/press-
conference-president-obama-and-president-hu-peoples-republic-china.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few in the United States appreciate how far China has
rebounded from its nadir. For most of America's time as an
independent nation, China was a weak and divided shadow of its
former self. Many forget that for hundreds of years, while
Europe was plunged into its Dark Ages, China was the preeminent
power in the world and the source of many so-called ``European
inventions,'' which actually originated in China hundreds if
not thousands of years before.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Such developments range from the stirrup, to the 365-day
calendar, to inoculation against smallpox, the chain drive, and even
the banknote. There are even assertions that China's powerful navy
visited North America some 80 years prior to Columbus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Chinese students are taught of this vaunted past,
and many see their nation's recent economic success, with its
current lead in green technologies and record-setting high
speed trains, as a clear sign that China is reclaiming its
former glory. Some in China argue that we are now in a ``bi-
polar'' world, while others contend China will soon overtake
the U.S. as the new, lone ``super power.''
However, just as Japan's rise in the 1980s provoked
unwarranted fears of American decline, it is important to note
that life is not perfect in the ``Middle Kingdom.'' Inland from
the coast, many areas remain poverty-stricken; environmental
degradation is worsening by the year, profiteering, corruption
and land grabs by local officials continually provoke protests,
working conditions are often dangerous, and quality control is
lax.\9\ Recent recalls for excessive lead in toys made in
China\10\ and tainted baby-formula produced in China,\11\ as
well as toxic drywall produced in China,\12\ have led to a
significant backlash both here in the United States and within
China. Even Beijing's vaunted Olympic ``Birds nest'' stadium is
already showing signs of disuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nationally, per capita income is only $6,700, ranking China
just above Turkmenistan and five places below Albania. For more
information, see
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
rankorder/2004rank.html?
countryName=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=130#ch.
\10\ http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Chinese-toys-tainted-by-lead-
or-made-by-child-labour-18907.html.
\11\ http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-11-tainted-
formula_N.htm.
\12\ http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052702303891804575576272885290234.html?KEY-
WORDS=china+drywall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's aging population and one-child policy have led to
a so-called 4-2-1 pyramid where one adult's salary has to
support his/her own two parents and four grandparents. China's
recent aggressive moves in the fall of 2010 in the East China
Sea have driven many of the nations surrounding it to look to
the United States for greater military cooperation and possible
arms sales. China's aggressive economic activities have sparked
riots in other nations as they too begin to suffer from ``Made
in China'' fatigue and job loss.
There seems little question that the next 50 years will
witness a competition between our two countries in much the
same way the United States and the Soviet Union vied for allies
and global influence during the last fifty. The great unknown
is whether this competition will shift from the economic sphere
to a more military-oriented direction. What is known is that
our nation is not doing all it can to prepare for the
increasingly prominent role China will play in our economic and
foreign policy.
As a public, our knowledge of China is limited and
concentrated among a few diplomats and academics. Not enough
students are learning Chinese in our schools. While China sends
almost 130,000 students each year to the United States, roughly
one-tenth of that number of Americans make the reverse
trek.\13\ Chinese students return home with a better
understanding of the value of multi-party democracy, free
speech, and the power of the individual, as well as knowing our
language, our culture and our world-view. While the
Obamaadministration's recently announced program to increase
Americans studying in China to 25,000 a year over 4 years
through private sector support--the so-called ``100,000
Strong'' project--is laudable, it remains woefully under-
resourced by some of the very sectors of our economy who carry
out the most trade with China and who would therefore most
benefit from a bi-lingual workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See the 2010 ``Open Doors'' study compiled the Institute of
International Education. For the academic year 2009-2010 (the most
current data available), 127,000 Chinese students were in the United
States (a 30 percent increase in the number of Chinese students from
the year before) making China the #1 ``sending'' country, having
overtaken India. By contrast, a mere 14,000 American students were in
China during this same period, making China the number five
``receiving'' country behind France, Spain, Italy, and number one
Britain with 31,000. According to IIE, of the roughly 19.5 million
Americans enrolled in college during this period, 250,000 (or just over
1 percent ) studied abroad:
http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China, for its own reasons, is helping to teach Americans
about China. Beijing has invested millions in so-called
``Confucius Institutes'' throughout the world that provide
classes in Chinese language, literature and the arts. In the
United States alone, there are some 70 such Institutes, located
primarily at universities and colleges. This is an opportunity
for Americans who might not be able to afford overseas studies
to delve into such subjects here. However, our ability to make
similar outreach to the many Chinese unable to come to the U.S.
to study has been sharply curtailed by China which has limited
the U.S. to only five similar American Centers in China.
Likewise, America's press freedoms are available to foreign
news agencies inside our borders. The Chinese Government-owned
Xinhua News, the official press agency of the Chinese
Government, will soon be allowed to open a multi-floored office
in Times Square and already broadcasts from an AM transmitter
in Texas. By contrast, Beijing limits the Voice of America to a
single, two-person office there and blocks the opening of a VOA
bureau in Shanghai. Furthermore, China forces both VOA and
Radio Free Asia to beam in on Short Wave radio from distant
locations well outside its borders. China also routinely jams
these transmissions as well as blocks both VOA's and RFA's
Internet sites. Meanwhile, Congress has provided tens of
millions of dollars to assist in Internet freedom issues
including Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology, but
little of that money has been allocated by the State Department
in spite of clear bipartisan support.
Since Fiscal Year 2008, Congress has given the State
Department some $50 million targeted for Internet Freedom. To
date, some $30 million of this money remains unobligated, with
few of the spent funds dedicated to Internet Censorship
Circumvention Technology (ICCT). The Broadcasting Board of
Governors entities--the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe,
Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia and Middle East
Broadcasting Network--must all work on a daily basis to ensure
their radio, Internet and television programs are being
received by audiences in certain countries that try to block,
jam or outlaw these efforts. As such, the BBG, and not the
State Department, would appear to be the logical lead agency in
the federal government to focus current and future ICCT
funding.
Each of these facets of our Public Diplomacy with China--
Educational Exchanges, Public Diplomacy Platforms and U.S.
Broadcasting as well as others--is in serious need of greater
focus and attention if we are to be competitive and remain ``in
the game'' with China.
Findings, Observations and Recommendations
China routinely jams Voice of America and Radio Free Asia
transmissions in Mandarin, Cantonese, Uyghur and
Tibetan. It blocks access to VOA and RFA's websites via
its ``Great Firewall,'' requiring its citizens to
circumvent such censorship through Internet proxy sites
and virtual private networks. China's refusal to allow
the opening of a Voice of America office in Shanghai
cannot remain unchallenged given the domestic access
granted Xinhua and other Chinese state media here in
the United States.
The Secretary of State's January 2010 major speech on
Internet Freedom received scant follow-up as twelve
months elapsed before the State Department moved to
disburse some $30 million in funds specifically
appropriated for Internet freedom promotion, including
the development of Internet Censorship Circumvention
Technology. Such technology should be given a much
higher priority by the U.S. Government. Recent delays
in allocating pre-existing funding, and the inept
handling of an untested technology, have strengthened
the hands of those governments, including China's, who
seek to restrict their citizens' access to information.
The State Department is poorly placed to handle this
issue due to its reliance on daily bilateral
interaction with these very same governments,
particularly China. The Broadcasting Board of
Governors--because of its unique position in combating
Internet censorship on a daily basis on behalf of Voice
of America, Radio Free Asia and its other entities--is
more properly poised to become a leader in the field
for the U.S. Government.
China has some 70 ``Confucius Institutes'' in the United
States where Chinese language, literature, culture and
arts are taught and Americans made more aware of life
in China. We have been unable to reciprocate these
projections of soft power as the United States has been
allowed to open only five American Centers in China. To
help circumvent this unjustifiable restriction,
theadministration has begun to assist American
universities who have pre-existing programs in China in
opening Centers for American Studies at Chinese
universities. Pending a reversal of China's
intransigence, such partnerships will have to be the
way of the future in the near term, but will also
require increased funding to keep pace with Confucius
Institutes.
China's moves toward a greater market-oriented economy
should not be mistaken for the Communist Party's
willingness to tolerate organized political
opposition--an iPhone does not equal democracy!
Nonetheless, these new technologies are symbols to
millions of Chinese that there is much new information
available to the rest of the world--information that
their government denies them. Determining how to enable
reformers to use this technology to safely communicate
with like-minded activists should remain a constant
goal of the U.S. Government.
China continues to harass, prosecute and imprison bloggers
and journalists on a routine basis. Those who dare
raise topics related to Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen
Square--the so-called ``Three Ts''--as well as HIV/AIDS
in China and issues related to the Xinjiang province
(with its Muslim Uyghur population) are often ``invited
for tea'' at the local police station, resulting in a
stern verbal warning for a first offense. Those who
continue discussing these topics on-line risk being
fired or imprisoned for ``disturbing the social
order.'' In 2010, China was tied for first with Iran in
the number of imprisoned journalists--34; additionally,
there are over 1,400 political prisoners in China as of
the date of this report.
Nobel prizes have been awarded eleven times to Chinese
recipients; 326 to Americans. Of the 11 Nobel Prizes
awarded to Chinese citizens, only one was living in
China at the time--the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to
imprisoned human rights activist Liu Xiaobo. China
views this as an example of Western ``hegemonic
lecturing'' and in 2010 created its own ``Confucius
Peace Prize,'' the winner of which declined to accept
the award.
The Chinese lifting of the annual cap of twenty foreign
(mostly American) films allowed into China would give
the average Chinese viewer a broader exposure to the
United States and do much to offset the millions of
dollars in lost revenue due to illegal copying in
China.
Currently, 690,000 international students are enrolled in
the United States, generating over $19 billion in
tuition and living expenses. Of these, 130,000, roughly
19 percent , are from China--making it the number one
``sending nation.'' In comparison, there are some
14,000 Americans students in China. Increasing the
number of Americans studying in China is in our
nation's vital interest if we are to have the needed
commercial, academic and policy experts to address the
challenges a rising China will pose to our nation. The
State Department's recently announced ``100,000
Strong'' four-year goal is laudable but was accompanied
by no U.S. Government funding and will, therefore, need
significant financial support from the private sector
which has much to gain in terms of competitiveness with
a bi-lingual American workforce. The Chinese
Government, however, has already agreed to fund 2,500
scholarships each year for the 4 years of the program.
The current U.S. Peace Corps program in China of some 140
``Chinese-American Friendship Volunteers'' primarily
engaged in English-language instruction provides
invaluable, long-term interaction with American
citizens and should be expanded but amounts to only one
American volunteer for every 10 million Chinese.
Beijing's ``Peaceful Rise of China'' Public Diplomacy
campaign is also being carried out by an ever-
increasing number of Chinese military personnel in
United Nations peacekeeping operations. To reinforce
the nature of the campaign, none of these troops have
come from combat units, but rather engineering, medical
and police divisions.
Many Americans now view World Expos as antiquated affairs.
The rest of the globe does not, and U.S. ambivalence
towards participation unduly offends the host nations.
Given that more than 7,000,000 Chinese visited the U.S.
Pavilion at the Shanghai Expo in 2010, the lack of
effort caused by unnecessary hesitation and delays on
the part of the Obamaadministration only squandered an
unprecedented opportunity to put our best foot forward
to an audience over 10 times the size of the number of
Chinese who visit the United States in a single year.
Although large crowds streamed in, many were
disappointed by the low-tech and rather ordinary
exhibits inside which failed to demonstrate American
technological, scientific and commercial expertise.
Those same mistakes should not be repeated in the lead
up to the 2012 Expo in Korea. Given recent interest by
Texas and California in hosting the 2020 Expo, the U.S.
should seek immediately to re-join the Bureau of
International Expositions in order to bid for the 2020
Expo. Consideration should be given to repealing
legislation limiting U.S. Government involvement in
Expos, an action that would give the private sector
greater confidence in our efforts and lead to more
coherent funding.
----------
Introduction
Public Diplomacy (PD)
The generally recognized definition of Public Diplomacy is
practice of governments communicating directly with the
citizens, rather than the leadership, of another country. While
the term ``Public Diplomacy'' first appeared in the United
States in 1965, governments had long been going over the heads
of leaders and working directly with foreign audiences.
Nonetheless, China currently acts as if it had only just
discovered Public Diplomacy (PD) as a tool of foreign policy
and seems bent on furiously trying to reverse engineer it as
yet another Western invention that must be produced in
China.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See China Daily ``China Needs More Public Diplomacy'' from
March 3, 2010:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010npc/2010-03/11/
content_9570697.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of effective PD is to convey or project to a
foreign public a specific image or attitude about your country
through words and deeds. In order to accomplish this, a country
must have an agreed upon message it wishes to convey that will
resonate with the audience. Also, a nation must be willing to
recognize how the rest of the world views it. If the message a
nation tries to project through its PD is significantly out of
balance with what the rest of the world perceives, PD efforts
will not be viewed as a sincere attempt to engage but more as
pure propaganda. This is the case confronting China today,
particularly in its dealings with the West.
Why Does China Even Need PD?
Modern China holds a unique position in history in terms of
its interaction with the United States. Like the former Soviet
Union, China is run by a repressive Communist government that
has no qualms about quashing human rights and imprisoning
democracy advocates. But the Soviet Union was economically
isolated, having little need to interact outside its Eastern
Bloc system of satellite nations with whom it conducted the
majority of its trade by fiat rather than market economics.
Like Japan in the 1980s, China's trade issues with the United
States are a major source of bilateral friction. But unlike
Japan (both a treaty ally of the United States and heavily
dependent on the U.S. for its defense), which opened numerous
auto plants in the U.S. and obtains the raw materials it needs
on the open market, China feeds its economic engine through a
series of equity stakes in raw material production--buying
everything from oil fields in Sudan, to Australian coal
deposits and Peruvian copper mines.
China is thus putting itself in a very tenuous spot where
public sentiment could easily turn and harm its economic
expansion. Such was the case in 2005 when CNOOC (China National
Offshore Oil Corporation) attempted to purchase the American
oil company UNOCAL for $18.5 billion--an all-cash bid which
surpassed ChevronTexaco's next highest offer by over $1
billion. Even though there was no legal prohibition for such a
purchase, UNOCAL shareholders eventually rejected the CNOOC
bid, in part due to Congressional and public outcry which noted
that China's own market structure hampered reciprocal type
purchases in China.\15\ Another example where the American
public's perception of Beijing directly affected China's
economic fortunes was the debate over its admission to the WTO
during the Clinton administration. Until that time, Congress
voted every year, with lengthy debate beforehand, on China's
``normal trade relation'' status (formerly called Most Favored
Nation). This gave many members an opportunity annually to
castigate China for its record on human rights, Tibet, Taiwan,
its potential threats to U.S. security, etc. The WTO debate
turned not so much on the economic pros and cons of the
accession deal reached by the Clinton administration--a deal
which has added billions to U.S.-China trade--as on the loss of
this regular public forum to air grievances against China.
Separately, Congress created two permanent commissions to study
and report regularly on China's human rights record, adherence
to rule of law, and potential risks to the U.S. from its
economic and security policies.\16\ Such single-country focus
is unique to China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Bloomberg BusinessWeek ``Why China's UNOCAL Bid Ran Out of
Gas'' from August 4, 2005:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2005/
nf2005084_5032_db016.htm.
\16\ These commissions are the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Commission,
http://www.uscc.gov/index.php, and the Congressional-Executive
Commission, which monitors human rights and the rule of law in China:
http://www.cecc.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the past, when an economically insular and isolated
China could allow its Public Diplomacy to rely solely on a
random scattering of a handful of pandas, China must now engage
full-on with publics around the world as part of its foreign
and economic policy. In addition to strains caused by trade
policies, China is also under U.S. and international pressures
over its abysmal human rights record and its willingness to
coddle and support dictators ranging from Robert Mugabe in
Zimbabwe to Kim Jung-il in North Korea. China's Public
Diplomacy is therefore geared towards re-shaping the world's
image of China.
As part of our democratic and, primarily, Euro-centric
heritage, most American studies of ancient times focus on
ancient Greece and Rome and into the Dark Ages, leading through
the Renaissance/Reformation/Counter-Reformation into Columbus
and the Pilgrims, until we arrive at 1776. Many forget that
during that entire lead-up to the Declaration of Independence
and the subsequent 234-year history of our nation, China had
existed for more than 4,000 years. (In the Chinese calendar,
2011 is the year 4709.) For much of that time, China was, in
fact, the world's lone super-power, projecting itself far
beyond its borders through its trade and military. It is to
this former glory that China now wishes to return. For a nation
that old, which did not even deem an Embassy in the West
necessary until 1876, the past 300 years in which nations of
the West dominated and colonized much of the world present just
a minor blip in the Chinese timeline. Those who fail to
recognize that ``new'' China has every intention and will use
every method (economic, social and even military) to reclaim
its old mantle woefully underestimate the pride and
determination its ancient history imbues in its leaders and
citizens.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Wall Street Journal ``In China's Orbit: After 500 Years of
Western Predominance, the World is Tilting Back East'' from November
18, 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704104104575622531909154228.html. See Wall Street
Journal ``In China's Orbit: After 500 Years of Western Predominance,
the World is Tilting Back East'' from November 18, 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704104104575622531909154228.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report will examine the disparities and tensions
between how China uses its ancient history as the lens through
which it sees itself and how the rest of the world focuses on
China's more modern developments to form its impressions. This
disconnect should, in theory, offer the perfect opening for
greater U.S. engagement with China through our Public
Diplomacy; however, China is doing everything it can to
obstruct, limit and blunt these efforts and using its own soft
power efforts to project and regain its place atop the world.
While some of their efforts are more effective than others,
China currently has the resources and determination needed to
drive this policy forward.
PD As A Mirror: How China Views Itself
Culture has become a more and more important source
of national cohesion and creativity and a factor of
growing significance in the competition in overall
national strength.--Chinese President Hu Jintao to the
17th Communist Party Congress in 2007
Chinese PD--Modern Day Reliance on a Distant Past
In its desire to return to what it views as its rightful
position as the preeminent global power, 21st century China
seeks to avoid the appearance of an aggressive or hostile
country, lest the nations of the world unite to confront it and
derail its political and commercial efforts. To do so, China
relies on the early part of its 4,000 years of cultural history
to form the core of its Public Diplomacy (PD) and project a
stable and inward looking nation that could not possibly be a
threat to others. In spite of this focus, Chinese PD is
confusingly dispersed in three separate government ministries:
the State Council on Information Office which controls ``Soft
Power'' themes, the Foreign Ministry which handles formal
Public Diplomacy and the Ministry of Education, which runs the
``Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign
Language,'' best known by its colloquial name ``Hanban.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In the United States, Public Diplomacy was handled from 1953
to 1999 solely by the U.S. Information Agency. The
Clintonadministration bowed to Congressional critics of USIA and budget
hawks looking for ``peace dividends'' following the collapse of the
Soviet Union. USIA went from being a separate Cabinet agency to a
division in the State Department headed by an Under Secretary of State
who oversees the Bureaus of Educational and Cultural Affairs,
International Information Programs and Public Affairs. The only portion
of USIA that was allowed to remain outside the State Department was
U.S. international broadcasting; today, the Voice of America, Radio
Free Europe, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia and the
Middle East Broadcasting Network are run by the Broadcasting Board of
Governors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of its name, Hanban deals with more than just
teaching Chinese; its mission is also to help explain China to
the world. To accomplish this, Hanban relies on the nation's
distant past to project a reflective, harmonious, yet inventive
nation capable of greatness--not in terms of the modern,
industrialized Communist state. China's Public Diplomacy
imagery is thus centered on the so-called Four Great Inventions
(paper, the compass, printing and gunpowder--to be used for
firecrackers, not cannons) as well as the building of the 4,000
mile long Great Wall and the teachings of Confucius. Each of
these images dovetails with the ``Peaceful Rise of China''
campaign announced in 2005.
Confucius and the Great Wall promote images of an inward-
looking nation in both the spiritual and geo-political sense.
Confucian reverence for stability focuses on family loyalty and
respect for one's elders, which can easily be transferred to
the need to respect one's leaders and loyalty to the nation as
the ultimate embodiment of family. The Great Wall was meant to
keep foreigners out and suggests a static, non-aggressive
nation-state bent on preserving itself, not one seeking to
expand beyond its borders.
The so-called Four Great Inventions reinforce China's
contention that it should be viewed as the true source of
science and technology, and that the West simply copied its
technology centuries later and claimed the credit, such as
Gutenberg ``inventing'' movable type some 400 years after its
introduction in China. China believes that the list of such
inventions later claimed to have been ``discovered'' by
Europeans who brought the ideas back from visits to the East is
as lengthy as it is unrecognized by the modern West.\19\ [While
the West may shrug off such issues, China views the credit for
creating such inventions with the same tenacity and pride that
we now hold to modern Intellectual Property Rights, which the
West feels China routinely violates.] \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ China claims everything from matches, the crossbow, the
decimal system, playing cards, the suspension bridge and the fishing
reel were first developed thousands of year before their ``re-
invention'' in the West. For other examples see The Genius of China:
3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention by Robert Temple;
published by Simon and Schuster, 1986. Some ask what has China
developed or discovered in the last 200 plus years and point to the
wide disparity now between the U.S. and China in the number of patents
applied for/granted in recent years. Although China has made phenomenal
patent gains from 2000-2006 and is clearly growing, it still lags
behind both the U.S. and Japan by nearly half in the number of patents
applied for. See the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2008
World Patent Report:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/
pdf/wipo_pub_931.pdf.
\20\ See PC World ``U.S. Panel Looks at Intellectual Property
Violations in China'' from June 15, 2010:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/198901/
us_panel_looks_at_intellectual_property_violations_in_china.html.
Chinese Government officials argue that they are in fact cracking down,
while economists note that countries only begin to take IPR issues
seriously when they have their own, home-grown inventions and
technologies to protect. See Xinhua's ``China cracks down on IPR
violations as new year approaches'' from December 17, 2010,
http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/newsarticle/news/government/201012/
981909_1.html, found on the Chinese Government's own ``IPR Protection
in China Website'':
http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese PD Platforms: The Rise of the Confucius Institute
Confucius Institutes are ``an important channel to
glorify Chinese culture, to help Chinese culture spread
to the world'', which is ``part of China's foreign
propaganda strategy.'' --Li Changchun, one of the nine
members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo in
charge of ideology and propaganda\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Quoted from Asia Times ``The Language of Soft Power in the
U.S.'' from May 24, 2007:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IE24Ad01.html.
In addition to helping shape the imagery of Chinese Public
Diplomacy, Hanban is in charge of China's version of the
British Council--the Confucius Institute. The Confucius
Institute, China's flagship PD program, is an effective,
expansive and expensive effort to promulgate the teaching of
Chinese language and ancient culture throughout the world
through classes, teacher training, cultural events and
sponsored trips to China. By doing so, China hopes to convey a
thoughtful, innovative, responsible and, most importantly,
peaceful friend to all nations.
Since 2004, Hanban has established approximately 320
Confucius Institutes throughout the world. China has focused on
these efforts on the United States, which now has over 70
nstitutes.\22\ Russia and Korea follow with only 17 institutes
in each, France with 15, the UK with 14, and Thailand and Japan
with 13 each. China's efforts to demonstrate both its largesse
and it influence have even lead to institutes in Iceland,
Jamaica and Malta.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A list of the Confucius Institutes in the United States can be
found in Appendix A.
\23\ See China Daily ``Confucius Institutes Enhance China's
International Image'' from April 23, 2010:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/23/content_9766116.htm;
Hanban's list of Confucius Institutes, Application Procedure and By-Law
can be found here:
http://english.hanban.org/node_10971.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When establishing a new Confucius Institute, Hanban will
partner primarily with universities and provide up to $100,000
to cover start-up costs. The institute will often leverage or
enhance an existing Chinese studies program and be situated in
pre-existing class rooms donated by the university, but
institutes can also be created from scratch. Institute
offerings range from Chinese language instruction, cultural
events and Tai Chi classes to subsidized trips to China and
proctoring the ``HSK'' test which scores an individual's
proficiency in Mandarin (the Chinese equivalent of the English-
language TOEFL test) used to determine a person's language
abilities for either professional or education accreditation
purposes.
As originally envisioned, institutes would be established
using the initial fusion of Hanban funding and up to 5 years of
financial assistance from Beijing; afterwards, tuition costs
would be used to cover operating expenses. However, observers
note that without significant and continued funding in the out-
years, many institutes will not be sustainable. As one critic
noted to committee staff, ``How many citizens of Krakow, Poland
do you think really want to pay for Tai Chi classes?'' While
there is indeed strong interest in the institutes' offerings in
some locations, few institutes seem successful enough to be
financially independent, thus creating a drain on Beijing for
many years to come.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Asia Pacific Bulletin ``China's Confucius Institutes:
Crossing the River By Feeling the Stones'' from January 6, 2011,
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/apb091.pdf,
which questions the actual long-term effectiveness and sustainability
of CIs and cites Hanban figures of $145 Million for the Confucius
Institute annual budget for 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American PD Platforms in China--Too Small, Too Few To Matter
In many ways, Confucius Institutes are also analogous to
American Public Diplomacy platforms such as American Centers,
American Libraries, Information Resource Centers (IRCs) and
American Corners. Centers are the largest and most formal of
these PD platforms, often stand-alone facilities, which combine
a library, Internet stations, meeting spaces and often English
language classrooms. Libraries are often co-located with other
USG agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, and tend to
have smaller meeting/programmatic areas and fewer Internet
terminals. IRCs (Information Resource Centers) were created
when Libraries were down-sized and moved inside our newer
embassies' compounds. American Corners, the smallest of all
these, are spaces obtained in existing university or municipal
buildings, usually outside capital cities, via a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Embassy and the local institution;
the Embassy provides several computers and stocks the shelves
with books on U.S. history, culture and literature, but the
Corner is wholly run by a local coordinator whose salary is
paid by the host institution.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For more information on American PD facilities, see the U.S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee's February 2009 report ``U.S. Public
Diplomacy--Time To Get Back In The Game'':
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_senate_committee_prints&docid=f:47261.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one significant exception to this analogy with
Confucius Institutes--the numbers. China currently has 71
Confucius Centers in the U.S., while the United States has five
Public Diplomacy spaces in China--for a country of some 1.3
billion. The United States currently has stand-alone American
Centers located in commercially leased spaces in Beijing,
Guangzhou and Shanghai. The Center in Beijing sits, isolated,
on one of the middle floors of a commercial high-rise. While
near to a subway and bus lines, its book and periodical
collection is too limited to serve as a significant magnet.
Additionally, the public meeting space is limited and in need
of refurbishing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The American Center in Beijing's website,
http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/irc_services.html, is
available in both English and Mandarin and offers links to the Center's
collection as well as to the Education USAChina office. This office
assists Chinese applicants to American colleges and universities and is
co-located in the Center. Webpages of the other Centers/IRCs reveal a
discouraging disparity in information and services listed as well as
operating hours that seem poorly designed to encourage foot traffic--
Guangzhou is open 9 am-5 pm, but closed each day from noon-2pm;
Shanghai is closed daily from 11:30 am-1:30 pm but is the only center
to offer free Wi-Fi service; Chengdu is only closed from noon-1pm (the
same as Beijing), but its webpage is barren; Shenyang is closed 11:30
am-1:30 pm, but it is open by appointment only--a further disincentive
for visitors.
The limited collection of the American Center in Beijing (right) dwarfs
that of the even smaller American Center in Shanghai.
Access to the Center is readily available, and visitors are
not required to undergo the rigorous screening required to
enter the Embassy; however, U.S. officials acknowledge that the
Chinese Government monitors guests to the Center. The American
Centers in Guangzhou and Shanghai are similarly housed apart
from the main U.S. diplomatic facilities, enabling easier entry
by the public, but these Centers also share space with those
Consulates' Public Affairs Sections--reducing their public
spaces even further. Small IRCs exist inside the two U.S.
Consulates in Chengdu and Shenyang, while the tiny U.S.
Consulate in Wuhan has no Public Diplomacy space.
The Chinese Government has been resistant to any further
opening of U.S. public diplomacy facilities, claiming that each
country has six diplomatic facilities in the other's country
and that this is a matter of strict reciprocity.\27\ This is
particularly troubling as China considers even the
aforementioned American Corners--which, like Confucius
Institutes, tend to be situated in local universities and whose
staff is paid by the hosting institution whom the U.S. Embassy
cannot even dismiss--as diplomatic facilities and thus has
blocked even these from being established in China. Attempts to
argue reciprocity on the basis of the 71 Confucius Institutes
are dogmatically rebuffed by claims that the institutes are run
by the Hanban, which the Chinese consider a Non-Governmental
Organization (NGO), not the Chinese Government, and therefore
cannot be counted. However, such assertions are specious at
best given the direct line of authority to the Chinese Ministry
of Education found on Hanban's own organizational Chart.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ China has an Embassy in Washington and Consulates in Chicago,
Houston, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. The United States has
an Embassy in Beijing and Consulates in Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai,
Shenyang and Wuhan.
\28\ Hanban's Organizational Chart can be found here:
http://english.hanban.org/node_7719.htm.
Chinese officials argue that the United States should
create its own version of Hanban. Given our decentralized
education system, this seems unrealistic from both the
bureaucratic and budgetary standpoint, especially as the U.S.
version would only serve one country, given that no other
nation has these pre-conditions. The alternative is to force
China to recognize that Hanban is in fact not an NGO but an
entity directly affiliated with the Chinese Government in an
effort to leverage more U.S. PD facilities.
There is one positive development for the United States. As
part of her re-invigoration and re-examination of U.S. PD
efforts, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and
Public Affairs Judith McHale created a $2 million Innovation
Fund from which Embassies worldwide can compete for one-time
grants. As part of this, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing submitted
a winning proposal that is assisting Arizona State University
with $100,000 in financial and material support to open a
Center for American Culture in Sichuan University in Chengdu--
in essence an expansion of ASU's prior relationship with
Chengdu. ASU is adding $150,000 for in-kind services, and
Sichuan is providing the space as well as a Chinese co-
director, graduate student assistants, and lodging and meals
for American scholars from ASU. The Center offers free Internet
connectivity (students normally have to pay), regular movie
showings, visiting speakers, English conversation, and
collaboration between ASU and Sichuan students as well as
faculty. Plans for a full-time ASU professor on the ground for
a semester or a year will require additional funding. While
Internet access will have to be in accordance with Chinese law,
the Center stocks several thousand volumes and several dozen
periodicals from around the world.
Scenes from inside ASU's Center for American Culture at Chengdu
As innovative as the ASU-Sichuan partnership may be, such a
one-off success hardly suggests a coherent strategy to increase
the number of U.S. PD platforms, official or otherwise.
Nonetheless, the role of American universities as projectors of
``soft power'' should not be under-estimated, and the State
Department should be encouraged to provide similar funding for
other such U.S. university projects in China to serve as a
dual-track PD effort.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ As this report was going to print, The Ohio State University
confirmed that in January 2011 it signed a similar MOU with Wuhan
University to open an American Center there. OSU officials report that
to date they have not yet received funding from the State Department
but hope to receive assistance similar to ASU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-China People to People PD
In addition to its Confucius Institutes, Hanban has created
Confucius Classrooms to promote Chinese language and culture in
primary and secondary schools overseas. As opposed to
Institutes, the Classrooms generally involve the funding of a
single teacher to a single school. According to Hanban, there
are approximately 330 Confucius Classrooms in 98 countries with
37 in the United States, for a total of some 260,000 people
receiving instruction either in Confucius Institutes or
Classrooms. Similarly, Hanban sponsors the Chinese Bridge
Competition testing Chinese language proficiency among non-
native speakers. Hanban and the College Board partnered in 2006
to send over 300 volunteer Chinese teachers to U.S. schools
with struggling Chinese programs, and this partnership
subsidized $13,000 of the teachers' salaries. Additionally,
Hanban has recently expanded its operations to provide Chinese
language programs to foreign diplomats. The first seventeen-
week program took place in February 2010, and another program
in the fall of 2010.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ http://english.hanban.org/node_10971.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has no comparable teacher exchange
program but there still exists a U.S. Peace Corps program in
China with U.S. participants known as ``Chinese-American
Friendship Volunteers.'' The program began in 1993 following a
formal request by China, and some 600 volunteers have served
there since then. Currently, some 138 volunteers serve in China
in the provinces of Sichuan, Gansu, Guizhou and the Chongqing
municipality where they provide English language training and
methodologies to some 30,000 local middle school English
language teachers.
Peace Corps programs are among the most effective tools of
American ``soft power'' as volunteers traditionally live in
communities far from capitals, often in villages with only the
barest of amenities.\31\ Some argue that China's huge foreign
currency reserves are proof that China should be ``graduated''
from the Peace Corps program, while others say that China uses
the presence of Peace Corps volunteers as ``proof'' that it is
still a developing nation (For more on this debate, see page
28.). Given the difficulties in opening formal U.S. Public
Diplomacy facilities in China, the ripple effect of 138 U.S.
citizen volunteers living in Chinese communities, engaging with
them not only in academic settings but in casual conversations
about American history and social and cultural issues on a
daily basis, benefits American PD efforts considerably and
should be expanded. Recognizing the vicissitudes of the
official Chinese media's attitude towards the U.S., these
people-to-people contacts are all the more important for
dispelling myths and misperceptions/misrepresentations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ While the Peace Corps is a separate agency and thus not part
of official Public Diplomacy run by the State Department, it is
nevertheless a critical piece of the mosaic of U.S. Public Diplomacy in
the 77 countries in which some 8,600 Volunteers currently work. Since
its establishment in 1961, some 200,000 Americans have conducted some
of the best PD the U.S. has to offer through direct people-to-people
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Mighty is ``100,000 Strong''?--Higher Education as PD
One of the lesser-recognized U.S. exports is American
higher education. The academic freedoms and opportunities
afforded foreign researchers and scholars in the United States
remain unparalleled in the world today. According to the most
recent analyses available, in the 2009-10 academic year, some
690,000 foreign students were enrolled at American colleges and
universities, making up approximately 3.9 percent of total
higher-education enrollment in the U.S. of 19.6 million. This
figure also represents a new record for international
enrollment and is a 3 percent increase over the previous
academic year. The total income generated by the students in
the form of tuition, living expenses and incidentals has been
estimated at some $19 billion.\32\ The state of Indiana alone
received over half a billion dollars in the 2009-10 academic
year from international student enrollment in its colleges and
universities.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See U.S. Commerce Department ``Survey of Current Business''
from October 2010, p. 25, which lists U.S.-Cross Border Trade for
Education at $19.9 Billion (a $4 Billion increase from just 2 years
before):
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/10 percent20October/
1010_services.pdf. The U.S.-based Association of International
Educators (NAFSA) uses a figure of $18.78 Billion:
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2010/usa.pdf.
\33\ According to IIE, the exact figure is $513.8 Million. The
statistic for each state can be found here:
http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/
Fact-Sheets-by-US-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China clearly appreciates the educational opportunities the
U.S. offers. By the 2009-10 academic year, China overtook India
as the number one ``sending'' nation with some 130,000 Chinese
students in the United States. Not only was this an all-time
high for any nation, it also represented a staggering 30
percent increase over the year before.\34\ This is equally
impressive given that 10 years ago China sent only 55,000 to
the United States. These full-tuition-paying students--who make
up 18.5 percent of all foreign students--provide much needed
financial benefits to American universities, amounting to
roughly $3.5 billion a year. Additionally, the prolonged
exposure they receive during their time in the United States is
one of the best forms of Public Diplomacy. Many of those who
choose to remain in the United States help form part of the
core of our research and scientific base in public and private
enterprises, and several who have become U.S. citizens have won
Nobel Prizes.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Figures from the Institute of International Education's 2010
annual ``Open Doors'' study of foreign students:
http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data.
India remained a strong second, sending 105,000 students, but this was
only a modest 1.6 percent uptick from the year before. South Korea
(72,000), Canada (28,000) and Taiwan (27,000) round out the top five,
though each of these nations saw a decline from the previous year.
Saudi Arabia was the only other nation with a notable gain (25 percent
) over the prior year with 16,000 students studying in the U.S.
\35\ Of the eleven Nobels awarded to China, ten (including the
Dalai Lama) live and work outside of China. The only one residing in
China is imprisoned activist Liu Xiaobo. All of which has added to
China's perception that the West refuses to recognize China's recent
developments and only uses such opportunities to embarrass China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of this rising prominence in our nation's economy
and foreign policy, China ranked only fifth in the order of
destination countries for the 260,000 Americans studying
overseas in academic year 2008-2009 with 14,000 Americans
studying there--some 5.3 percent of the total. Most Americans
still prefer Western Europe for study, whether for cultural,
linguistic or other reasons, with the United Kingdom ranked
first (31,000), Italy second (27,000), Spain third (24,000) and
France fourth (17,000).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/
Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the long-term consequences of such an
imbalance, as well as the ever-increasing role that China plays
in our bilateral relationship, the Obamaadministration launched
in November 2009 the ``100,000 Strong Initiative.'' Citing the
exchange disparity, and noting that 600 times more Chinese
students study English than Americans study Mandarin,
theadministration called for a bold step forward to increase
the number of students going to China from 14,000 to 25,000/
year for at least 4 years. This ambitious program is estimated
by the State Department to total some $68 million.\37\ Unlike
other U.S. Government exchanges, however, ``100K'' is intended
to be financed solely through private-sector donations. To
date, such contributions have been minimal, reaching far less
than $5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ http://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/100000_strong/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chinese Government, however, is not waiting for the
U.S. and has already committed to funding the first 10,000 of
``100K,'' using its ubiquitous Confucius Institutes to award
2,500 scholarships each of the 4 years to cover the various
programs covered in ``100K'':
800 for Bridge ``summer camp''--a language and cultural
immersion program targeted at high school students;
800 for semester and full-year college-level programs;
800 for short-term (7-10 days) study tours for educators
and school administrators; and
100 for ``teacher training'' for American teachers.
Introducing the World to China--the 2008 Olympics; Introducing China to
the World--the 2010 World Expo
By all accounts, the 2008 Beijing Olympics were a stunning
success for China and left a positive impact on the minds of
the hundreds of millions (some say billions) who watched the
event, from the opening ceremony in the iconic ``Bird's Nest''
stadium to the operatic closing ceremonies two weeks later.
China set the bar high for all future host nations in terms of
pageantry--and cost, with Beijing splurging an estimated $44
billion to show off its new wealth and position.\38\ China
rightly considered the Olympics as an opportunity to
``introduce a new China to the world,'' and for the most part
it succeeded,\39\ both in the athletic and Public Diplomacy
sense with images of China's impressive Olympic facilities,
coupled with images of modern Beijing.\40\ Somewhat
surprisingly, China has done little to incorporate this into
the PD imagery used by Hanban discussed earlier.\41\ Two years
later it was time to ``introduce China to the world'' via the
2010 Shanghai World Expo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The 2004 games in Athens cost Greece some $12.8 Billion. See
U.S. News ``London Admits It Can't Top Lavish Beijing Olympics When It
Hosts 2012 Games'' from August 22, 2008:
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/08/22/london-admits-
it-cant-top-lavish-beijing-olympics-when-it-hosts-2012-games.html.
\39\ Though not everything was flawless; see BBC ``Web Curbs for
Olympic Journalists'' from July 30, 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7532338.stm. Following this
uproar, China relented, but then quickly returned to heavy content
censorship once the Games ended; see Guardian (UK) ``China Relaxes
Internet Censorship For the Olympics'' form August 1, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/01/china.olympics.
\40\ This success is particularly true when one contrasts the
Olympics with South Africa's squandered hosting of the 2010 World Cup
Soccer tournament where the only memory left with the viewer aside from
the competition was of the cacophonous ``vuvuzela'' trumpets.
\41\ While admittedly, 2 years later, the stadium is largely under-
utilized and already beginning to show signs of age, it remains a
considerable tourist draw for the curious--a testament to both its
unique design and the positive memories it and the 2008 Olympic hold.
The Olympic Basketball Stadium has no such shortage of events nor
difficultly generating revenue, and in January 2011, it was re-named
the ``Master Card Center''; see
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-01/22/content_11900630.htm.
Britain's iconic Pavilion/USA Pavilion's VIP Reception Desk
While less well known outside of China, the Shanghai Expo
was judged an equal success, with some 70 million visitors
attending during the six-month long event. Understandably, the
vast majority of the visitors were from China. Most nations
realized the Expo offered an unprecedented opportunity to
present themselves to the average Chinese citizen, many of whom
were not likely to leave their shores but who were willing to
wait in lines often over four hours to visit certain
pavilions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Understandably, as a matter of national pride, and heavy
marketing, the Chinese pavilion was the most popular with the Japanese
and the USA pavilion either second or third depending on the day--
reflecting a high degree of curiosity about each on the part of the
average Chinese citizen. Of the 192 participating nations, over 80
committed significant resources to funding their own, stand-alone
pavilion with China quietly providing financial assistance to many
countries to ensure universal participation. See LA Times ``Curious
About the Saudi Pavilion, Better Get in Line'' from July 30, 2010:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/world/la-fg-china-expo-
crowds-20100731 and The Atlantic ``China Rules the World at Expo 2010''
from April 29, 2010:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/04/china-
rules-the-world-at-expo-
2010/39566/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many governments spent years working with their cultural
and industry leaders to prepare the content and design of their
pavilions in order to offer the visitor both a profound and
pleasant experience. The iconic British, hedgehog-like ``Seed
Cathedral'' bristled with 60,000 fiber-optic rods. The Saudi
Pavilion displayed scenes on the world's largest IMAX screen,
and China's massive, six-story pagoda dominated the event. Most
left positive, lasting impressions on the visitor.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the U.S. submission,
which, in contrast, was completely dependent on private design
and sponsorship,\43\ resulting in criticism for its lack of
imagination and heavy corporate branding.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For the U.S. legislation regarding funding of International
Expositions, see Sec. 204 of Title II P.L. 106-113 from November 29,
1999:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ113.106.pdf. The
full text of the Section 204 is printed in Appendix B.
\44\ See Popular Science ``The USA Pavilion is a Disgrace'' from
May 6, 2010:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/usa-pavilion-
disgrace ; Washington Post ``The United Corporations of America'' from
May 24, 2010:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/
the_united_corporations_of_ame.html; USC's Center on Public Diplomacy
``Shanghai'd, or the USA Pavilion as Corporate Theme Park'' from June
8, 2010:
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/
shanghaid_or_the_usa_pavilion_as_a_corporate_theme_park/, a consistent
critic of the entire effort. For a more positive appreciation of the
U.S. effort see U.S. Commissioner General to the World Expo Jose
Villareal's piece ``Defending the USA Pavilion'' in Foreign Policy.com
from April 2, 2010:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/02/
defending_the_usa_pavilion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobbled together at the last minute, the U.S. Pavilion
experience consisted simply of three short films. When visitors
finally made it to the entrance following an often two hour-
plus wait, they were greeted by the first film, which presented
clips of average Americans trying to say ``Welcome'' and
``Hello'' in Mandarin, with varying degrees of success until a
final shot of U.S. Ambassador Huntsman, himself fluent in
Chinese, presenting a polished welcome. Guests were then
shuffled to a theater where they sat on benches to watch the
second film, which included messages from the various corporate
sponsors as well as from Secretary of State Clinton and finally
President Obama. Next, they were moved to another benched
theater for an eight-minute ``4-D'' movie experience portraying
the efforts of small girl trying to plant a garden in an
abandoned city lot. Proponents of the video argued it was a
subtle message regarding the power of the individual to affect
the world around them while detractors complained it was too
juvenile.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The film ``The Garden'' can be seen here:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjE3Mzc2Mjgw.html. State Department
officials note the movie is now being used by public diplomacy offices
in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only universally positive and well-received aspect of
the pavilion was the use of cadres of American university
student ``hosts,'' all of them fluent in Mandarin and many of
whom were of non-Chinese descent, who kept the crowds
entertained and informed during their long waits. According to
the State Department, some 70,000,000, mainly Chinese, visitors
attended the Expo during its six months of operation, of whom
some 7,000,000 visited the USA Pavilion. Given that less than
one million Chinese visit the U.S. each year, the Expo was a
squandered opportunity to have maximum impact on our bilateral
relationship.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Since 1994, legislation now requires the United States to rely
solely on private (mostly corporate) donations to fund its Expo
efforts. Such efforts failed to raise sufficient funds for the 2000
Hanover, Germany Expo, and for the first time since 1851, the U.S. did
not participate. Similar funding difficulties for the 2005 Aichi, Japan
Expo almost sank those efforts until Toyota USA and its U.S. parts
subsidiaries stepped in at the last minute. Additionally, since 2001,
the U.S. has been the only major country (with the exception of India)
not to be a member of the Bureau of International Expositions that
governs Expos. Based on the success of Shanghai, states including
California, Texas and Minnesota are now expressing interest in hosting
the 2020 World Expo; however, absent U.S. membership in the BIE (annual
dues of which are less than $40,000), no U.S. bid will likely be
considered. A February 2011 study by San Francisco's Bay Area Council
estimates an Expo there would generate $5.6 Billion in economic
activity. See Bay Area Council Press Release from February 7, 2011:
http://www.bayareacouncil.org/news/2011/02/07/press-release-world-
expo-in-silicon-valley-would-generate-5-6-billion-in-economic-activity-
for-bay-area-according-to-new-report/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans may forget the significant role World Expositions
played in our own Public Diplomacy efforts. Until 2000, the
United States participated in every Expo since the initial Expo
in London in 1851, and from 1962-1984, the U.S. hosted six of
the eight Expos that took place.\47\ While many in the U.S. now
view Expos as antiquated events of a by-gone era, the rest of
the world does not. Thus, U.S. dithering about participation in
Shanghai quickly became a high-level diplomatic topic.\48\
During her first overseas trip as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton received an earful from concerned Chinese officials
regarding the lack of commitment on the part of the U.S., and
theadministration finally became engaged in the process.\49\
When the U.S. Pavilion was completed, it met with mixed
reviews--``It's fine,'' was the best the Secretary of State
could muster during her visit to the Expo--and critics
complained of the slap-dash building design\50\ and the lack of
imagination and content that went into the project.\51\ A
similar fate seems to await the U.S. participation in the 2012
Yeosu, Korea Expo, as a formal Letter of Participation had
still not been signed with the Korean Government as of February
2011.\52\ This inability to learn from mistakes of Shanghai is
as troubling as it is confounding. The State Department has not
yet raised the full $10 million estimated for the cost of
Yeosu, yet it has already released an RFP for the design and
operations of the USA Pavilion with bids due March 15,
2011.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ These expos included: 1962 Seattle, 1964/65 New York, 1968
San Antonio, 1974 Spokane, 1982 Knoxville and 1984 New Orleans.
\48\ The Bushadministration had taken none of the major steps
necessary to advance the USA Pavilion's progress by the time it left
office in January 2009, some argue since the Expo would not occur under
their watch, this is understandable, others note that the timetable of
Expos and U.S. elections makes this almost unavoidable. The
Bushadministration did not participate in the Hanover, Germany Expo of
2000 (the first time the U.S. did not participate in an Expo since they
began in 1851) for many of these same reasons, but also the inability
of the NGO in charge to raise the needed funds. A similar fate almost
occurred at the Aichi, Japan Expo in 2005, but was saved by last minute
funding, partially by Toyota. See NPR: ``U.S. May Need China's Money To
Build Expo Pavilion'' from March 27, 2009:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102432591,
for images of the 2005 Aichi Pavilion see
http://www.brcweb.com/brand/usaexpopavilion-design.html#picture
\49\ See Washington Post ``U.S. Running Out of Time to Join
Shanghai Expo'' from May 7, 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/
AR2009050603888.html.
\50\ Due to the haste required, no architectural competition took
place. Instead, the NGO which the State Department selected to create
and run the Pavilion selected the Canadian firm Clive Grout (http://
clivegrout.com/) which had designed similar exhibition halls in the
past. The off-the-shelf look of the final product was met with scorn by
most who viewed the entire enterprise as a major wasted opportunity to
highlight American design, see Foreign Policy ``A Sorry Spectacle''
from March 8, 2010:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/08/
a_sorry_spectacle?page=full. For images of past U.S. Expo design
efforts, see Fast Company.com ``Exporting Architecture: The Rise and
Fall of U.S. World Expo Pavilions'' from February 24, 2010:
http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/exporting-architecture-rise-and-
fall-us-world-expo-pavilions?slide=8#10.
\51\ See Shanghai Daily ``Thumbs Down for U.S. Pavilion'' from
November 3, 2010, which cites a poll finding the U.S. the ``most
disappointing'':
http://expo.shanghaidaily.com/news_detail.asp?id=453502; for an
opposite view, see the three minute clip on YouTube, produced by the
company (BCRI) that developed much of the pavilion's content:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1xjqpgXHqc.
\52\ The lack of a formal Participation Agreement was particularly
frustrating given the important signal it would have sent a beleaguered
South Korea in 2010--the 60th anniversary of the Korean War--following
the sinking of the South Korean Navy ship Choesen in March 2010 and the
shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in November, both by North Korea.
\53\ For Shanghai 2010, the NGO tasked with creating and running
the USA Pavilion was originally also tasked with raising the $61
million needed. When it failed to do so, Secretary Clinton lent her
position to the effort and funds eventually were forthcoming from U.S.
corporations. See New York Times ``Famous Fund Raiser Delivers'' from
January 2, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/asia/03clinton.html. For
Yeosu, which is a shorter Expo--only 3 months in duration to Shanghai's
6 months--and smaller, the State Department decided to raise the money
itself, yet as of this writing, it had only raised less than $5 million
of the $10 million needed. Regardless, the State Department released
the RFP for the USA Pavilion in Yeosu on January 20, 2011:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/20/2011-1185/
bureau-of-educational-and-cultural-affairs-request-for-proposals-the-
design-development-installation noting to committee staff that as long
as they did not award the contract prior to obtaining all the needed
funding, there were no legal impediments to looking at prospective
bids.
Chinese PD in Uniform
One of the most recent innovations in the evolution of
Chinese Public Diplomacy has been its increasingly public and
prominent role at the United Nations, particularly through its
increased presence in U.N. peacekeeping operations. While still
nowhere near becoming one of the top five Troop Contributing
Countries, China's 2,100 military personnel ranked it number
fourteen for 2010.\54\ Keeping with its desire to project a
non-threatening image, to date none of these troops have come
from combat units but are mostly engineers who assist in
infrastructure repair. While their projects may not be stamped
``Made in China,'' they leave lasting positive impressions on
locals long after they have returned to China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Bangladesh and Pakistan each contribute over 10,000; India
almost 9,000; Nigeria, Egypt and Nepal contribute over 5,000. The
United States ranks 89th with 89 personnel:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2010/nov10_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While their current troop contribution levels may not be
significant when viewed over recent years, it is clear that
China has sought to step up its peacekeeping personnel
dramatically. This increase, combined with the 2009 opening of
a $29 million peacekeeping training facility outside Beijing,
indicates that China will continue to expand its presence in
U.N. peacekeeping in order to demonstrate to the world it
should be considered a major factor in maintaining world
peace.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See China Daily ``China Opens First Peacekeeping Training
Center'' from June 25, 2009:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/25/content_8324367.htm .
While the Chinese facility has so far been used only for the training
of Chinese peacekeepers, Beijing intends for it to become a global
training center. The United States has no formal static facility and
therefore loses a significant PD icon that the Chinese facility will
surely become. However, through the State Department's Global Peace
Operations Initiative (GPOI), it has already trained and equipped
nearly 140,000 personnel since 2004. Of these, more than 110,000 troops
from 29 GPOI countries have deployed to 19 UN, African Union, and other
regional peace support operations around the world. In FY2010, GPOI's
budget topped some $97 million. See
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/gpoi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, others point to China's minute portion
(3.94 percent ) of the total U.N. peacekeeping budget as yet
another example of China's desire to demand respect at the same
time it portrays itself as a developing nation.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The United States assumes the most (27 percent ) of the U.N.'s
$7.9 billion peacekeeping budget. Japan is number two (12.5 percent ),
the UK and Germany are roughly tied (8 percent ). France (7.5 percent )
and Italy (5 percent ) assume the next highest percentages of the
budget followed by China. See
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/factsheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD Realities: The World's View of China
China has spent countless millions to portray itself as a
benign, gentle, reflective nation, and most Chinese officials,
when asked by committee staff during travel to the region how
the rest of the world views China, waffled and fell back on
Hanban imagery of ancient China. One official, however, said
``authoritarian.'' Based on China's recent actions, statements
and attempts to control information and clamp down on anything
it thinks smacks of dissent, most of the world would agree with
that lone opinion. This view of China has been born out in
recent polling data and has only worsened in recent years.
In the 2010 annual BBC World Opinion Poll, when asked
whether China's influence in the world was having a mainly
positive or negative impact, only 34 percent of the respondents
in 28 countries replied ``Positive.'' While the 2010 figure is
the same as in 2009, it represents a dramatic drop since 2005
when China received a 49 percent positive rating.\57\ The same
poll and the Pew Research's Global Attitudes Project show
significantly high negative numbers for China in Europe.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ In the same poll of some 30,000 respondents, the United States
saw an upswing from 2005's 39 percent Positive rating down to 29
percent in 2007 and back up to 40 percent in 2010. See pp. 5-8 of
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2010_countries/
BBC_2010_countries.pdf.
\58\ See
http://pewglobal.org/database/
?indicator=24&survey=9&response=Unfavorable&mode=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China clearly understands there is an important role for
Public Diplomacy in its foreign policy and continues to pour
money and resources into it. Yet China has not adequately
addressed two critical elements for Chinese PD efforts
necessary to gain real traction with foreign audiences. The
first issue is the widely-held perception that China, through
the ruling Communist Party, controls every aspect of those
portions of society that are generally used in PD--the arts,
TV, movies, the press and education. Therefore, China's biggest
stumbling block is convincing its audience that its PD
offerings are anything but a pure projection of the political
State rather than the cultural, intellectual, scientific and
artistic expressions of the Chinese people. The second key
issue is that China's reliance on its Confucian heritage has
failed to square with the world's view of a 21st century
China--in spite of its popular Olympics and Expo. Without
addressing these two key areas, China's PD efforts will be
viewed, at best, as pure propaganda.\59\ This fact, coupled
with recent major missteps by China, will only cause this
perception/reality gap to widen but will in no way diminish
China's PD efforts and spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ When pressed for a more relevant image that China would want
to come to mind for the rest of the world that would reflect China's
current technological and economic capabilities, the same official who
felt the world viewed China as ``authoritarian'' offered the image of a
businessman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KFPD--``Kung Fu Panda Diplomacy'' and the Role of Cinema in PD
Before there was truly modern, organized Chinese Public
Diplomacy, China relied on the Giant Panda to project its
image. With its gentle nature--the panda is perhaps the epitome
of non-threatening. Once China--as the only source of these
illusive bears--appreciated the world's fascination with these
animals, they became a veritable PD goldmine but that took
time. It was not until 1957 that China first bestowed a panda
as a state gift to Russia, with North Korea receiving the
second in 1965. The U.S. was next in 1972, following President
Nixon's historic visit to Beijing. This was followed by a spate
of gifts to other countries in the next 10 years; however, most
of these animals died in captivity. When the program restarted,
China began to ``loan'' pandas to various zoos for 10 years
(and for a fee that often reached $1 million per year) with the
agreement that any cubs produced would be returned to China. In
the U.S., Washington, Atlanta, San Diego and Memphis each have
a pair.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Some observers only half-jokingly stated that the only
positive and concrete result of President Hu's January 2011 visit to
the U.S. was the agreement to extend the loan of the pandas DC's
National Zoo for another 5 years (and to lower the cost to about
$500,000). Given the enormous and enthusiastic crowds they draw and the
fact that China tightly controls their distribution, making them even
more desirable, one could argue that ``Panda Diplomacy'' is China's
best form of PD. One wonders if a reciprocal ``American Buffalo''
program would be equally rapturously received in China. See Washington
Post ``Five Year Extension for Pandas'' from January 20, 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/
AR2011011907126.html; The Scotsman (UK) ``Pandas Head for Scotland, But
It's Not Black and White Yet'' from December 11, 2010:
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Pandas-head-for-Scotland-.6657432.jp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This embracing of the panda by the West is one of the few
successes China has scored for its current crop of home-grown
cultural icons. Yet, frustratingly for China, the United
States, through Hollywood, has done at least as much to shape
the rest of world's image of China. Recent U.S. films,
including Disney's ``Mulan,'' and Columbia Pictures' 2010
``Karate Kid'' have had as large an impact on China's image in
Western popular culture as anything China produced
domestically. For a nation trying to project and protect its
ability to shape its own image, the fact that these films were
wildly popular inside China could not have been welcome news.
This was particularly true of DreamWork's ``Kung Fu Panda,''
which became the highest grossing animated film in Chinese
history.\61\ Chinese commentators also lamented that it took
Americans to portray their ancient symbols in such a successful
format, albeit with certain Hollywood liberties.\62\ Given its
success, DreamWorks is set to release a sequel in May 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Appendix C for a list of foreign film box office earnings
in China.
\62\ See L.A. Times ``China Had to Import Kung Fu Panda'' from July
28, 2008:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/asia/la-et-panda28-
2008jul28,0,4115116.story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of cinema as part of a nation's Public Diplomacy
often receives little attention, in part because, for most
countries, film production is privately run and therefore not
under the official control of the state. Nonetheless, the
images they convey, the stories they tell and the emotional and
cultural imprints they leave on audiences do as much, if not
more, to paint a portrait of a nation than any formal PD
efforts.
As with almost all societies, a middle class with more
disposable wealth and free time on its hands views
entertainment as a natural outlet. The rising middle class in
China clearly thirsts for more varied fare than Chinese
producers are willing (or permitted) to offer. One need only
recall the official backpedaling last year when Chinese
authorities tried to force cinema houses to pull the wildly
popular 20th Century Fox movie ``Avatar'' and replace it with
the domestic biographic film ``Confucius.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See New York Times ``China's Zeal for `Avatar' Crowds Out
`Confucius' '' from January 29, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/business/global/30avatar.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's lifting of its official cap beyond the current
twenty foreign titles allowed each year would have major impact
on Chinese PD in three areas. Firstly, the move would
demonstrate willingness on the part of China to address, in
part, the festering U.S.-China trade imbalance issue. Secondly,
Chinese audiences would be offered a product they clearly
desire and can now afford--a further demonstration of how much
their economy has grown in the last 30 years. Lastly, China is
still viewed by most of the world as a closed society, and such
an opening would help suggest otherwise to the rest of the
world.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ While the current cap of twenty films may seem puzzlingly low,
prior to China's accession to the World Trade Organization, the quota
had been a mere five. Thus, when China offered to quadruple the limit
to twenty, the offer, at the time, seemed too good to pass up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Beijing remains steadfast in its desire to control
the message as well as the medium. Officially, Chinese
officials insist that opening its film market would damage
their nascent domestic film industry and point out that there
are only 313 movie theaters with 6,200 screens in the entire
nation (of those, over 1,500 were added in just 2010, again
demonstrating domestic demand).\65\ However, as the Confucius/
Avatar issue demonstrates, the Chinese certainly know how to
make movies; they just do not yet seem to know how to make many
movies with broad domestic or international appeal.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See Fast Company ``The Chinese Film Industry is Ready for Its
Close-Up'' from January 11, 2011:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1716119/chinese-film-industry-taking-
over-the-globe.
\66\ While Chinese movies such as ``Raise the Red Lantern,'' ``Red
Sorghum'', ``Crouching Tiger-Hidden Dragon'' and ``Farewell My
Concubine'' have done well overseas, they are the exceptions, not the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China seems similarly unwilling to recognize the
Intellectual Property Rights issues involving the countless
shops that hawk bootleg DVDs of the latest fare that Hollywood
and China produces, and the impact this is having on its
domestic movie theater and cinema industries. According to the
most recent estimates provided by the Motion Picture
Association of America, video piracy in China in 2005 cost the
U.S. some $244 million in lost revenue.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ For more on IPR/Piracy issues, see New York Times ``Software
Piracy in China'' from January 19, 2011:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/software-piracy-in-
china.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Nobel for Liu Xiaobo--Poor Human Rights Undermine China's PD Efforts
A more profound impact on China's PD image was Beijing's
reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo
(an imprisoned Chinese human rights activist sentenced in 2009
to 11 years for ``subversion''). Beijing's tone-deaf nature in
reacting to outside criticism shocked much of the world.\68\
Chinese official media lambasted the Nobel Committee and called
the ceremony in Oslo an ``anti-China farce.'' Not content with
denying Liu Xiaobo's wife, Liu Xia, permission to travel to
Oslo to accept the award on her husband's behalf, Chinese
authorities also put dozens of human rights activists who
applauded the Nobel award under house arrest or surveillance
and denied them foreign travel.\69\ The timing of all this
could not have been worse, as it followed on the heels of an
open letter signed by a group of 23 former Communist Party
officials, former high ranking state media officials,
professors and researchers entitled ``Enforce Article 35 of the
Chinese Constitution, Abolish Censorship and Realize Citizens'
Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press: A Letter to
the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ This is not the first time the Nobel Committee has incurred
China's wrath. The exiled Dalai Lama won the Peace Prize in 1989 and
dissident writer Gao Xingjian, now a French citizen, won for Literature
in 2000.
\69\ See Financial Times ``China Snubs Nobel With Rival Peace
Prize'' from December 9, 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e5f1282-02b8-11e0-a07e-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz17dPbt6bi; Christian Science Monitor ``Chinese
Authorities Silence Friends of Liu Xiaobo in Extensive Roundup'' from
December 9, 2010:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/1209/Chinese-
authorities-silence-friends-of-Liu-Xiaobo-in-extensive-roundup.
\70\ See New York Times ``Ex-Chinese Officials Join in Call for
Press Freedom'' from October 13, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/asia/14china.html. The text
of the letter is printed in Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to diffuse the international firestorm,
Chinese officials, between the announcement of the Nobel and
the actual presentation ceremony, decided to award their own
``Confucius Peace Prize.'' Lien Chan, Taiwan's former Vice
President, was selected as the recipient of the Prize for his
role repairing ties between Beijing and Taipei and for his 2005
visit to mainland China (the first such high level visit since
Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong met in 1945). However, when the
Confucius Prize was handed out, the day before the Nobel award,
Lien Chan was not present and confusion reigned regarding his
knowledge of the award.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See CNN ``Winner a No-Show as China Hands Out its First Peace
Prize'' from December 9, 2010:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-09/world/
china.confucius.peace_1_prize-committee-norwegian-nobel-prize-
jury?_s=PM:WORLD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the announcement of the Nobel Prize, Beijing also
warned Norway that the award would strain bilateral relations
and urged (some say threatened) nations to boycott the award.
Of the seventeen nations listed by the media that joined China
in skipping the ceremony, some have a common view on domestic
democracy activists. Others, even some who are significant
recipients of U.S. democracy training and military
professionalization assistance, joined the boycott as well.\72\
They included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See BBC News ``Nobel Peace Prize: Who Is Boycotting the
Ceremony'' from December 10, 2010, which lists stated reasons by some
of the boycotters as to why they did not attend:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11879731. Initially, the
Philippines, Serbia, and the Ukraine were also reported as planning to
boycott see The Norway Post ``19 Nations Boycott Peace Prize Ceremony''
from December 7, 2010:
http://www.norwaypost.no/news/19-nations-boycott-the-peace-prize-
ceremony.html; but in the end, these countries sent officials to the
ceremony.
Afghanistan Iraq Sri Lanka
Algeria Kazakhstan Sudan
China Morocco Tunisia
Cuba Pakistan Venezuela
Egypt Russia Vietnam
Iran Saudi Arabia
China's posturing throughout this entire period
accomplished nothing except to reinforce negative perceptions
of China as a reactionary and oppressive state. As noted, China
bristles whenever this issue of human rights is raised, but, as
has been well documented, China continues to imprison human
rights activists and journalists as well as restrict freedom of
association, speech and religion.\73\ China's all too
comfortable relationship with Iran was ironically highlighted
when both nations tied for first in the number of imprisoned
journalists in 2010 (34 in each). According to the NGO
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), China has been the
leader in this field since CPJ began keeping statistics in
2000.\74\ As of October 2010, the U.S. Congressional-Executive
Commission on China's Political Prisoner Database lists the
details on over 1,450 cases.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See Amnesty International's 2009 report on China:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2009; Human Rights
Watch 2009 report on China:
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87491; Freedom House's 2009 country
report on China report is here:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010.
\74\ See Committee to Protect Journalists:
http://cpj.org/. CPJ's list of the 34 imprisoned Chinese
journalists is found in Appendix E.
\75\ The full list of all 1,452 can be found here:
http://cecc.gov/pages/victims/
20101010_PPD_AR10.pdf?PHPSESSID=6a812e6c3794e335-cdb5cfc620eecfa9.
A searchable version of the Database is here: http://ppd.cecc.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same manner that China created its own Peace Prize,
in May of 2010, China published, for the eleventh year in a
row, its own report on the human rights of the United States--
just in time to coincide with the State Department's annual
Human Rights Report on every country.\76\ This was another
example of China bridling at what it views as U.S. hegemonic
hectoring and moral double standards and for ``posing as the
world judge on human rights.'' China's report focused on such
issues as criticizing the U.S. for using Human Rights as ``a
political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal
affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic
interests.'' China's report also comments on activities by the
National Security Agency wiretapping, the level of domestic
violent crime, economic hardship leading to increasing suicide
rates and the $64 billion 2010 arms sales to Taiwan.\77\
China's view that the United States is somehow beyond review
was blunted this year when it was the turn of the U.S. to
appear before the United Nations Human Rights Council in August
and defend its human rights record as outlined in its 29-page
submission.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The full text of China's ``Human Rights Record of the United
States in 2009'' can be found here:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/
c_13208219.htm; the U.S. State Department's 2009 Human Rights Report on
China can be found here:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135989.htm.
\77\ What Beijing seems to fail to recognize is that the majority
of the statistics listed in its report are sourced to U.S. press
articles and official U.S. Government documents. Such information
reflects a transparency and oversight of government that does not yet
exist in China, a fact that the average Chinese reader of the report on
the U.S. can easily recognize when they compare it to their own
government.
\78\ China's February 2009, 33 page submission to the UN Human
Rights Council can be found here:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session4/CN/
A_HRC_WG6_4_CHN_1_E.pdf; the U.S. 22 page submission to the Council
from August 2010 can be found here:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/US/
A_HRC_WG.6_9_USA_1_United percent20States-eng.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This aversion to public discourse on human rights is not
limited to activists and NGOs. China blocks any words on the
subject from entering the mainstream conversation. Such was the
case with Premier Wen Jiabao's comments made during an
interview with CNN on the need for greater reforms. Wen's
statement that ``The people's wish and need for democracy and
freedom are irresistible,'' apparently pushed the envelope too
far and censors quickly informed China media to expunge it.\79\
However, this example of censoring China's top Communist
leadership is not a rarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See NPR ``Momentum Slows for Political Reform in China'' from
October 25, 2010:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130752569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his January 2010 state visit to the U.S.,\80\
President Hu was praised by some in the West for his ``candor''
of his statement that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See Washington Post Editorial ``President Obama Makes Hu
Jintao Look Good on Human Rights'' from January 19, 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/
AR2011011906123.html
China is a developing country with a huge population,
and also a developing country in a crucial stage of
reform. In this context, China still faces many
challenges in economic and social development. And a
lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human
rights.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Text of the press conference:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/19/press-
conference-president-obama-and-president-hu-peoples-republic-china.
But even President Hu Jintao himself could not escape the
Chinese censors, as his statement on human rights received
virtually no coverage in China's media. The Obama-Hu press
conference was not covered live in China, nor, according to the
Washington Post, was any video even available on CCTV--China's
main television channel--or its website.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Washington Post ``Hu's Remarks Censored Back Home'' from
January 21, 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/
AR2011012005348.html. There is no mention of ``a lot of work still
needs to be done.'' Rather just bland promises to ``learn from each
other in terms of best practices'' on China Daily's ``Quotes from Hu
and Obama'' from January 21, 2011:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011huvisistsus/2011-01/21/
content_11892220.htm. However, the full interchange on human rights,
including Hu's by-now famous phrase, can be found on China Daily's
English website at 2:30 into the video clip:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/video/2011-01/20/
content_11888250.htm--how many Chinese citizens routinely hear their
president via this method is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China--First or Third World?
I hold that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are the
First World. The middle elements, such as Japan, Europe
Australia and Canada, belong to the Second World. We
are the Third World. \83\ --Mao Zedong, February 22,
1974
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ From Mao Zedong On Diplomacy, Foreign Language Press, Beijing,
2007. p. 454.
China's reactions to pressure from the West on human rights
and other issues related to rule of law come as no surprise,
given China's view of itself as the leader of the G-77 and thus
the bulwark against former colonial powers ``lecturing'' their
prior subjects. Mao's quote and President Hu's previous
statement that ``China is a developing nation.'' demonstrate
China's public protestations that it is anything but a
Superpower.\84\ China is, however, decidedly ambivalent about
its position in the G-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See CNN's Fareed Zakaria's September 29, 2008 interview with
China's Premier Wen Jiabo in which he states, ``I need to correct some
of the elements in your question first. China is NOT a superpower.
Although China has a population of 1.3 billion and although in recent
years China has registered fairly fast economic and social development
and opening up, China still has this problem of unbalanced development
between different regions and between China's urban and rural areas.
China remains a developing country. We still have 800 million farmers
in rural areas, and we still have dozens of million people living in
poverty. As a matter of fact, over 60 million people in rural and urban
areas in China still live on allowances for basic living costs in my
country. And each year we need to take care of about 23 million
unemployed in urban areas and about 200 million farmers come and go to
find jobs in China.'' Read the full text here:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-29/world/
chinese.premier.transcript_1_financial-crisis-interview-vice-
premier?_s=PM:WORLD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When issues such as economic or monetary policies, climate
change\85\ and intellectual property rights are raised, China
eagerly portrays itself as a developing nation that still needs
time to develop and should not be bound by the same rule set as
OECD nations.\86\ China will point to its low per capita income
of $6,700 when compared to over $33,000 for the OECD, rather
than its trillions of dollars in foreign currency reserves.
However, in matters of sovereignty, internal affairs and
international relations, China bristles when it is treated as
anything like a struggling nation. When other nations criticize
or even critique China in these areas they are seen as
lecturing and self-righteous for ``daring'' to try to tell
China how it should act.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See Reuters `China Denies Softening On Emissions Stance'' in
which Chinese officials denied reports the country would back away from
its position that China should be free to grow its economy unfettered
by an internationally binding emissions commitment, from December 8,
2010:
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/
idAFTOE6B607120101208?sp=true.
\86\ G-77 is a misnomer. The original Group of 77 coalition,
founded in 1964 to include the Lesser Developed Countries, has since
expanded to 131 member countries. Of these China, India and Brazil are
the largest economies. Perhaps the opposite of the G-77 would be the
34-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that
arose from the recipients of America's Marshall Plan assistance and
later began admitting non-European countries in 1961. A complete list
to the G-77 is here:
http://www.g77.org/doc/members.html; OECD member list:
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/
0,3343,en_36734052_36761800_36999961_1_1_1_1,00.html. Chile, not China,
is currently the only nation to be a member of both organizations.
\87\ See New York Times ``China Resisted U.S. Pressure on Rights of
Nobel Winner'' from December 8, 2010 where the Deputy Minister in
America Section of the Chinese Foreign Ministry lectures an American
diplomat that Washington must ``cease using human rights as an excuse
to meddle in Chinese internal affairs'':
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/asia/09wikileaks-
oslo.html?_r=1&hp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's recent multi-billion dollar push to expand its
public diplomacy and international media operations is a
logical follow-on for a nation that has risen almost phoenix-
like from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap
Forward. From Beijing's perspective, China must be doing
something right to have achieved such economic success in less
than a generation. China believes the reporting in the Western
media is almost ``hegemonic,'' with its seemingly constant
criticism and refusal to give China credit for its past and
present achievements.\88\ This is a common belief held by most
of the G-77, but only China is in a real position financially
to try to promote itself through its own global media network.
China is perfectly content to carry this global mantle as the
counter-weight to Western media, as this stance comports to
China's view of itself as a world leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Maria Wey-Shen Siow's ``Chinese Domestic Debate on Soft
Power and Public Diplomacy'' from the December 7, 2010 Asia Pacific
Bulletin;
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/apb086_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in a prior committee report,\89\ China's state-run
Xinhua News has expanded its reach throughout the world, in
part to provide what China believes is ``balance'' to the
``anti-China bias'' found in Western reporting. With budget
cuts dramatically curtailing the number of Western media
foreign correspondents, Xinhua by-lines in papers over the
world may soon be a reality as its journalists and stringers
are being posted to corners of the world deemed of lower
priority by other major media services.\90\ Xinhua has
announced plans to open a two-floor headquarters in Times
Square, NY and has begun broadcasting from within the United
States.\91\ Additionally, Xinhua has some 75 correspondents
based in the United States, and since 2007 the State Department
has issued some 2,900 press visas to Chinese journalists.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Government has refused to allow the
Voice of America to open a bureau in Shanghai and restricts VOA
to only two correspondents in Beijing. Both VOA and Radio Free
Asia's broadcasts into China are routinely and heavily jammed,
forcing them to reach their audiences primarily through (and
around) China's heavily censored Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report ``U.S.
International Broadcasting: Is Anybody Listening?'' from June 9, 2010:
http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/diplomacy/report.pdf.
\90\ See Newsweek ``All the Propaganda That's Fit to Print: Why
Xinhua, China's state news agency, could be the future of journalism''
from September 3, 2010:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/03/is-china-s-xinhua-the-future-of-
journalism.html. The decline of the international coverage is not
limited to U.S. media as the BBC is also reducing its number of
translators of foreign news stories, see ``BBC Monitoring Cutting 72
Posts'' from January 17, 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12209342. Further cuts
to the BBC were announced soon thereafter, including the shuttering of
5 of its 32 language services and eliminating one quarter of its staff
over 3 years, see New York Times ``BBC, Facing Budget Cuts, Will Trim
World Service and Lay Off 650'' from January 26, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/world/europe/27bbc.html.
\91\ See Washington Post ``From China's Mouth to Texans' Ears:
Outreach Includes Small Station in Galveston'' from April 25, 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/
AR2010042402492_pf.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Dominance and Territorial Saber Rattling Strain Local
Relationships
Recent Chinese actions in the East China Sea brought
increased negative attention to China following the collision
of a Chinese fishing trawler with one or more Japanese naval
vessels near the contested and remote Senkaku Islands (or as
China calls them, the Diayou Islands) in September 2010.\92\
Even though Japan released the crew after a few days, Beijing
allowed ultra-nationalists to spin up the continued detention
of the captain to what many considered an alarming degree, with
large anti-Japan demonstrations in most major cities. In
addition to traditional expressions of discontent such as the
canceling of several high-level bilateral meetings, Beijing
also stooped to petty levels and blocked the visit of 1,000
Japanese children, who had been officially invited by Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabo, to the Shanghai World Expo.\93\ More
ominously, China suspended shipments of so called rare earth
minerals\94\ to Japan--a move that has the potential benefit of
Japan now seeking these vital minerals from the United States
and Canada, though Western production of them is currently
dwarfed by China.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The video of the Chinese trawler ``Minjinyu'' clearly ramming
one of the Japanese patrol boats can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv031K_lV4I .
\93\ See Financial Times ``China and Japan Spat Mars Youth Expo
Visit'' from September 20, 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3dd2228-c48c-11df-bc11-
00144feab49a.html#axzz17eOcxBEN.
\94\ These 17 minerals are vital to the production of virtually
every modern technology from cell phones to computer circuits to
virtually every nascent green technology, and China has a lock on some
95 percent of the production of them. See BBC News ``Rare Earth: The
New Great Game'' from November 18, 2009:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/11/
rare_earth_the_new_great_game.html. See pp 128-9 of the U.S. Geological
Survey for a breakdown of production and reserves for the U.S., China,
Australia, Brazil and others:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs-
2010-raree.pdf.
\95\ See St. Louis Business Journal ``Senators Bond and Bayh
Introduce Rare Earth Legislation'' from December 17, 2010:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2010/12/17/bond-bayh-
introduce-rare-earth-bill.html; NY Times ``Block on Minerals Called
Threat to Japan's Economy'' from September 28, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/business/global/29rare.html; See
NTD (Japan) Television ``Japan Seeks to Secure Rare Earth Supplies from
U.S. Firm'' from December 7, 2010:
http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_bus/2010-12-07/
630950685742.html. China mines some 93 percent of these minerals, with
the U.S. (which used to be a major producer) woefully unprepared for
any long-term cutoff of overseas production; see New York Times
``Challenging China in Rare Earth Mining'' from April 21, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/energy-environment/
22rare.html and Wall Street Journal ``China's Rare Earth Gambit'' from
October 19, 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052702304410504575559532707753878.html. China's actions on
these minerals has not abated in the ensuing months, see Wall Street
Journal ``China Moves To Strengthen Grip Over Supply Of Rare-Earth
Metals'' from February 7, 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704124504576117511251161274.html. See The People's
Daily ``China Wise to Guard Its Rare Earth Wealth'' from October 18,
2010;
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91344/7169357.html; the
English edition of the official Chinese paper China Daily ``Regulation
of Rare Earth Exports Needed' from November 24, 2010:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-11/24/
content_11600838.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar territorial issues exist even farther south. Fears
throughout the region were raised by the publication of
official Chinese maps that include an inset claiming the
entirety of the South China Sea. (Because of its shape, this
area is known colloquially as the Cow's Tongue). China's claims
to this vast territory, virtually touching the shores of
Vietnam, Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia (and including
the disputed Spratly Islands), go well beyond internationally
recognized maritime territorial limits, and are now driving
many nations in the region to begin looking towards the United
States as a potential buffer.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See New York Times ``China's Fast Rise Leads Neighbors to Join
Forces'' from October 30, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/world/asia/31china.html; BBC News
``China Boosts Maritime Fleet Amid Disputes: from October 28, 2010:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11646489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a great source of domestic pride for a nation that in
some 30 years has gone from an industrial backwater to
production powerhouse, China's economic ``rise'' has not come
without its consequences and has provoked backlashes in some
markets which seem to have come as a ``shock'' (whether real or
feigned) to China. Events such as the recent riots against
Chinese merchants in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, or accusations
that Chinese mine operators opened fire on their Zambian
workers are becoming more common.\97\ While this has provoked a
frustrated ``after all we have done for them'' reaction in
Beijing, which views China's economic development projects with
a mixture that is part profit and part benevolence. Such
expressions are not always reciprocated by these nations who
detect instead what they view as China treating locals with an
attitude bordering on patronizing colonialism and officially
treating countries as ``vassal'' nations.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See BBC News ``Chinese Bosses Charged Over Zambian Mine
Shooting'' from October 18, 2010:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11568485; ``Zambia Mine
Shooting: Chinese Bosses Miss Court Hearing'' from January 5, 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12119002; see China Daily
``Chinese Businessmen in Kyrgyzstan Suffer Heavy Losses'' from April
20, 2010:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/10/content_9710377.htm .
\98\ See Washington Post ``As China Finds Bigger Place in World
Affairs, its Wealth Breeds Hostility'' from September 8, 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/
AR2010090707448.html; Financial Times ``Mongolia Makes Tracks to Escape
Its Neighbor'' from January 19, 2001:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e81f0366-23ed-11e0-bef0-
00144feab49a.html#axzz1Bms6DhXD; Financial Times ``Cash Flow Into Peru
Mine Brings Rights Fear'' from January 19, 2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77666ad0-23f0-11e0-bef0-
00144feab49a.html#axzz1Bms6DhXD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global concern over China's willingness to openly support
regimes such as Sudan and Iran both diplomatically and
militarily in exchange for access to mineral and oil rights
have led many to call China to task for its seemingly
insatiable appetite for natural resources and its willingness
to do business with anyone.\99\ To many nations, China's most
perplexing relationship is its continued financial and military
support for the brutal North Korean dictatorship, with Beijing
acting as both Pyongyang's protector and benefactor in the
international area. This relationship was laid bare for all to
see following the North's sinking of the South Korean naval
corvette Cheonan on March 26, 2010 and the more recent North
Korean artillery attack on South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island on
November 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Others contend that these are the purest examples of how China
believes that business is business, and a nation's internal matters are
for it to decide. See Washington Post ``China Fights UN Report on
Darfur''
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/
AR2010101506100.html from October 16, 2010; See Deutche Welle
``Controversy Over Myanmar-China Pipeline'' from February 3, 2010:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5311293,00.html; See China.org
``China Signs U.S. $20Bn Loan-for-oil Deal with Venezuela from April
20,2010:
http://www.china.org.cn/business/2010-04/20/content_19866278.htm;
See UK Telegraph ``China to Build $2 Bn Railway for Iran'' from
September 7, 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7985812/China-to-
build-2bn-railway-for-Iran.html.
Photo of Inset on Official Chinese Map of the so-called Chinese ``Cow
Tongue'' claiming virtually the entire South China Sea
China's muted reaction and dilatory tactics when the
incidents were brought to the U.N. puzzled even the most
seasoned China watchers.\100\ The U.N. Security Council was
only able to pass a Presidential Statement on July 9 after it
was watered down by China. China has blocked any such statement
regarding the November attacks.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See the official China.org.cn ``Lessons from Cheonan'' from
July 28, 2010:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2010-07/28/content_20587399.htm.
Note the passive ``When the Cheonan sank'' with no mention of North
Korean actions except to critique the international investigation led
by the U.S. Australia, Sweden and the UK of which ``the findings are
not objective, because the four are either allied with South Korea or
allied with South Korea's allies. An objective investigation should
involve countries not allied with South Korea, especially those with
key interests in Northeast Asia, such as China and Russia.''
\101\ Text of the July 9, 2010 Statement:
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/443/11/PDF/
N1044311.pdf?OpenElement; China's recent obstructionism stands in sharp
contrast to a year ago when the 15 member U.N. Security Council
unanimously passed a condemnation of North Korea for its April 7, 2009
provocative missile tests--and issued a Presidential Statement in less
than a week on April 13:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/301/03/PDF/
N0930103.pdf?OpenElement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An iPhone Does Not Equal Democracy
Part of China's frustration with the West's constant focus
on censorship, human rights and democracy stems, in part, from
the remarkable achievements it has made in improving living
standards. Whatever the West may think China lacks, the average
Chinese citizen today experiences incredible advantages
relative to his/her parents. Many in the West forget that for
tens if not hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens, life is
generally significantly better than it was even 5 or 10 years
ago, particularly with regard to access to commercial goods.
The desire for the latest fashion or technology is normal in
the U.S. but even more so in a society when so many can easily
remember when, only a few years ago, such luxuries were
unaffordable or forbidden to all but Communist Party elites.
Cash-rich China is now experiencing its own trickle-down
effect and spurring domestic consumption, and the oft-promised
commercial opportunities in a nation so large are finally being
realized by both domestic and overseas firms--as the proverbial
``billion pairs of blue jeans'' are at last being bought.\102\
However, it would be a mistake to conflate the rising
consumerism experienced by some with a demand for multi-party
elections on the part of all. In fact wanting an iPhone does
not always equal wanting democracy. There are millions of
Chinese content with their lives and their government. As
author James Mann has noted, the urban elites who make up the
consumer culture are greatly outnumbered by the poor and rural,
and would be outvoted in a democratic election. ``To protect
their own economic interests,'' he wrote, they ``may opt for a
one-party state over one-man, one-vote.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See Financial Times ``Levi's Launches New Brand in China''
from August 18, 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a7a1c2e-aaaa-11df-80f9-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz1BXDRC4ZU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
has written, ``No middle class is content with more choices of
coffees than of candidates on a ballot.'' The Chinese
Government mistakes the commercial opportunities suddenly
available to its citizens as a replacement for the democratic
advancements desired by many, including greater transparency
and accountability of their government, greater press freedoms
and above all, greater access to unfiltered information about
China and the world around them. It is to this audience (some
with the latest version iPhone or the newest laptop on the
market, some with their shortwave radios in rural farming
villages) that the U.S. has directed its international
broadcasting efforts through the Voice of America and Radio
Free Asia's Mandarin and Cantonese services. And it is to this
audience that the U.S. Government must direct its energies and
support for Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology that
enables users to tunnel under/break through the Great Firewall
of China.
The ``Google-ization'' of Internet Freedom
On January 12, 2010, Google made an announcement that
abruptly altered the general public's perception of Chinese
censorship.\103\ The Internet search giant declared it was no
longer willing to self-censor its China-based ``google.cn''
website. It charged that Chinese Government-sponsored hackers
had infiltrated Google's network to access the emails of
numerous Chinese civil rights activists. Prior to this, few
outside Washington had paid much attention to Beijing's
rigorous censorship efforts.\104\ Some contend that Google's
public reactions were an attempt to avoid the same U.S. public
backlash Microsoft and Yahoo suffered for their prior
complicity with Chinese Internet regulations, and others
believe this is exactly what Google had been doing up to this
time.\105\ Nonetheless, Google is simply too big a company for
the incident to have gone unnoticed or unanswered.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Google's press release on the incident can be found here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html.
\104\ The only other major instance of Chinese Internet activity
drawing worldwide attention was the surprising decision by China in
2009 to rescind a previous mandate that all computers sold domestically
had to contain pre-loaded ``Green Dam Youth Escort'' censorship
enabling software (so-called because it was officially touted as a
protection against pornography, but quickly recognized as more
pervasive in its blocking abilities) developed in China for a Windows
operating system. See AP ``China Postpones Controversial Web Filter''
from June 30, 2009:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31662862/ns/technology_and_science-
security/; A 2009 analysis by the University of Michigan of the Green
Dam software and its vulnerabilities can be found here:
http://www.cse.umich.edu/jhalderm/pub/gd/. A U.S. firm Cybersitter
filed a copyright infringement suit against the Chinese Government and
computer companies trying to install Green Dam softeware, claiming it
uses some 3,000 lines of Cybersitter's own code; see ComputerWorld
``Law Firm in Green Dam Suit Targeted With Cyberattack'' from January
13, 2010:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144618/
Law_firm_in_Green_Dam_suit_targeted_with_cyberattack; China's rebuttal
to the charge can be found here: Xinhua in Intellectual Property In
China ``Chinese Legal Experts Challenge U.S. Court's Ruling Over Green
Dam Suit'' from December 9, 2010:
http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/casesarticle/cases/caseothers/201012/
980781_1.html. As a result of the outcry and public attention, the
Green Dam project ended in mid 2010, see Global Times ``Costly Green
Dam Trial Ends as Funds Dry Up'' from July 14, 2010:
http://china.globaltimes.cn/society/2010-07/551295.html.
\105\ Most agreed with Rebecca MacKinnon writing in the Wall Street
Journal ``Google Gets on the Right Side of History'' from January 13,
2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704362004575000442815795122.html#articleTabs
percent3Darticle.For prior criticisms of U.S. Internet companies in
China, including Google, see Wired.com ``Yahoo Strictest Censor on the
Net'' from June 15, 2006:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2006/06/71166;
Sunday Times (UK) ``Bill Gates Defends China's Internet Restrictions''
from January 27, 2006:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/china/
article721120.ece; CNET News ``Google to Censor China Web Searches''
from January 24, 2006:
http://news.cnet.com/Google-to-censor-China-Web-searches/2100-
1028_3-6030784.html.
\106\ Perhaps China failed to appreciate Google's total absorption
into the English lexicon to the point of becoming formally recognized
in 2006 as a verb by the prestigious Merriam-Webster dictionary--``to
Google something'' is now on the same level of acceptance as ``to Xerox
something'' was for a previous generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within ten days of the incident, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton delivered a major speech deliberately set in
Washington's museum of American journalism, the Newseum, in
which she outlined the U.S. Global Internet Freedom Agenda.
Secretary Clinton warned, ``Countries that restrict free access
to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users
risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next
century.'' Additionally, she cautioned, ``Technologies with the
potential to open access to government and promote transparency
can also be highjacked by governments to crush dissent and deny
human rights.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The text of Secretary Clinton's January 21, 2010 speech and
Q&A session can be found here:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Google's formal March 2010 announcement that it
would re-direct google.cn users to its google.hk servers
located in Hong Kong (which is not covered by Beijing's
Internet regulations), ``Internet Freedom'' and ``Internet
Censorship Circumvention'' have become the watch words of many
countries' approaches to China, its protests of innocence and
vilification of Google notwithstanding.\108\ Chinese officials
quickly sought to add their own spin to the Google episode with
Xinhua lecturing, ``Regulation of the internet is a sovereign
issue. The Chinese Government regulates the Internet according
to laws and will improve its regulations step by step according
to its own needs.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Google's press release can be found here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-
update.html. Cnet.com ``Google Moves China Search to Hong Kong'' from
March 22, 2010:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20000905-265.html. Note, even
though Google may not filter the searches, users inside will still not
be able to open those links which the Great Firewall otherwise blocks,
unless they are using internet circumvention software. See Xinhua
``China Says Google Breaks Promise, Totally Wrong to Stop Censoring''
from March 23, 2010:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/23/
c_13220853.htm. See Gigaom.com ``Google and China: What You Need to
Know'' from March 25, 2010:
http://gigaom.com/2010/03/25/google-and-china-what-you-need-to-
know/.
\109\ See Xinhua ``Google, Don't Politicize Yourself'' from March
21, 2010;
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-03/21/
c_13219289.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The Web is Fundamentally Controllable'' \110\--The Great Firewall of
China
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Quoted from an unnamed Chinese official from a summary of
U.S. Embassy Beijing diplomatic cables on China's internet attacks on
Google and various U.S. Government departments, see New York Times
``Vast Hacking by a China Fearful of the Web'' from December 4, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/asia/05wikileaks-
china.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans tend to view the chaotic and de-centralized
nature of the Web as one of the purest forms of democracy,
allowing every citizen's voice to be heard. Posting an
individual blog, leaving an anonymous comment on a web site,
organizing ``flash mobs'' for impromptu snowball fights or
creating new political movements capable of re-shaping the
electoral landscape--each of these acts is perceived as the
epitome of ``freedom of expression'' in the United States.\111\
In China, it is often the reverse. China views control of the
Web as vital to eliminating domestic dissent and maximizing
``domestic harmony.'' As one expert told committee staff,
``China is perfectly willing to tolerate a thousand armies of
one.'' However, when these ``armies of one'' use the Web to
organize and demand change, China views them--and the
Internet--as a threat to the very core of social order.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See ``Snowball Fight Flash Mob in DC'' from January 27, 2011:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7924242;
The Atlantic Monthly ``The Tea Party Used the Internet to Defeat the
First Internet President'' from November 2, 2010:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/11/the-tea-party-
used-the-internet-to-defeat-the-first-internet-president/65589/.
\112\ For examples of Chinese citizens ``disturbing social and
public order'' see Global Voices ``China: Blacklisting Netizens'' from
November 3, 2010:
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/11/03/china-
blacklisting-netizens/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China controls the Web by using its official Golden Shield
Project Internet software (more commonly known as the Great
Firewall of China) combined with more subtle methods of
conveying censorship instructions to its media and Internet
Service Providers regarding what issues, stories, subjects and
websites cannot be covered or retransmitted as well as what
searches are to be blocked or re-directed to more ``friendly''
sites.\113\ In some cases, websites are completely blocked
based upon their IP (Internet Protocol) address or by a site's
URL (Uniform Resource Locator). In other cases, reporters,
bloggers and ``netizens'' are ``invited for tea'' at the local
police station for a stern ``talking to'' when they cross the
line. This can escalate with individuals dragged out of their
beds in the middle of the night and their equipment confiscated
for using their Twitter accounts to suggest that supporters of
Liu Xiaobo demand his freedom or sentenced to a year of hard
labor for forwarding a satirical Tweet.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See Bloomberg BusinessWeek ``The Great Firewall of China''
from January 12, 2006:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/
tc20060112_434051.htm; Freedom House's chapter on China pp 34-44
``Freedom on the Net'' from March 2009:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/specialreports/NetFreedom2009/
FreedomOnTheNet_FullReport.pdf; OpenNet Initiative Country Report on
China from June 15, 2009:
http://opennet.net/research/profiles/china; ONI--a consortium of
Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the Munk Center for
International Studies at the University of Toronto and the SecDev group
in Toronto. ONI is also critical of the United States but notes in its
report on the U.S. and Canada that ``Governments in both countries have
experienced significant resistance to their content restriction
policies, and, as a result, the extreme measures carried out in some of
the more repressive countries of the world have not taken hold in North
America.'' One of the leading experts on China's Internet censorship,
Rebecca MacKinnon, has a detailed analysis from February 2009 ``China's
Censorship 2.0, How Companies Censor Bloggers,'' which can be found
here:
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/2378/2089. Her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony from March 2,
2010 can be found here:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/10-03-02MacKinnon'sTestimony.pdf.
\114\ Guardian (UK) ``Chinese Twitter User Seized After Supporting
Liu Xiaobo'' from October 26, 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/china-nobel-liu-xiaobo-
tweet-arrest; New York Times ``Woman Imprisoned for Twitter Message''
from November 18, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/asia/
19beijing.html?_r=2&src=twrhp. One democracy activist with whom
committee staff met has found Twitter so crucial to his efforts that he
uses the phrase BT/AT (Before Twitter/After Twitter) to express how it
has revolutionized his ability to communicate with his fellow
activists. Opponents of Twitter in China point to the U.S. ability to
keep the site from shutting down during the Iranian Green Revolution as
``proof'' that Twitter is nothing but a front for the CIA. Far right
nationalist activists are equally opposed to the Great Firewall as
their sites are often blocked, for example during the incident with the
fishing boat captain being seized by the Japanese Coast Guard when
their messages were judged too militaristic and aggressive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While restrictions are sometimes relaxed when the world is
focused on China--such as during the Beijing Olympics--
restrictions are quickly reinstituted once attention is
diverted elsewhere.\115\ This inconsistent application of
censorship is compounded by the overlapping jurisdictions of
government ministries who make the regulations including the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), the
Information office of the State Council Information Office
(SCIO), the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of
Culture, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and perhaps a
few more.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Guardian (UK) ``China Relaxes Internet Censorship For the
Olympics'' form August 1, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/01/china.olympics. Chinese
officials are at a loss for words when Internet censorship issues arise
and are reminded of the fact that as anti-American as sites such as Al
Jazeera may be, they can be accessed in both their English and Arabic
form from within the United States:
http://www.aljazeera.net/portal.
\116\ Chinese officials are at a loss for words when Internet
censorship issues arise and are reminded of the fact that as anti-
American as sites such as Al Jazeera may be, they can be accessed in
both their English and Arabic form from within the United States:
http://www.aljazeera.net/portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known as the ``3 T's'' (Tiananmen, Taiwan and Tibet), the
list of taboo subjects in China has grown to include HIV/AIDs,
Xinjiang (home to China's ethnic Muslim population) and Falun
Gong. Negative stories related to Communist party officials or
their families are especially suppressed. According to some
sources, the attack on Google came when Li Changchun--
Propaganda Chief and fifth highest ranking member of the
Communist Party--was displeased with what he found when he
``Googled'' his own name.\117\ Some typical examples of
censorship notifications, taken from December 10, 2010, range
from the general, to the mundane to the minutia, and include:
\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See footnote 110. For an American perspective on Chinese
censorship, see Nicholas Kristof's recounting of how his blog was
``harmonized'' in New York Times ``Banned in Beijing!'' from January
22, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/
23kristof.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1296748837-
EqZ4g6yH+c3fNOCGTtfCvw .
\118\ All quotes taken from China Digital Times:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2010/12/latest-directives-from-the-
ministry-of-truth-december-10-2010/, which provides both the Mandarin
and English of each and is updated frequently. A Reporters Without
Borders interview on this subject with veteran Chinese journalist Zhang
Ping can be found on the Center for International Media Assistance
(CIMA) site:
http://cima.ned.org/chang-ping-state-media-china. CIMA, a
department of the National Endowment for Democracy provides excellent
daily media updates on efforts to stifle the press:
http://cima.ned.org/tools-and-resources/daily-media-news.
A General Order From the Central Propaganda Bureau--
All media outlets are requested to strictly and
rigorously examine and check images, videos, and web
pages and prevent acrostics, caricatures other forms of
reporting that hype the news of Liu Xiaobo receiving
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Nobel Prize.
From the Central Propaganda Bureau--Regarding the
ticket refund mechanisms and related policies issued by
the Railroad Ministry, all media outlets are not to
criticize or to question. As a principle, publish copy
from Xinhua News Agency.
An Urgent Directive From the State Administration of
Radio Film and Television--In tonight's entertainment,
scrupulously monitor Hong Kong television programs that
are rebroadcast in the Pearl River Delta region of
Guangdong. Around 8 pm, completely screen out ``special
news reports'' from HK television about the Noble Peace
Prize.
A partial list of websites that are currently or routinely
blocked in China includes:
Facebook\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See Wall Street Journal ``Mr. Zuckerberg Goes To China:
Facebook CEO Makes the Rounds With Tech Executives, Fueling Efforts to
End Ban'' from December 23, 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703814804576035143409583806.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube
Twitter
Blogspot
Typepad
Voice of America
Radio Free Asia
Internet control is even imposed on the President of the
United States. In anticipation of President Obama's November
16, 2009, Town Hall meeting in Shanghai with Chinese youth, the
White House had hoped to have a student panel pick questions
submitted by email during the actual event. When Chinese
officials blocked that idea, the Embassy put a notice on its
website asking for questions in advance, but Chinese officials
insisted that only questions from their hand-picked student
audience would be allowed. U.S. Ambassador Huntsman then did
his own bit of firewall circumvention at the meeting by
standing up and asking the President about Internet censorship
in China from a submission received by the Embassy prior to the
event.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Ambassador Huntsman and his Embassy team maintain no less
than eight blogs and three microblogs in Mandarin from the Embassy's
website:
http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/.
Ambassador Huntsman: (Reading the question sent in
via the Embassy's website) In a country with 350
million Internet users and 60 million bloggers, do you
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
know of the firewall?
President Obama: . . .I think the more freely
information flows, the stronger the society becomes,
because then citizens of countries around the world can
hold their own governments accountable. They can think
for themselves . . . I'm a big supporter of non-
censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United
States that I discussed before, and I recognize that
different countries have different traditions. I can
tell you that in the United States, in fact that we
have free Internet--our unrestricted internet access is
a source of strength and should be encouraged. \121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-
barack-obama-town-hall-meeting-with-future-chinese-leaders
China's Answer: Create Our Own Internet Sites We Can Control
Chinese officials are quick to point out that their
citizens have a home-grown search engine--Baidu--that is just
as efficient as Google as well as online market places--AliBaba
and TaoBao--that compete toe-to-toe with Amazon and eBay.\122\
In frustration with what China believed to be GoogleMap's
unwillingness to obscure sensitive Chinese military sites,
China launched its own version ``MapWorld'' in October
2010.\123\ China is perfectly happy to promote these companies
for both the inherent pride in their Not-Just-Made-But-
Designed-In-China nature and because of their staggering market
penetration and brand recognition by the average Chinese
citizen. They also cooperate with the censorship rules
established by Beijing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\
http://www.baidu.com/ ;
http://www.alibaba.com/;
http://www.taobao.com/index_global.php Note: As this Report was
going to print: Wall Street Journal ``Alibaba.com CEO Resigns In Wake
Of Fraud By Sellers'' From February 22, 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704476604576157771196658468.html?KEYWORDS=alibaba&mg=com
-wsj. Also, on February 28, 2011, the U.S. Trade Representative cited
both Baidu and TaoBao in its ``Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious
Markets'' as examples ``of marketplaces dealing in infringing goods and
helping to sustain global piracy and counterfeiting.''
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2595
\123\ See BBC ``China Unveils Own Mapping Service'' from October
22, 2010:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11605940. The MapWorld site
can be found at the following link:
http://www.chinaonmap.cn/map/index.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One consequence of this is that some mistakenly equate
Baidu, for example, as a formal unit of the Chinese Government.
In fact, Baidu is a privately held company developed by two
Chinese nationals who studied overseas.\124\ Baidu is
incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the NASDAQ
stock exchange under the ticker symbol ``BIDU.'' Baidu closed
at $100/share in December 2010, having started the year at $40/
share, and was less than $20/share in January 2009.\125\ Many
point out that Baidu had the most to gain by Google shuttering
its operations in China, and there are some allegations the
company had direct complicity in the attack on Google.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ One of Baidu's founders, Robin Li, dropped out of his PhD
program at the State University of New York/Buffalo in 1994 after he
received his Masters degree in computer science.
\125\ Google stock ``GOOG'' began in 2010 at over $600/share,
dipped to $430 during its China crisis and climbed to over $600 by
year's end.
\126\ See Guardian (UK) ``U.S. Embassy Cables: Google Hacking
Directed by Chinese Politburo Itself'' from December 4, 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/245489.
While Baidu's market capitalization is some $37 billion, Google's is
approaching $200 billion. Still, it is clear that with China now
virtually closed to Google and China seeking to export its own internet
technologies to willing recipients, Google will face stiff competition
wherever Baidu sets up shop. See BBC News ``China Baidu Search Engine
Profits More Than Treble'' from January 31, 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12331266.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By their willingness to play by Beijing's rules, Baidu and
other Chinese companies virtually guarantee a lock on China's
massive, and ever-growing, middle class--an internal market
that will soon surpass the entire population of the United
States in number. Until the Chinese market system and society
develop to the point that shareholders' desire for profits
matches their demand for corporate accountability and social
responsibility, Western companies doing business there will
continue to be seriously disadvantaged, and China will be the
worse for it.
This is of little consequence to Beijing, which prefers
instead to point to the hundreds of search results that Baidu
will provide the average user as ``proof'' that its citizens
are not denied access to information.\127\ The fact that the
results of these searches are almost exclusively Chinese
Government-controlled media sources is the reason so many in
China are turning to technology produced in the U.S. to
circumvent the censors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ For examples of searches that an average Internet user inside
the Great Firewall would see using Baidu--including ``Tibet,''
``Tiananmen Square,'' ``Liu Xiaobo,'' ``Radio Free Asia'' and Egypt's
``Tahrir Square'' see Appendix F. Note: Baidu may face internal
competition after all. As this Report was going to print: See
Associated Press ``China's State News Agency Launches Search Engine--
Panguso'' from February 22, 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/
AR2011022201448.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beating the Censors At Their Own Game--Proxies and VPNs
The Obama administration has received criticism from foe
and friend alike for what many perceive as a weakness in the
promotion of human rights.\128\ This was particularly true
regarding Secretary Clinton's Internet Freedom Agenda with its
promise to push nations to allow freer access to the Web. From
Fiscal Year 2008 to 2010, Congress provided some $50 million in
funding to assist in Internet Freedom. As of January 2011, the
State Department had obligated less than $20 million, of which
little went to Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology
(ICCT). According to the Washington Post and others, the reason
for this is simple--China.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See AP in Ethiopian Review ``Obama Putting Human Rights
Issues on Back Burner?'' from March 13, 2009:
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/8891; Huffington Post
``Obama's Failure to Deliver on His Cairo Speech'' from June 9, 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillary-mann-leverett/
supporting-occupation-and_b_604448.html; AFP ``Obama's Visit Leaves
Dissidents Disappointed'' from November 19, 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/
ALeqM5gHHrGSBYMtuFEoXFEAR0y07iucGA; Heritage Organization ``Two Faces
of Obama's Human Rights Policy'' from April 8, 2010:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/08/the-two-faces-of-obama's-human-
rights-policy; Washington Post ``Dangerously Silent on Human Rights''
January 3, 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/
AR2011010202381.html.
\129\ See Washington Post ``U.S. Risks China's Ire With Decision to
Fund Software Maker Tied to Falun Gong'' from May 12 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/
AR2010051105154.html?sid=ST2010051105253; Washington Post ``Time to Re-
boot Our Push for Global Internet Freedom'' from October 25, 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/
AR2010102402215.html; Weekly Standard ``Battle Over Internet Freedom''
from October 26, 2010:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/battle-over-internet-
freedom_512987.html; Rebecca MacKinnon's paper ``Networked
Authoritarianism: China and Beyond'' from October 2010 can be found
here:
http://rconversation.blogs.com/
MacKinnon_Libtech.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the most sophisticated ICCT software is being
developed by two U.S. companies, whose founders fled China to
escape persecution for being members of Falun Gong.\130\ Their
software was initially designed to allow fellow Falun Gong
practitioners in China (whom Beijing authorities continue to
prosecute, harass and imprison) \131\ to circumvent the Great
Firewall by enabling their users to surf the Web as if they
were in the U.S. or other ``Internet friendly'' nations via a
combination of Proxy Websites and Virtual Private
Networks.\132\ However, both DIT and UltraReach\133\ soon found
their products being used by democracy activists and ordinary
citizens to circumvent Internet censorship in Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Burma and Vietnam--countries which have
looked to China for lessons in Internet control or to whom
China has directly provided such technologies to counter such
products.\134\ Both companies were part of a loose-knit Global
Internet Freedom Consortium that made its case known to
Congress in hopes for U.S. funding. Congress has responded by
appropriating some $50 million to the State Department to
support Internet freedom:\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See Newsweek ``Up Against Tehran's Firewall'' from January
26, 2010:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/25/up-against-tehran-s-
firewall.html.
\131\ Falun Gong began in China in 1992 and peaked with some 70
million practitioners of the peaceful spiritual movement. Beijing
authorities dubbed it a ``heretical organization'' and cracked down on
practitioners, particularly after some 10,000 gathered in April 25,
1999, unannounced, in the capital in a mass, silent protest. This
protest caught authorities completely off-guard and only increased the
levels of arrest, suppression and sometimes torture of its members,
including officially designating Falun Gong a ``cult.'' See
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36570.htm. Many Falun
Gong members fled to the West shortly thereafter. For additional
information, see U.S. Congressional Research report ``China and Falun
Gong'' from May 25, 2006:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf.
\132\ For a detailed discussion of the differences between Proxies
and VPNs, see the Harvard Berkman Center's ``2007 Circumvention
Landscape Report'' from March 2009:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/
2007_Circumvention_Landscape.pdf.
\133\ To access these sites, visit
http://www.ultrareach.com/index_en.htm and
http://www.dit-inc.us/.
\134\ See The Times (UK) ``China's Latest Export: Web Censorship''
from February 10, 2007:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/
article1352239.ece.
\135\ See New York Times ``Aid Urged For Groups Fighting Internet
Censors'' from January 20, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/technology/21censor.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008 $14.8 Million
FY 2009 $5 Million
FY 2010 $30 Million
Of the FY08 funding, $1.6 Million was granted to the U.S.
NGO Freedom House which uses the three-year funding to train
bloggers and democracy activists in Internet security protocols
and as seed funding for their annual Freedom of the Net Report
which was launched in 2009.\136\ $13 Million was given, en
bloc, to the American NGO Internews Network.\137\ Internews
awarded a variety of sub-grants, some of which went to
American-Based ICCT firm Tor ($1.6 Million) and Toronto-based
Psiphon ($2.9 Million) because, according to Internews
officials, Internews had worked with them in the past.\138\
None of the FY2009 money was released by the State Department
until mid-2010, drawing much Congressional ire as a
result.\139\ The Statement of Interest for FY2010 funding was
not released until January 3, 2011.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See Freedom House's ``Freedom on the Net'' report from April
1, 2009:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/specialreports/NetFreedom2009/
FreedomOnTheNet_FullReport.pdf.
\137\ The remaining $200,000 was retained by the State Department's
bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor (DRL) to hire program staff
to provide monitoring and oversight of the two grants. In FY2006, DRL
obligated $500,000 for Internet freedom initiatives and none in FY2007.
\138\ To access Tor and Psiphon, visit the following:
http://www.torproject.org/;
http://psiphon.ca.
\139\ See Wall Street Journal ``Senate to Hillary: Support
Dissidents'' from July 23, 2009:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970203946904574300641911723378.html?mod =googlenews_wsj.
\140\ The FY2011 Statement of Interest can be found:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/p/127829.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One piece of ICCT software that did receive special U.S.
attention was developed by the San Francisco-based Censorship
Research Center--Haystack, which had none of these China
connections or issues. Haystack software was developed to
assist Iranian democracy activists outwit Tehran censors, and
its lead developer received accolades in the media.\141\
However, the Haystack team had not sufficiently tested its
software nor allowed it to be submitted for independent
cryptological analysis before it released a beta version to
unsuspecting Iranians. In September 2010, just after the beta
version was released, an independent team was able to crack the
code in six hours and also determined that the Iranian
Government would be able to manipulate the software to identify
any users. Once these weaknesses were made public, the Haystack
project quickly collapsed, and Haystack's website, and that of
CRC, are now defunct.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See New York Times ``Target Iran's Censors'' from February
18, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19iht-edcohen.html?_r=1,
the Guardian (UK) paper named Haystack's founder Austin Heap its
Innovator of the Year see ``MediaGuardian Innovation Awards: Austin
Heap vs Iranian Censors'' from March 29, 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/29/austin-heap-megas-
innovator-award, Newsweek ``Needles in a Haystack'' from August 6,
2010:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/06/needles-in-a-haystack.html.
\142\ See Fast Company ``How Haystack Risked Exposing Iranian
Dissidents'' from September 20, 2010:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1690075/haystack-austin-heap-iran-fail;
Slate ``The Great Internet Freedom Fraud: How Haystack Endangered the
Iranian Dissidents It Was Supposed to Protect'' from September 16,
2010:
http://www.slate.com/id/2267262. Following Haystack's
collapse,administration officials were quick to point out that the OFAC
license granted Haystack [see Haystack's April 14, 2010 press release:
http://www.prlog.org/10625421-anti-censorship-software-licensed-by-
us-government-for-export-to-iran.html] was not a validation that the
technology worked, only that its export could not be used by Iran to
harm America, and deny the Secretary was referring to Haystack in the
following interchange with Bloomberg TV (
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138677.htm):
Interviewer: And how would you deal with the Iranian Government's
response to the U.S. trying to get in there and help the internet
access?
Secretary Clinton: We are working to help information flow freely
into and out of Iran as well as within Iran. We have issued a license
to a company with technology that would enable that to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to giving Tehran much to cheer about, the
entire episode set back on its heels the priority that had been
accorded Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology. However,
U.S. Government support for ICCT development is vital, given
the weak private sector market interest in funding such
technologies.\143\ Most ICCT users tend to be democracy
activists with little or no money to pay for such services,
quite often having lost their day jobs as a result of their
activities. Requiring users of ICCT software either to register
or pay for such services would appear illogical in societies
where doing either might enable repressive governments to find
them and use such information against them.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ The Onion Router (or ``Tor'' as it became known) was
originally sponsored by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Since
December 2006, Tor has been registered 501(c)3 NGO: https://
www.torproject.org/index.html.en.
\144\ See The Tor Project ``Ten Things to Look for In a
Circumvention Tool'' from March 2010:
http://tor.cybermirror.org/press/presskit/2010-09-16-circumvention-
features.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Broadcasting--Already Practicing Internet Censorship Circumvention
Every Day
U.S. international broadcasting, run by the Broadcasting
Board of Governors (BBG), however, offers a natural ``market''
in need of this technology.\145\ The BBG entities--Voice of
America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting and the Middle East Broadcasting Network--all
transmit to countries whose governments routinely block not
only U.S. radio and satellite signals but their Internet
content as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\
http://www.bbg.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, BBG entities already use ICCT on a daily
basis. These include UltraReach, DIT, Tor and Psiphon products
as well as individually produced ICCT software, some designed
in-house, and others created through a network of like-minded
Internet activists. Without such software, most U.S. Government
news content to China, Iran, Burma, Egypt, Venezuela, Russia,
Belarus and others would be inaccessible. For example, each of
RFA's websites (in English, Mandarin, Korean, etc.) has a
``Getting Around Internet Blockage'' icon on the home screen.
VOA's Persian News Network has the same on its Farsi language
page.\146\ PNN also has its own ``iPhone App,'' though reviews
are mixed, with some users having commented, ``Due to filtering
software in Iran it doesn't work properly,'' while others gave
it higher marks.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ PNN uses ICCT to broadcast its own wildly popular version of
The Daily Show--``Parazit''--produced by two former Iranian journalists
working for PNN. See Washington Post ``Expats `Daily-Show'-style VOA
Program Enthralls Iranians, Irks Their Government'' from December 31,
2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/
AR2010123101327.html.
\147\ PNN's iPhone App and comments can be found here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/voa-pnn/id348178315?mt=8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest difficulty confronting such efforts is the lack
of servers and bandwidth. As a result, ICCT software users are
reporting slower and slower download speeds or inability to
access the Web at all as the crush of users clogs the system.
Indeed, the crush has reached the point that some users are no
longer bothering to use the software and/or access these sites.
U.S. money for additional servers and greater bandwidth is
essential.
Given the poor relations the U.S. already has with Iran,
Burma, Cuba and North Korea (though Internet penetration in the
last two is very low), there is little political cost for the
State Department to be seen as the driver of ICCT activities.
The same certainly cannot be said of China, Egypt, Russia and
others where our bilateral trade and security relationships
often require close cooperation. Because of the firewall that
prevents political interference in its reporting of the news,
the BBG is immune to such pressures.\148\ The BBG is in the
business of using ICCT around the clock to ensure its readers,
viewers and listeners can access its products. For that very
reason, the BBG is perfectly placed to serve as the lead U.S.
Government agency in assisting ICCT efforts.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Of the FY2009 Internet Freedom funding, the BBG received $1.5
Million. The BBG promptly used to contract with DIT to expand its
Freegate software operations for some $600,000 and with UltraReach for
$840,000. Critics contend that this sub-contract is ample evidence of
the State Department aversion to offending China given that the
Department could just as well have written direct grants with DIT and
UltraReach.
\149\ The BBG is already in the process of seeking outside vendors
to assist it in pushing news via SMS services into closed societies.
See ``Broadcasting board seeks text-message services'' from December
20, 2010:
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20101220_1780.php?oref=search.
A P P E N D I X E S
----------
Appendix A.--List of Confucius Institutes
in USA by Year
2004
University of Maryland: College Park, Maryland
2005
San Francisco State University: San Francisco, California
2006
Bryant University: Smithfield, Rhode Island
Confucius Institute in Chicago: Chicago, Illinois
Confucius Institute at China Institute: New York, New York
University of Hawaii at Manoa: Honolulu, Hawaii
University of Iowa: Iowa City, Iowa
University of Kansas: Lawrence, Kansas
University of Massachusetts Boston: Boston, Massachusetts
Michigan State University: East Lansing, Michigan
University of Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma
2007
Arizona State University: Tempe, Arizona
University of California Los Angeles: Los Angeles,
California
Community College Denver: Denver, Colorado
Confucius Institute in Indianapolis: Indianapolis, Indiana
University of Memphis: Memphis, Tennessee
Miami University: Oxford, Ohio
University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Lincoln, Nebraska
New Mexico State University: Law Cruces, New Mexico
North Carolina State University: Raleigh, North Carolina
University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Portland State University: Portland, Oregon
Purdue University: Lafayette, Indiana
University of Rhode Island: Kingston, Rhode Island
Rutgers, the State of University of New Jersey: New
Brunswick, New Jersey
University of Texas at Dallas: Richardson, Texas
University of Toledo: Toledo, Ohio
University of Utah: Salt Lake City, Utah
Wayne State University: Detroit, Michigan
2008
University of Akron: Akron, Ohio
University of Arizona: Tucson, Arizona
Confucius Institutes in Atlanta: Atlanta, Georgia
University of Central Arkansas: Conway, Arkansas
Cleveland State University: Cleveland, Ohio
University of Minnesota: Twin Cities, Minnesota
University of Montana: Missoula, Montana
University of South Carolina: Columbia, South Carolina
University of South Florida: Tampa, Florida
Stony Brook University: Stony Brook, New York
Texas A&M University: College Station, Texas
Troy University: Troy, Alabama
Valparaiso University: Valparaiso, Indiana
Webster University: St. Louis, Missouri
University of Wisconsin-Platteville: Platteville, Wisconsin
2009
University of Alaska Anchorage: Anchorage, Alaska
Alfred University: Alfred, New York
George Mason University: Fairfax, Virginia
Kennesaw State University: Kennesaw, Georgia
University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Michigan
State University of New York at Binghamton (Confucius
Institute of Chinese Opera): Binghamton, New York
Pace University: New York, New York
Pfeiffer University: Charlotte, North Carolina
Presbyterian College: Clinton, South Carolina
San Diego State University: San Diego, California
Confucius Institute of the State of Washington: Seattle,
Washington
2010
University of Chicago: Chicago, Illinois
Columbia University: New York, New York
University of Delaware: Newark, Delaware
Georgia State University: Atlanta, Georgia
University of Kentucky: Lexington, Kentucky
Miami Dade College: Miami, Florida
Middle Tennessee University: Murfreesboro, Tennessee
University of New Hampshire: Durham, New Hampshire
State University of New York at Buffalo: Buffalo, New York
State College of Optometry, State University of New York:
New York, New York
University of Oregon: Eugene, Oregon
Stanford University: Palo Alto, California
University of Texas at San Antonio: San Antonio, Texas
University of Western Kentucky: Bowling Green, Kentucky
2011
Pennsylvania State University: University Park,
Pennsylvania
Western Michigan University: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Appendix B.--U.S. Legislation Regarding Funding of International
Expositions
SEC. 204. INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITIONS.
(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b) and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of
State may not obligate or expend any funds appropriated to the
Department of State for a United States pavilion or other major
exhibit at any international exposition or world's fair
registered by the Bureau of International Expositions in excess
of amounts expressly authorized and appropriated for such
purpose.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--The Department of State is
authorized to utilize its personnel and resources to
carry out the responsibilities of the Department for
the following:
(A) Administrative services, including legal
and other advice and contract administration,
under section 102(a)(3) of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2452(a)(3)) related to United States
participation in international fairs and
expositions abroad. Such administrative
services may not include capital expenses,
operating expenses, or travel or related
expenses (other than such expenses as are
associated with the provision of administrative
services by employees of the Department of
State).
(B) Activities under section 105(f) of such
Act with respect to encouraging foreign
governments, international organizations, and
private individuals, firms, associations,
agencies and other groups to participate in
international fairs and expositions and to make
contributions to be utilized for United States
participation in international fairs and
expositions.
(C) Encouraging private support of United
States pavilions and exhibits at international
fairs and expositions.
(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this
subsection authorizes the use of funds appropriated to
the Department of State to make payments for--
(A) contracts, grants, or other agreements
with any other party to carry out the
activities described in this subsection; or
(B) the satisfaction of any legal claim or
judgment or the costs of litigation brought
against the Department of State arising from
activities described in this subsection.
(c) Notification.--No funds made available to the
Department of State by any Federal agency to be used for a
United States pavilion or other major exhibit at any
international exposition or world's fair registered by the
Bureau of International Expositions may be obligated or
expended unless the appropriate congressional committees are
notified not less than 15 days prior to such obligation or
expenditure.
(d) Reports.--The Commissioner General of a United States
pavilion or other major exhibit at any international exposition
or world's fair registered by the Bureau of International
Expositions shall submit to the Secretary of State and the
appropriate congressional committees a report concerning
activities relating to such pavilion or exhibit every 180 days
while serving as Commissioner General and shall submit a final
report summarizing all such activities not later than 1 year
after the closure of the pavilion or exhibit.
(e) Repeal.--Section 230 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2452
note) is repealed.
Appendix C.--Foreign Film Box Office Gross
in China 1999-2010
Foreign Film Box Office Gross in China 1999-2010
(All figures are in $US, converted from Renminbi 6.5871 RMB/$1 on
December 31, 2010)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box Office
Year Film Production Receipts ($
Company millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 1. Rush Hour........... New Line......... 3.80
2. Mulan............... Disney........... 1.72
3. Enemy of the State.. Disney........... 3.37
4. Star Wars, Ep1...... Fox.............. 5.15
5. Tarzan.............. Disney........... 2.08
6. Entrapment.......... Fox.............. 4.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 1. Matrix.............. W.B.............. 2.72
2. Stuart Little....... Sony............. 3.24
3. Double Jeopardy..... UIP.............. 2.34
4. General's Daughter.. UIP.............. 3.31
5. U-571............... EDKO............. 4.42
6. Dinosaur............ BVI.............. 4.34
7. Gladiator........... UIP.............. 4.24
8. MI: 2............... UIP.............. 4.45
9. Perfect Storm....... Warner........... 3.16
10. Bone Collector...... Sony............. 2.62
11. Big Momma's House... Fox.............. 1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 1. Charlie's Angels.... Sony............. 2.82
2. Chicken Run......... CJ............... 0.94
3. Vertical Limit...... Sony............. 4.03
4. The 6th Day......... Sony............. 2.22
5. Meet the Parents.... CJ............... 0.99
6. Proof of Life....... Warner........... 1.32
7. Enemy at the gates.. UIP.............. 3.32
8. Pearl Harbor........ BVI.............. 16.13
9. Swordfish........... Warner........... 2.61
10. The Mummy Returns... UIP.............. 4.36
11. Lara Croft: Tomb UIP.............. 2.69
Raider.
12. Antitrust........... MGM.............. 0.92
* Moulin Rouge........ Australia/Fox.... 1.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 1. Planet of the Apes.. Fox.............. 1.56
2. Shrek............... CJ............... 1.07
* Jurassic Park III.... UIP.............. 2.68
3. Harry Potter and the Warner........... 9.45
Sorcerer's Stone.
4. The One............. SONY............. 1.88
5. Princess Diaries.... BVI.............. 1.50
6. The Lord of the New Line......... 8.53
Rings: The Fellowship
of the Rings.
7. E.T................. UIP.............. 2.01
8. Star Wars: Episode FOX.............. 6.90
II-Attack of the Clones.
9. Spider Man.......... SONY............. 6.26
10. Stuart Little 2..... SONY............. 2.75
11. Wind Talkers........ MGM.............. 4.48
12. Ice Age............. Fox.............. 1.06
13. Bourne Identity..... UIP.............. 2.43
14. Tuxedo.............. CJ............... 2.49
* Lagaan............... Sony............. 0.19
15. Bad Company......... BVI.............. 2.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 1. Sweet Home Alabama.. BVI.............. 1.30
2. Harry Potter & Warner........... 7.80
Chamber of Secrets.
3. The Recruit......... BVI.............. 2.60
4. Maid in Manhattan... Sony............. 0.94
5. Catch Me If You Can. CJ............... 1.60
6. The Lord of the New Line......... 3.64
Rings: Two Towers.
7. Daredevil........... Fox.............. 1.55
8. The Core............ UIP.............. 1.71
9. The Matrix Reloaded. Warner........... 6.33
10. Finding Nemo........ BVI.............. 5.28
11. Charlie's Angel: Sony............. 2.15
Full Throttle.
12. Terminator 3: Rise Sony............. 4.40
of the Machine.
13. X2.................. Fox.............. 1.37
14. The Hulk............ UIP.............. 1.23
15. The Matrix Warner........... 6.38
Revolutions.
* Johnny English....... UIP.............. 1.25
* Pirates of the BVI.............. 4.13
Caribbean: The Curse of
the Black Pearl.
* Italian Job.......... UIP.............. 2.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 1. The Rundown......... Sony............. 2.53
* Master and Commander. Fox.............. 3.08
* Mona Lisa Smile...... Sony............. 0.71
2. The Lord of the New Line......... 13.10
Rings.
3. Paycheck............ DreamWorks....... 2.05
4. Cold Mountain....... Miramax.......... 4.02
* Looney Tunes: Back in Warner........... N/A
Action.
* Cheaper By the Dozen. Fox.............. 0.85
* 50 First Dates....... Sony............. 0.78
5. Day After Tomorrow.. Fox.............. 12.60
6. Troy................ Warner........... 10.51
7. Spider Man II....... Sony............. 7.86
8. Shrek 2............. DreamWorks....... 1.87
9. Harry Potter 3...... Warner........... 5.89
* Two Brothers......... UIP.............. 1.19
10. King Arthur......... Disney........... 4.17
11. The Bourne Supremacy UIP.............. 2.27
12. Ladder 49........... Disney........... 1.17
13. I, Robot............ Fox.............. 2.29
14. Garfield............ Fox.............. 3.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 1. The Polar Express... Warner........... 1.48
2. The Incredibles..... Disney........... 3.30
3. Anacondas II........ Sony............. 3.85
4. Wimbledon........... UIP.............. 0.32
5. Thunderbird......... UIP.............. 0.21
6. A Very Long Warner........... 0.67
Engagement.
7. National Treasure... Disney........... 5.45
* Casablanca........... Warner........... 0.06
8. Taxi................ Fox.............. 1.48
9. Interpreter......... UIP.............. 4.14
10. Flight of the Fox.............. 2.29
Phoenix.
11. Star Wars III....... Fox.............. 11.47
12. xxx 2............... Sony............. 2.20
13. Batman Begins....... Warner........... 3.20
14. Mr. & Mrs. Smith.... Fox.............. 9.41
15. War of the Worlds... UIP.............. 8.04
16. Stealth............. Sony............. 4.02
17. Fantastic Four...... Fox.............. 3.07
* Charlie and the Warner........... 0.06
Chocolate Factory
(IMAX).
18. The Legend of Zorro. Sony............. 4.69
19. Harry Potter 4...... Warner........... 14.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 1. The Da Vinci Code... Sony............. 16.07
2. King Kong........... UIP.............. 15.53
3. MI 3................ Paramount........ 12.32
4. Poseidon............ Warner........... 10.46
5. Superman Returns.... Warner........... 9.50
6. The Chronicles of Disney........... 9.26
Narnia.
7. Garfield: A Tail of Fox.............. 8.73
Two Kitties.
8. Eight Below......... Disney........... 8.46
9. Ice Age II.......... Fox.............. 5.54
2006 10. The Transporters 2.. Fox.............. 4.61
11. Miami Vice.......... Universal........ 4.49
12. When A Stranger Sony............. 3.59
Calls.
13. World Trade Center.. Paramount........ 3.46
14. The Sentinel........ Fox.............. 3.42
15. Firewall............ Warner........... 3.43
16. Cars................ Disney........... 3.41
17. X-men 3............. Fox.............. 3.20
18. Open Season......... Sony............. 2.33
19. Goal................ Disney........... 1.03
* Ant Bully............ Warner........... 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 * Happy Feet........... Warner........... 0.59
1. The Guardian........ Disney........... 3.88
2. Casino Royale....... Sony............. 14.12
3. Night at the Museum. Fox.............. 9.81
4. The Devil Wears Fox.............. 2.83
Prada.
5. Deja vu............. Disney........... 4.32
6. Eragon.............. Fox.............. 5.19
7. Click............... Sony............. 1.81
8. Shooter............. Paramount........ 4.36
9. Spiderman III....... Sony............. 22.09
10. TMNT................ Warner........... 5.68
11. Ghost Rider......... Sony............. 4.36
12. Pirates of the Disney........... 19.02
Caribbean: At World's
End.
13. Transformers........ Paramount........ 42.67
14. Mr. Bean's Holiday.. Universal........ 3.54
15. Harry Potter and the Warner........... 21.60
Order of the Phoenix.
* Shrek III (Digital DreamWorks....... 1.61
New Line).
16. No Reservations..... Warner........... 2.23
17. Ratatouille......... Disney........... 3.33
18. Die Hard 4.......... Fox.............. 4.11
19. The Bourne Ultimatum Universal........ 3.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 1. Blinkers............ Sony............. 0.17
2. The Pursuit of Sony............. 1.03
Happyness (Digital).
3. The Water Horse..... Sony............. 9.50
4. Atonement........... Universal........ 2.28
5. National Treasure... Disney........... 11.11
6. 10,000 BC........... Warner........... 12.20
7. The Golden Compass.. New Line......... 4.67
* Spiderwick (IMAX).... Paramount........ 0.36
8. Ironman............. Paramount........ 13.76
9. Fool's Gold......... Warner........... 2.09
10. 27 Dresses.......... Fox.............. 0.82
11. The Chronicles of Disney........... 12.58
Narnia: Prince Caspian.
12. Kung Fu Panda....... Paramount........ 27.32
13. Hancock............. Sony............. 15.79
14. Speed Racer......... Warner........... 3.37
15. Incredible Hulk..... Universal........ 9.27
* Journey to the Center Warner........... 10.02
of the Earth.
16. Wanted.............. Universal........ 11.14
17. 007 Quantum of Sony............. 21.04
Solace.
18. Babylon A.D......... Fox.............. 1.28
19. Hellboy............. Universal........ 2.47
* Bolt................. Disney........... 6.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 1. Madagascar 2........ DreamWorks 5.76
Animation/UIP
Distribution.
2. Australia........... Fox.............. 2.69
3. Valkyrie............ Fox.............. 9.15
4. Dragonball: Fox.............. 9.58
Evolution.
* Monsters vs. Aliens.. Paramount........ 4.81
6. Fast & Furious 4.... Universal........ 4.27
7. X-Men Origins: Fox.............. 12.17
Wolverine.
8. Star Trek........... Paramount........ 9.24
9. Night at the Museum: Fox.............. 18.06
Battle of the
Smithsonian.
10. Terminator Salvation Sony............. 17.63
11. Transformer......... Paramount........ 68.39
* Ice Age III.......... Fox.............. 23.47
12. Harry Potter and the Warner........... 25.07
Half-Blood Prince.
* Up................... Disney........... 12.54
13. G.I. Joe............ Paramount........ 20.42
14. State of Play....... Universal........ 2.58
15. The Taking of Pelham Sony............. 4.51
123.
16. This Is It.......... Sony............. 6.95
17. 2012................ Sony............. 71.23
* G-force.............. Disney........... 4.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 1. Avatar.............. Fox.............. 211.36
2. Alvin and the Fox.............. 1.56
Chipmunks: The
Squeakquel.
3. Sherlock Holmes..... Warner........... 12.02
4. Percy Jackson & The Fox.............. 5.01
Olympians:.
* The Lightning Thief.. ................. 0.15
5. Alice in Wonderland. Disney........... 35.50
* Clash of the Titans.. Warner........... 26.63
6. Iron Man 2.......... Paramount........ 27.15
7. How to Train Your Paramount........ 13.95
Dragon.
8. Prince of Persia: Disney........... 24.36
The Sands of Time.
2010 9. Robin Hood.......... Universal/Edko... 6.43
* Toy Story 3.......... Disney........... 18.05
10. Knight & Day........ Fox.............. 14.11
* Shrek Forever After.. Paramount........ 13.55
11. The Last Airbender.. Paramount........ 4.54
12. Inception........... Warner........... 69.23
13. The Sorcerer's Disney........... 9.11
Apprentice.
* Cloudy With A Chance Sony............. 0.28
Of Meatballs (IMAX).
14. Wall Street 2....... Fox.............. 7.47
15. Unstoppable......... Fox.............. 9.18
* Legend of The Warner........... 4.40
Guardians: The Owls of
Ga'Hoole.
* Resident Evil: Sony/DMG 21.71
Afterlife (3D). (Chinese
distributor).
16. Harry Potter and The Warner........... 31.27
Deathly Hallows 1.
* My Name is Khan (non Fox.............. 0.07
US film (India) quota).
** Hot Summer Days...... Fox (Huayi Bros). 19.99
** The Karate Kid....... CFG/Sony......... 7.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes 3D, IMAX, digital titles or other reasons counted outside the
quota
** Denotes co-productions counted as Chinese domestic movies
The titles indicated that are counted against the quota is based on
MPA internal tracking.
Source: Motion Picture Association of America
Appendix D.--October 11, 2010 Open Letter
to the Standing Committee of the National
People's Congress Calling for Greater
Press Freedom
Appendix E.--Committee to Protect Journalists' 2010 List of Imprisoned
Chinese Journalists
Committee to Protect Journalists' 2010 List of Imprisoned Chinese Journalists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Name Imprisoned Media Summary of Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xu Zerong (David Tsui)................ 2000 freelance.................. ``leaking state secrets''
Jin Haike............................. 2001 freelance.................. ``subverting state
authority''
Xu Wei................................ 2001 freelance.................. ``subverting state
authority''
Abdulghani Memetemin.................. 2002 freelance.................. ``leaking state secrets''
Huang Jinqiu (Qing Shuijun, Huang Jin) 2003 freelance, columnist for ``subversion of state
Boxun News. authority''
Kong Youping.......................... 2003 freelance essayist and subversion
poet, Minzhu Luntan.
Shi Tao............................... 2004 editorial director, Dangdai ``providing state secrets
Shang Bao. to foreigners''
Zheng Yichun.......................... 2004 freelance, Epoch Times subversion
contributor.
Yang Tongyan (Yang Tianshui).......... 2005 freelance, Boxun News, ``subverting state
Epoch Times. authority''
Zhang Jianhong........................ 2006 freelance, founder/editor ``inciting subversion''
of Aiqinhai.
Yang Maodong (Guo Feixiong)........... 2006 freelance.................. ``illegal business
activity''
Sun Lin............................... 2007 freelance, Boxun News...... possessing illegal weapon/
organizing disorderly
crowd
Qi Chonghuai.......................... 2007 freelance, Epoch Times carrying false press card
contributor.
Lu Gengsong........................... 2007 freelance.................. ``inciting subversion of
state power''
Hu Jia................................ 2007 freelance blogger.......... ``incitement to subvert
state power''
Dhondup Wangchen...................... 2008 Tibetan documentary subversion
filmmaker.
Chen Daojun........................... 2008 freelance, Zheng Ming subversion
contributor.
Huang Qi.............................. 2008 founder of website 6- illegally holding state
4tianwang. secrets
Du Daobin............................. 2008 freelance Internet writer.. violating probation
Mehbube Abrak (Mehbube Ablesh)........ 2008 Xinjiang People's Radio promoting ``splittism''
Station.
Liu Xiaobo............................ 2008 freelance, BBC, Epoch ``inciting subversion''
Times, Observe China.
Kunchok Tsephel Gopey Tsang........... 2009 online writer for Chomei disclosing state secrets
(Tibetan site).
Kunga Tsayang (Gang-Nyi).............. 2009 freelance, Zindris website. revealing state secrets
Tan Zuoren............................ 2009 freelance.................. ``inciting subversion''
Gulmire Imin.......................... 2009 freelance, contributor to separatism, leaking state
Salkin (Uighur site). secrets
Nureli................................ 2009 manager of Salkin (Uighur endangering state security
site).
Nijat Azat............................ 2009 manager of Shabnam (Uighur endangering state security
site).
Dilixiati Paerhati.................... 2009 editor of Diyarim (Uighur endangering state security
site).
Gheyrat Niyaz (Hailaite Niyazi),...... 2009 manager of Uighurbiz ``endangering state
(Uighur site). security''
Tashi Rabten.......................... 2010 freelance, editor Shar ``subverting state
Dungri (Tibetan journal). authority''
Dokru Tsultrim (Zhuori Cicheng)....... 2010 freelance, Khawai Tsesok N/A
(Tibetan journal).
Buddha................................ 2010 contributor to Shar Dungri ``separatism''
(Tibetan journal).
Jangtse Donkho (Rongke)............... 2010 contributor to Shar Dungri ``separatism''
(Tibetan journal).
Kalsang Jinpa......................... 2010 contributor to Shar Dungri ``separatism''
(Tibetan journal).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix F.--Screen Shots of Baidu Searches as Seen from Inside the
Great Firewall