[Senate Prints 112-15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress 
 1st Session                COMMITTEE PRINT                     S. Prt.


                          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


                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                             First Session

                           February 15, 2011


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
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          


                            C O N T E N T S

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


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


                         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 
    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.


    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.
                                          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.
    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 
    \4\ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
    \5\ See New York Times ``Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China'' 
from January 14, 2011:
    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:
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, 
    \7\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/19/press-
    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
    \10\ http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Chinese-toys-tainted-by-lead-
    \11\ http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-11-tainted-
    \12\  http://online.wsj.com/article/
     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:
    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 
    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 

   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 

   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.



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 
    \14\ See China Daily ``China Needs More Public Diplomacy'' from 
March 3, 2010:
    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:
    \16\ These commissions are the U.S.-China Economic and Security 
    http://www.uscc.gov/index.php, and the Congressional-Executive 
Commission, which monitors human rights and the rule of law in China:
    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 
    \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:
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:
    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 
    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:
    \20\ See PC World ``U.S. Panel Looks at Intellectual Property 
Violations in China'' from June 15, 2010:
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,
981909_1.html, found on the Chinese Government's own ``IPR Protection 
in China Website'':

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:


    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:
Hanban's list of Confucius Institutes, Application Procedure and By-Law 
can be found here:
    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 
    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,
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'':
    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:


    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 

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 
    \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 
    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:
    \33\ According to IIE, the exact figure is $513.8 Million. The 
statistic for each state can be found here:
    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:
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/
     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:
    \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:
    \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


      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 
    \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:
crowds-20100731 and The Atlantic ``China Rules the World at Expo 2010'' 
from April 29, 2010:
    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, 
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:
disgrace ; Washington Post ``The United Corporations of America'' from 
May 24, 2010:
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:
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:
    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 
    \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 
    \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:
    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, 
    \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:
    for images of the 2005 Aichi Pavilion see 
    \49\ See Washington Post ``U.S. Running Out of Time to Join 
Shanghai Expo'' from May 7, 2009:
    \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:
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:
    \51\ See Shanghai Daily ``Thumbs Down for U.S. Pavilion'' from 
November 3, 2010, which cites a poll finding the U.S. the ``most 
    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:
    \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:
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 

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:
    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 
    \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
    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

                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
    \58\ See
    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 

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:
AR2011011907126.html; The Scotsman (UK) ``Pandas Head for Scotland, But 
It's Not Black and White Yet'' from December 11, 2010:
    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:
    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 
    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:
    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 
    \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:
    \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 
    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:

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:
00144feabdc0.html#axzz17dPbt6bi; Christian Science Monitor ``Chinese 
Authorities Silence Friends of Liu Xiaobo in Extensive Roundup'' from 
December 9, 2010:
    \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:
    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:
ceremony.html; but in the end, these countries sent officials to the 

    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:
    \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:
    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 
    \76\ The full text of China's ``Human Rights Record of the United 
States in 2009'' can be found here:
c_13208219.htm; the U.S. State Department's 2009 Human Rights Report on 
China can be found here:
    \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 
    \78\ China's February 2009, 33 page submission to the UN Human 
Rights Council can be found here:
A_HRC_WG6_4_CHN_1_E.pdf; the U.S. 22 page submission to the Council 
from August 2010 can be found here:
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:
    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:

          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 
    \81\ Text of the press conference:

    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:
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:
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:
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, 
    \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:
    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, 
    \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:
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'':
    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 
    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:
    \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:
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:
    \91\ See Washington Post ``From China's Mouth to Texans' Ears: 
Outreach Includes Small Station in Galveston'' from April 25, 2010:

Commercial Dominance and Territorial Saber Rattling Strain Local 

    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:
    \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:
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:
    \95\ See St. Louis Business Journal ``Senators Bond and Bayh 
Introduce Rare Earth Legislation'' from December 17, 2010:
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:
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:
22rare.html and Wall Street Journal ``China's Rare Earth Gambit'' from 
October 19, 2010:
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:
SB10001424052748704124504576117511251161274.html. See The People's 
Daily ``China Wise to Guard Its Rare Earth Wealth'' from October 18, 
    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:
    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:
    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:
AR2010090707448.html; Financial Times ``Mongolia Makes Tracks to Escape 
Its Neighbor'' from January 19, 2001:
00144feab49a.html#axzz1Bms6DhXD; Financial Times ``Cash Flow Into Peru 
Mine Brings Rights Fear'' from January 19, 2011:
    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 
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 
See UK Telegraph ``China to Build $2 Bn Railway for Iran'' from 
September 7, 2010:

 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:
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:
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:

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:
    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:
    \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:
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:
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:
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:
    \105\ Most agreed with Rebecca MacKinnon writing in the Wall Street 
Journal ``Google Gets on the Right Side of History'' from January 13, 
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:
Sunday Times (UK) ``Bill Gates Defends China's Internet Restrictions'' 
from January 27, 2006:
article721120.ece; CNET News ``Google to Censor China Web Searches'' 
from January 24, 2006:
    \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:
    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:
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:
c_13220853.htm. See Gigaom.com ``Google and China: What You Need to 
Know'' from March 25, 2010:
    \109\ See Xinhua ``Google, Don't Politicize Yourself'' from March 
21, 2010;

``The Web is Fundamentally Controllable'' \110\--The Great Firewall of 

    \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:
    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:
The Atlantic Monthly ``The Tea Party Used the Internet to Defeat the 
First Internet President'' from November 2, 2010:
    \112\ For examples of Chinese citizens ``disturbing social and 
public order'' see Global Voices ``China: Blacklisting Netizens'' from 
November 3, 2010:
    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:
tc20060112_434051.htm; Freedom House's chapter on China pp 34-44 
``Freedom on the Net'' from March 2009:
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 
view/2378/2089. Her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony from March 2, 
2010 can be found here:
    \114\ Guardian (UK) ``Chinese Twitter User Seized After Supporting 
Liu Xiaobo'' from October 26, 2010:
tweet-arrest; New York Times ``Woman Imprisoned for Twitter Message'' 
from November 18, 2010:
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:
    \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:
    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: 
    \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:
EqZ4g6yH+c3fNOCGTtfCvw .
    \118\ All quotes taken from China Digital Times:
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:

          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 

    A partial list of websites that are currently or routinely 
blocked in China includes:

    \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:





                  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 
    \120\ Ambassador Huntsman and his Embassy team maintain no less 
than eight blogs and three microblogs in Mandarin from the Embassy's 

          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\

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.
    http://www.baidu.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:
-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.''
    \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:
    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:
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:
    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:

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:
supporting-occupation-and_b_604448.html; AFP ``Obama's Visit Leaves 
Dissidents Disappointed'' from November 19, 2009:
ALeqM5gHHrGSBYMtuFEoXFEAR0y07iucGA; Heritage Organization ``Two Faces 
of Obama's Human Rights Policy'' from April 8, 2010:
rights-policy; Washington Post ``Dangerously Silent on Human Rights'' 
January 3, 2011:
    \129\ See Washington Post ``U.S. Risks China's Ire With Decision to 
Fund Software Maker Tied to Falun Gong'' from May 12 2010:
AR2010051105154.html?sid=ST2010051105253; Washington Post ``Time to Re-
boot Our Push for Global Internet Freedom'' from October 25, 2010:
AR2010102402215.html; Weekly Standard ``Battle Over Internet Freedom'' 
from October 26, 2010:
freedom_512987.html; Rebecca MacKinnon's paper ``Networked 
Authoritarianism: China and Beyond'' from October 2010 can be found 
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:
    \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:
    \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:
    \133\ To access these sites, visit
    http://www.ultrareach.com/index_en.htm and
    \134\ See The Times (UK) ``China's Latest Export: Web Censorship'' 
from February 10, 2007:
    \135\ See New York Times ``Aid Urged For Groups Fighting Internet 
Censors'' from January 20, 2010:

                          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:
    \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:
    \139\  See Wall Street Journal ``Senate to Hillary: Support 
Dissidents'' from July 23, 2009:
SB10001424052970203946904574300641911723378.html?mod =googlenews_wsj.
    \140\ The FY2011 Statement of Interest can be found:
    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:
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:
innovator-award, Newsweek ``Needles in a Haystack'' from August 6, 
    \142\ See Fast Company ``How Haystack Risked Exposing Iranian 
Dissidents'' from September 20, 2010:
Slate ``The Great Internet Freedom Fraud: How Haystack Endangered the 
Iranian Dissidents It Was Supposed to Protect'' from September 16, 
    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:
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 (
      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 
      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://
    \144\ See The Tor Project ``Ten Things to Look for In a 
Circumvention Tool'' from March 2010:

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.
    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, 
    \147\ PNN's iPhone App and comments can be found here:
    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 
    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 
    \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:

                          A P P E N D I X E S


               Appendix A.--List of Confucius Institutes 
                             in USA by Year

   University of Maryland: College Park, Maryland
   San Francisco State University: San Francisco, California
   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
   Arizona State University: Tempe, Arizona
   University of California Los Angeles: Los Angeles, 
   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
   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
   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, 
   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
   Pennsylvania State University: University Park, 
   Western Michigan University: Kalamazoo, Michigan

   Appendix B.--U.S. Legislation Regarding Funding of International 


    (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 
    (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 
                  (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 
                  (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 
    (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
            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
             * 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
             3. Paycheck............  DreamWorks.......            2.05
             4. Cold Mountain.......  Miramax..........            4.02
             * Looney Tunes: Back in  Warner...........             N/A
             * 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
             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
            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
            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
             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
            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
             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
            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
            18. Babylon A.D.........  Fox..............            1.28
            19. Hellboy.............  Universal........            2.47
             * Bolt.................  Disney...........            6.94
2009         1. Madagascar 2........  DreamWorks                   5.76
             2. Australia...........  Fox..............            2.69
             3. Valkyrie............  Fox..............            9.15
             4. Dragonball:           Fox..............            9.58
             * Monsters vs. Aliens..  Paramount........            4.81
             6. Fast & Furious 4....  Universal........            4.27
             7. X-Men Origins:        Fox..............           12.17
             8. Star Trek...........  Paramount........            9.24
             9. Night at the Museum:  Fox..............           18.06
             Battle of the
            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
            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
             3. Sherlock Holmes.....  Warner...........           12.02
             4. Percy Jackson & The   Fox..............            5.01
             * 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
             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
             * 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
             * Resident Evil:         Sony/DMG                    21.71
             Afterlife (3D).           (Chinese
            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

** 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
                 Name                      Imprisoned               Media                 Summary of Charges
Xu Zerong (David Tsui)................            2000   freelance..................  ``leaking state secrets''
Jin Haike.............................            2001   freelance..................  ``subverting state
Xu Wei................................            2001   freelance..................  ``subverting state
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
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
Sun Lin...............................            2007   freelance, Boxun News......  possessing illegal weapon/
                                                                                       organizing disorderly
Qi Chonghuai..........................            2007   freelance, Epoch Times       carrying false press card
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
Chen Daojun...........................            2008   freelance, Zheng Ming        subversion
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''
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
Nijat Azat............................            2009   manager of Shabnam (Uighur   endangering state security
Dilixiati Paerhati....................            2009   editor of Diyarim (Uighur    endangering state security
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