U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–537PDF 2012

THE PRICE OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY WITH CHINA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 28, 2012

Serial No. 112–133

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

KAREN BASS, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Steven Mosher, president, Population Research Institute ............................ 4

Mr. Kai Chen, Chinese freedom activist ................................................................ 13

Mr. Greg Autry, co-author, ‘‘Death by China’’ ....................................................... 19

Mr. Robert Daly, director, Maryland China Initiative, The University of Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 37

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Steven Mosher: Prepared statement ............................................................... 6

Mr. Kai Chen: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 15

Mr. Greg Autry: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 22

Mr. Robert Daly: Prepared statement .................................................................... 41

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

(1)

THE PRICE OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY WITH 

CHINA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is 

called to order. 

I want to welcome all of you and Mr. Carnahan. 

Of course, today our subject for this hearing is China’s public diplomacy policies. The two pillars of America’s status quo as an 

open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allow the practice of either type of this freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by 

America, as we are consistent with those values, to penetrate both 

private media and public education to spread its own state propaganda. 

When Americans debate and discuss issues of the day, the assumption is that while many views may differ, citizens are trying 

to find the best outcome or policy that will benefit their country. 

No such assumption applies to the agents of foreign powers who 

are advancing what serves the interests of their own dictatorship, 

which is in competition with our country. 

Beijing is pouring billions of dollars into the country’s state-run 

media machine, which is churning out new TV networks, radio stations, and newspapers aimed at foreign audiences. China Daily is 

delivered on a weekly basis to nearly every office on Capitol Hill 

and claims two-thirds of its readers are opinion leaders in government or business. Nearly every American home with a satellite 

dish or a cable TV has multiple channels presented by the Chinese 

Communist Government. 

They present a mixture of news and entertainment programs just 

like a regular network, but there is no warning label informing the 

audiences that what views are expressed or embedded in the programs are those of a foreign power, let alone a rival Communist 

dictatorship that considers us to be the enemy. 

Less obvious to the general public, but a major undertaking by 

Beijing is the creation of over 70 Confucius Institutes and classrooms at American universities and high schools. Confucius InstiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 May 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\OI\032812\73537 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

tutes provide money, textbooks, and teachers from China, funded 

by the Communist regime in Beijing. The U.S. schools provide facilities, matching funds, and legitimacy to the Chinese propaganda 

effort. Under the guise of education, the Confucius Institutes convey Beijing’s version of cultural values and history in forms that 

can be described as propaganda and have been so described by 

Communist officials from China themselves. 

History is part of the cultural curriculum that includes the assertion that Tibet and Taiwan are now, and always have been, Chinese territories. Another subtle message is that socialism with Chinese characteristics creates a harmonious society which everyone 

should envy. 

The headquarters of the Confucius Institutes is the Hanban located in Beijing. The Hanban recently won a red song contest held 

by the Ministry of Education on the theme, ‘‘Following the Communist Party Forever.’’ Is this ideology compatible with American 

values of academic freedom? Are American universities selling not 

just classroom space, but their souls in order to get grants and Chinese money into their institutions? 

Here to answer these and other questions is a distinguished 

panel. We are grateful for you being with us today. 

Mr. Steven Mosher, president, Population Research Institute, he 

is the author of a number of books, including the path-breaking, 

‘‘Broken Earth,’’ which exposed China’s notorious one-child policy, 

and ‘‘Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World,’’ in 

2002. His most recent book, ‘‘Climategate: The Crutape Letters,’’ 

which came out in 2010, is also one of his books. He has also written for the Wall Street Journal, the New Republic, the Washington 

Post, National Review, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, 

First Things, and numerous other publications. 

Then we have Mr. Kai Chen, a Chinese freedom activist. His 

book in 2007, and that is, ‘‘One in a Billion: Journey Toward Freedom,’’ tells of the horrors of living under Communist rule and of 

his escape from China during the Cultural Revolution. He is now 

an American citizen and a graduate of UCLA in political science. 

He played for China’s national basketball team, and his daughters 

played for their American college teams. That is terrific. 

And Mr. Greg Autry, co-author of Peter Navarro’s, ‘‘Death by 

China: Confronting the Dragon—a Global Call to Action,’’ which 

was published last year by Prentice Hall. He is working on a Ph.D. 

at the University of California at Irvine, and he is also a partner 

in Network Corporation and Wired-Images.com. He is a southern 

California professional systems consultant. That group is consulting. The group was founded in 1997. 

Finally, we have Mr. Robert Daly, director of Maryland China 

Initiative, from the University of Maryland. Prior to taking up his 

current post in 2007, he was for 6 years American director of the 

Johns Hopkins University-Nanjing University Center for Chinese 

and American Studies in Nanjing, China. He began work in the 

United States/China relations with the United States Information 

Agency, in which he served from 1986 to 1991. He then taught Chinese at Cornell in 1991 to 1992. For the next 9 years, he worked 

on television projects in China as a host actor and writer, and also 

served as a commentator in U.S./China relations. 

3

I want to thank you all. 

Mr. Carnahan, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for the 

work that you do with this committee and subcommittee. I appreciate the work that we do together. We don’t always come at it 

from the same direction, but we have been able to find some great 

common ground to work together on this committee. I appreciate 

your work and your friendship. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing. I am a very strong 

supporter of public diplomacy as a key piece of our smart power 

strategies on behalf of the United States. I am encouraged by your 

commitment to exploring multiple aspects of these policies, including how other countries conduct public diplomacy in the U.S. and 

abroad. 

Public diplomacy programs are a critical and indispensable component of U.S. foreign policy. Many of these programs are cost-effective ways to conduct public diplomacy. Establishing American 

cultural centers around the world has been, and should be, a continued part of that policy. 

No doubt, the barriers presented by the Chinese Government to 

establish these has presented a challenge. I would encourage the 

administration to continue to advocate that the Chinese Government provide us with the same access that they are allowed with 

the establishment of their Confucius Centers. 

However, I do not believe that limiting U.S. access will lead to 

the Chinese Government allowing the establishment of U.S.-Government-funded cultural centers, nor do I believe it is in the best 

interest of a free and open society like ours to do so. 

When you look broadly at public diplomacy in China, there are 

numerous ways that are currently being effective. I would point to 

a few: The establishment over the past few years of several American corners at several public and university libraries. While these 

certainly are not U.S.-Government-run, as in other parts of the 

world, they are, nonetheless, an avenue to bring American culture 

and values to China. 

Other universities, like in my home city of St. Louis, Webster 

University offers a wide array of opportunities in China from joint 

degree programs to exchanges. Bringing the value of American education to China from schools like Webster University will help our 

public diplomacy efforts. 

And student exchanges continue to be one of the best ways to advance our long-term interest. Young people and students can be 

some of our best diplomats. Current estimates show that 10 times 

as many Chinese students study in the U.S. compared to the number of American students studying in China. So, there is much 

work to be done there. Efforts to increase American students studying in China, such as the 100,000 Strong Initiative, will help foster 

a greater understanding of American culture, as well as those students bringing back better knowledge of China. 

We need to continue engagement with the Chinese Government 

and the Chinese people in all possible ways. I look forward to hearing about how we could continue these efforts, and I, again, want 

to thank the witnesses upfront for being here today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Carnahan. 

4

We will start with Steven Mosher. Might I suggest that, if you 

could keep your initial statement down to 5 minutes, we will, then, 

put the rest of your statement in the record. And then, we will proceed with the questions and answers, once all of you are done with 

your testimony. 

Mr. Mosher, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN MOSHER, PRESIDENT, 

POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. MOSHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am going to ask you to put that microphone 

very close to your mouth. You know, actually, I have got what they 

call surfer’s ear. When you go surfing and you go into the cold 

water, it actually hurts your hearing sometimes. And so, the more 

you can speak into that microphone, the better they can hear you, 

but also the better I can hear you. So, that would be very helpful. 

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I was born and raised in California. So, I understand exactly from personal experience what you are talking 

about. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Go for it. 

Mr. MOSHER. My testimony today is entitled, ‘‘Confucius Institutes: Trojan Horses with Chinese Characteristics,’’ which I think 

gives you an insight into my view of this particular initiative on 

the part of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese 

Communist Party. 

Now Confucius Institutes are described as nonprofit, public institutions aligned with the government of the PRC whose purpose is 

to promote Chinese language and culture. But there are literally 

now thousands of academics around the world who have voiced concern that these seemingly-benign purposes leave out a number of 

other purposes; namely, sanitizing China’s image abroad, enhancing its power globally, and creating a new generation of China 

watchers who are well-disposed toward the Communist dictatorship. 

Now these are not like Germany’s Goethe-Institut. The Confucius 

Institutes are not independent from the government, nor do they 

occupy their own premises. Instead, they are embedded within established universities and colleges around the world and are directed by an organization which is known as the Office of Chinese 

Language Council International, but this answers, in turn, in academic matters to the Ministry of Education and in practical matters to the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, the chairman of the Confucius Institute is 

none other than Liu Yandong, who served as the head of the 

United Front Work Department from 2002 to 2007. 

Now what is the United Front Work Department? The purpose 

of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist 

Party is subversion, co-option, and control. During the Communist 

revolution, it subverted and co-opted a number of other political 

parties, such as the Chinese Socialist Party, into serving the interests of the Chinese Community Party. After the establishment of 

the PRC, it continued to control these parties, which were allowed 

5

to exist on sufferance, albeit as hollow shells, creating the illusion 

of ‘‘democracy in China.’’

That it has de facto control over the Confucius Institutes suggests more strongly than anything else that one of the chief purposes of these institutes are, namely, to subvert, co-opt, and ultimately control western academic discourse on matters pertaining to 

China. 

Now I am particularly troubled by this aspect of the Confucius 

Institute initiative because of my own experience. As you mentioned during your introduction, I have some personal experience 

in how the Chinese Party-State deals with its overseas academic 

critics because, following my expose of human rights abuses in the 

one-child policy in the early eighties, the PRC, acting then through 

the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, put tremendous pressure 

on Stanford University, my university, to deny me the Ph.D. Beijing went so far as to threaten to abrogate its scholarly exchange 

program with the United States unless I was, in its words, ‘‘severely punished’’ for speaking out. In other words, I know from personal experience how ruthless the Party can be when it comes to 

pursuing its own interests and how sycophantic, not to say craven, 

some academic administers can be, again, from personal experience. 

Now I am going to go right to the end here and say this: Given 

that the Chinese Party-State does not share our democratic institutions, nor our commitment to open markets, nor our understanding 

of human rights, its purposes in setting up these Confucius Institutes are diametrically opposed to our national principles. Should 

we really be allowing a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive regime to 

educate our young people? 

And there is a final point. I have long believed that reciprocity 

should govern our relations with China. There can be no reciprocity 

in the matter of Confucius Institutes. Imagine the reaction of the 

United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party 

if a U.S.-Government-funded and controlled American institute 

were proposed to be embedded at, say, Beijing University to teach 

American language and culture. How many seconds do you think 

it would take the Chinese Party-State to say no? How many seconds do you think it would take the Chinese Party-State to say no 

to our having government-funded radio shows or television shows 

in China? Where there is no reciprocity, we should revisit the relationship and demand that it either be allowed or that we fundamentally change our view of how China should be allowed to operate in this country. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosher follows:]

6


73537a-1.eps
7


73537a-2.eps
8


73537a-3.eps
9


73537a-4.eps
10


73537a-5.eps
11


73537a-6.eps
12


73537a-7.eps
13

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did you get it? Did you get your Ph.D. from 

Stanford? 

Mr. MOSHER. Actually, I didn’t. Stanford investigated my research from 1981 to 1986. At the end of the day, the then-president 

of Stanford University, Donald Kennedy, wrote me a 67-page letter, 

which the day before he sent it to me he gave to the New York 

Times. I got it only after the reporters started calling. 

The letter said, basically, after rehearsing all of the charges 

made by the Chinese Party-State against me, President Kennedy 

said, ‘‘I do not know whether the charges made against you by the 

People’s Republic of China are true or not, but there has been a 

gradual erosion of trust between you and the University which 

makes it impossible for you to get your Ph.D.’’

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, my. 

Mr. MOSHER. So, at the end of the day, he refused to grant me 

the Ph.D. on the ground that he didn’t trust me. Well, after 5 

years, I didn’t trust him much, either. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, we will ask more questions 

about that later. That just shows you what happens. You know, 

when you are young, your parents always say, ‘‘Don’t hang around 

with these lowlifes, or if you are hanging around with some criminals, it is less likely that you are going to turn them into saints 

than it is that they are going to hurt your value system.’’ That 

sounds like what is happening here. 

But we have with us a heroic athlete who would like to tell us 

also a firsthand experience of living under this Communist dictatorship and some insights of what he thinks are motives and what 

is going on, what we are facing now. 

Mr. Chen? 

STATEMENT OF MR. KAI CHEN, CHINESE FREEDOM ACTIVIST 

Mr. CHEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher. I truly 

appreciate your tireless effort in facing down evil. So, I thank you 

here personally. 

For me, the distinction that I am a Chinese freedom activist is 

a misnomer. But I am more American than most Americans. In 

many ways, I was born an American already. I was only born in 

the wrong place. So, please don’t treat me as a Chinese. I am an 

American citizen. And I am here more interested in safeguarding 

this country, safeguarding American freedom and the American security, than changing China. So, I want to make that clear about 

it. 

Secondly, I want to dispel some misconceptions in the American 

public that China is just a normal nation-state. China is not a nation-state by any standard. China is a party dynasty. Once we have 

this distinction, we can formulate and implement effective China 

policies. Otherwise, everything you formulate around normal nation-state will fail because it does not behave as a normal nationstate. 

Thirdly, there is a saying that China now is capitalistic, has capitalism in there. But China does not have a shred of capitalism because every inch of land in China belongs to the government. Not 

a single inch of land in China belongs to any individual. That distinction will dispel China has capitalism because there is no priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 May 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\OI\032812\73537 HFA PsN: SHIRL
14

vate property rights. Government can take anything away from you 

and in any moment. 

So, thirdly, there is a misconception that, since Nixon opened the 

door, only the freedom can influence China and we are safe from 

despotism and tyranny. But, actually, it is a two-way street. Nowadays I am disturbed and alarmed to find that the U.S. is more or 

less changed by China than China being changed by the U.S. I will 

give you a few examples later. 

So, communism was down when the Berlin Wall was collapsed, 

but communism was not out. It is enjoying a comeback, and 

through another form, a mutated form, mainly by the Chinese form 

of government. So, I want that to be clear. 

A few things disturb me and alarm me. In America, there is a 

deterioration of political culture in this country, from a culture of 

freedom gradually toward a culture of moral confusion. 

When I went to Alhambra City Hall in 2007, I saw a portrait, 

supposedly by an artist, painted George Washington on one side 

and Chairman Mao on the other side, and they were put together. 

I protested it. Eventually, they have taken it down, but it becomes 

a big controversy. But you can see the extent of penetration of 

American political culture in that. 

Also, if I stroll on the street in Los Angeles, there is Mao’s Diner, 

Mao’s Kitchen in there. Inside is all cultural revolutionary posters 

with Americans dining down there, and the poster says, ‘‘Down 

with American imperialism’’ on top. It is ironic. 

Another thing is, when I went to the Nixon Library, there is a 

Mao statue sitting in the exhibit called ‘‘The War of Leaders,’’ and 

sitting among the likes of Winston Churchill and Charles de 

Gaulle, which I say, if Mao leads the world, he leads in murdering 

people. So, how can you reconcile that kind of image? 

I engaged in, before the Beijing Olympics in 2007, an Olympic 

Freedom Run over the four continents. I just want to tell people 

that, when you go to the Beijing Olympics, don’t forget the 

Tiananmen Square massacre. But, then, a U.S. President went to 

the opening ceremony and saying nothing. 

And now, when Liu Xiaobo was jailed, and being awarded the 

Nobel Peace Prize, and a U.S. President invites this jailer into the 

White House and gave a state banquet, that was very disturbing. 

I don’t have time. I just want to conclude my statement with 

these two images. One is this, what I picked up in 1989 on 

Tiananmen Square that says, ‘‘Support the hunger strike. Demand 

equal dialogs.’’ What I want to tell you, this is the aspiration of the 

Chinese people. 

But, then, I am going to show you another image. This is the reality of China. When the U.S., now facing the Chinese economy, 

and they see this bill of currency everywhere, there is an image of 

Mao’s portrait on every bill of Chinese currency. But, then, we are 

talking about only devaluation, devaluation or manipulation of the 

currency in economic terms. But I want you to see the moral terms 

in this. 

Once we accept this currency as normal currency, once we accept 

China as a normal state, then we accept the fact that killing people, murdering people, and persecuting people to acquire power is 

acceptable. Once we see that, we cease to be the United States of 

15

America and with the principles of freedom upon which this country is established. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chen follows:]


73537b-1.eps
16


73537b-2.eps
17


73537b-3.eps
18


73537b-4.eps
19

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for that very inspiring 

testimony. You’re right, it is your commitment to American ideals 

that makes you an American. All I can say is, after hearing your 

testimony, that certainly I know that you are far more American 

than so many others that I have to deal with quite often. So, thank 

you for that very inspiring testimony. 

And we need to say this at this time: I don’t have any complaints 

against the Chinese people. None of the comments that we hear 

today should ever be misreported or misinterpreted as attacks on 

the Chinese people. In fact, our greatest ally in the struggle for a 

better world and increasing freedom and peace in this world, our 

greatest ally in that struggle are the people of China because they 

are the ones that are on the front lines of this struggle. 

We need to make sure we repeat that over and over again because they will be told that our comments about their oppressors 

and the dictatorship that rules them with an iron fist, that that in 

some way is disparaging against them. That is an absolute falsehood, but they will use that to try to cut off communication. So, let 

us reaffirm that right at this point. 

And Mr. Greg Autry, who is a terrific filmmaker. He has produced a film that I would recommend, written a book and produced 

a film that I would recommend that not only all of you see, but you 

might, if you have various people that you would like to inform 

about the relationship that we have had with China and what that 

has done to us by us compromising, and us actually not compromising—there has been no compromise; just give away—we have a 

great documentation as to how this has had a negative impact on 

the cause of peace, but also on the cause of prosperity here in the 

United States. 

Greg, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GREG AUTRY, CO-AUTHOR, ‘‘DEATH BY 

CHINA’’

Mr. AUTRY. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher. I 

greatly appreciate your work on this effort for many years. 

I am the co-author of the book, ‘‘Death by China.’’ I am testifying 

on my own behalf, and my views are not the views of the University of California, where I have been a lecturer and I am completing a Ph.D. in economics and public policy. 

In the two decades since Henry Kissinger convinced America to 

overlook the massacre at Tiananmen Square, we have been mired 

in a one-sided trade war camouflaged under Chinese propaganda 

with an aid of an American fifth column of media pundits, CEOs, 

and academics who cheer on the rise of state capitalism. 

They push us to open our markets and our media to a non-reciprocating China with promises of a flat world, but the only thing 

getting flattened is America’s productivity capacity and American 

values. Our President publicly repeats Chinese propaganda phrases 

like ‘‘peaceful rise’’ while he simultaneously allocates billions of 

taxpayer dollars to counter China’s increasingly aggressive military 

posture. He legitimizes China’s non-democratic system by inviting 

the new anointed dictator to the White House. Why? 

The answer to these questions is the reality distortion field, a 

phrase that was coined by the associates of the late Steve Jobs to 

20

describe that man’s uncanny ability to induce compliance and 

agreement in those around him, even when they knew Mr. Jobs’ 

statements were untrue and even when they were fully aware that 

they were being manipulated and exploited. Whenever we say ‘‘People’s Republic,’’ we enter the Chinese global reality distortion field, 

and phrases like ‘‘peaceful rise’’ and ‘‘harmonious society’’ lose their 

frightening Orwellian flavor. 

Central Chinese Television Chief Hu Zhanfan chastised news 

workers who fancied themselves as journalists rather than accepting their proper role as Party propaganda workers. Mr. Hu went 

on to call strengthening education in Marxist journalism a matter 

of urgency. 

This ideological thinking does not stop at China’s borders. Why 

should it? America’s ever-hopeful policy of engagement drives a 

very soft official stance on issues of Chinese domestic and global 

behavior. Media, academia, and business take their cues from a 

timid administration and a diffident State Department. Our Government’s public behavior implies that Communist China is a normal nation to be treated the same as Canada or India. This tacit 

endorsement allows the Chinese State propaganda machine to run 

wild and free in America and use our most powerful institutions to 

project the Communist Party’s reality distortion field. 

American schools and universities are particularly filled with 

Chinese apologists who convey the CCP’s thought work. NYU adjunct Ann Lee writes, ‘‘China is still being perceived as undemocratic and anti-liberal by the West, but this problem can be easily 

corrected with more astute public relations training.’’ She doesn’t 

intend to correct the problem of anti-liberal or undemocratic, merely the western perception. 

Professor Lee presents China’s version of re-educating American 

youth with their Confucius Institutes when she writes, ‘‘The strategy of bringing students from other parts of the world to China is 

similar to the strategy Caesar used when he conquered Gaul. He 

turned Gauls into Romans who could be trusted to run Gaul for the 

Roman Empire.’’

What would our reaction be to our other dictator friends from 

Saudi Arabia establishing Muhammad Institutes in our schools? If 

this would not be acceptable, then I ask us, why we wish to infuse 

our students with an infectious ideology from a communist power 

that is hostile to American values? 

There are far more Chinese students in the U.S. universities 

than any other nationality, particularly at the graduate level and 

increasingly in the critical science, engineering, and business departments. The China Daily explicitly advises Chinese students to 

apply to the UC campuses because budget cuts there compel us to 

admit more non-residents. 

The presumption that democratic America and totalitarian China 

enjoy some special relationship is all too common. My university 

has a newly-endowed U.S.-China Institute for Business and Law. 

The dean of the law school remarks on the Web site, ‘‘We are at 

a unique moment in the history of our two countries in which it 

is especially important to build bridges between them in business 

and law. And in each country, the legal system provides a unique 

framework within which business can flourish.’’

21

This last sentence establishes an obscene moral equivalency and 

represents an astounding level of naivety. The ubiquitous China 

Daily newspaper is the strongest outward manifestation of Communist influence in the U.S. I find it all over campus and on every 

corner here in DC. Americans have no idea this is a publication of 

a hostile foreign government. 

A China Daily editorial recently suggested punishing America 

and ‘‘building a direct link between U.S. bond purchases and U.S. 

domestic politics.’’ Outrageously, China Daily inserts a monthly 

print and daily online supplement into the Washington Post entitled, ‘‘China Watch.’’ Featuring the large, bold, black masthead of 

the Washington Post and hidden below the title ‘‘China Watch’’ on 

the other side is a teeny disclaimer, ‘‘A paid supplement to the 

Washington Post.’’ Paid by who? 

I could go on, but I see that my time is running out. I have four 

things I would suggest to the committee. 

One, that U.S. publications must be required to clearly reveal 

when they place content provided by a foreign government or agent 

of a foreign government. 

Two, hostile foreign governments that censor U.S. media——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would you please repeat that first one again? 

Mr. AUTRY. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And slowly. 

Mr. AUTRY. U.S. publications must be required to clearly reveal 

when they place content that is provided by a foreign governments 

or an agent of a foreign government. 

Hostile foreign governments that censor the U.S. media in their 

domestic markets should not be granted First Amendment rights 

in America. CCTV and China Daily should have no more access 

than Fox News or the New York Times do in the Chinese market. 

Three, U.S. public schools and universities should be prohibited 

from accepting funding or curriculum from foreign governments or 

agents of foreign governments, particularly those hostile to America’s fundamental principles. 

Four, direct the FTC to require country-of-origin information regulations that are credible and punish attempts to conceal foreign 

products, including permanent visible labeling and registering 

country-of-origin information per EPC code, so that online vendors 

can also be required to display this info and mobile apps can display this info. 

I make that point because one of the most important things 

about China’s reality distortion field is that America’s corporations 

are complicit in supporting it because they know the American consumer is afraid of Chinese products. So, one of the most unique 

pieces of China’s distortion field is the hiding of the made-in-China 

label. And I would like to discuss that further. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Autry follows:]

22


73537c-1.eps
23


73537c-2.eps
24


73537c-3.eps
25


73537c-4.eps
26


73537c-5.eps
27


73537c-6.eps
28


73537c-7.eps
29


73537c-8.eps
30


73537c-9.eps
31


73537c-10.eps
32


73537c-11.eps
33


73537c-12.eps
34


73537c-13.eps
35


73537c-14.eps
36


73537c-15.eps
37

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Your time is up. But I think what we could 

do is perhaps during the question-and-answer period go through 

some of your specific suggestions, which are basically trying to 

alert people when they are confronted with an official propaganda 

arm of a dictatorship, of a foreign dictatorship. 

Now I know that Mr. Daly probably has some opinions that are 

a little bit different than what we have heard. And so, we are going 

to give you a little bit more time to state your case. We are very 

happy you are with us, Mr. Daly. 

Thank you, Mr. Carnahan, for helping arrange that. 

Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT DALY, DIRECTOR, MARYLAND 

CHINA INITIATIVE, THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. DALY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today. 

And I want to thank you, too, for the 70th anniversary birthday 

you threw for the Voice of America China Branch a few months 

ago. I had the honor of attending that. I am a weekly talking head 

on current events in U.S./China relations in Chinese at VOA. The 

work that you have done on behalf of the Voice and the Branch is 

very much appreciated. 

I also want to thank the ranking member for giving me an opportunity to speak to you today on issues that I have worked on now 

for over 25 years, beginning with formal training in public diplomacy by the United States Information Agency. That was the 

launch of my career, and it was a very fortuitous launch for me. 

As you say, I do have different views from those that have been 

expressed thus far, but not entirely. I take these questions very seriously, and most of the cautions that have been raised about how 

we deal with China, its public diplomacy initiatives, about reciprocity, these are all well-placed. There are, however, some things 

that I think need to be said to balance some of what has been mentioned so far. 

Confucius Institutes and the overall characterization of them as 

being run out of the Chinese Government through the Ministry of 

Education and, yes, Chinese leaders have said very explicitly this 

is part of their propaganda effort, that is all true. Confucius Institutes, or sometimes I will call them CIs, the individual institutes 

are run by American directors who are hired by the host university. Most American directors that I have spoken with and met 

with manage their Confucius Institutes with a very high degree, 

bordering on total, of autonomy and in accordance with the needs 

and standards of the American host institutions. 

Most of the cultural programs of the Confucius Institutes, moreover, are apolitical by design. As public diplomacy officers on the 

Chinese side, they are actually quite shrewd. Chinese culture is not 

presented as, they don’t have programs on the glories of the Communist Party. They don’t have, for example, programs on reevaluation of China’s position in the South China Sea on human rights. 

They tend to deal in culture as decoration, culture as celebration, 

culture as friendship ritual. If we are going to criticize their programs, one of the things we can throw at them is that they are 

often, actually, can be sort of dull and uninteresting in those ways. 

38

If you are picturing, based on the testimony of my three colleagues, a series of programs that are trying to sell people on communism, I would caution that that really isn’t what the Hanban is 

dealing with. There have been some cases of heavy-handedness, to 

be sure, at some of the Confucius Institutes, and we could talk 

about those. 

Again, I think that caution about the Confucius Institutes is reasonable. Of course, we should not take every pronouncement which 

the Chinese side makes on Confucius Institutes at face value. Of 

course, our universities should remain self-critical regarding their 

motives for establishing Confucius Institutes, and they must, as my 

colleagues today have said, remain alert to the possible implications of having Chinese-Government-funded offices on campus. 

But in advocating vigilance, which I am, I am not claiming that 

Confucius Institutes are dangerous. Because no matter how wellfounded our initial skepticism may be, Confucius Institutes in 

America now also have a record, and I think that it is on that 

record that they need to be judged. 

I would invite any of you to come on up to Paint Branch Elementary School in Prince George’s County, to go out to Jenks School 

System or any of the 10 others in rural Oklahoma that have Kthrough-12 Chinese language programs, in part, through the facilitation of the Confucius Institutes as well as Americans, and actually get into the classrooms and see for yourselves what is going 

on. 

I would argue that the record of the Confucius Institutes to date, 

with some heavy-handedness in a few cases that I would probably 

agree with my colleagues here are also egregious, has been a pretty 

good record. 

Confucius Institutes are primarily concerned with providing 

Mandarin training to American professionals and K-through-12 

students. And I want to emphasize, given some of what has been 

said today about embedded messages and long-term goals of the 

Chinese side, American students who study Chinese throughout 

primary and secondary school are likely to take Chinese in college. 

They are likely to live in China and to gain an understanding of 

China’s people and its cultures, and to bring that knowledge and 

an ability to communicate with Chinese counterparts into their careers. Americans who begin Chinese studies in adulthood are likely 

to develop a nuanced understanding of the challenges in U.S./

China relations and to help us meet those challenges. 

In other words, Chinese language training, which the Confucius 

Institutes help to provide, is profoundly in the American interest. 

Would I rather that we were paying for it in our interest? Well, 

yes, I would, but that is not what is happening right now. We have 

some institutes and some initiatives, but the Confucius Institutes 

are supporting those. 

There is, furthermore, nothing about gaining fluency in Mandarin that inclines a student to support the Chinese Communist 

Party or its policies. I had the privilege, as you mentioned, of working with about 250 of our top young Mandarin speakers when I 

was the American director of the Johns Hopkins UniversityNanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies. I 

have worked with them closely. I have lived with them for 6 years. 

39

I have stayed in touch with them as they have gone on to careers 

in, among other things, human rights. One of them is running for 

Congress. 

They are Americans who have lived and worked in China. They 

are as aware of China’s failings as any of us. And I would argue, 

in fact, that America’s Mandarin speakers are among our most effective and constructive critics of China. They often see more clearly, because they have the deepest experience and knowledge of 

China, what China, with all of its talent, with its worth ethic, with 

its great ancient cultural traditions, and its ambition, could be if 

its people were free. 

Don’t we want to have Americans in every profession, in every 

field of endeavor, to have that ability? Don’t we want them to be 

able to make some of the arguments that have been made today 

to Chinese in Chinese? Wouldn’t that be a good way to go about 

our public diplomacy? 

So, studying China’s languages, its history, and its culture 

doesn’t dull our insights as Americans; it deepens them. I feel very 

strongly about it. 

This is why Americans who see China only as a congenial partner and those who see it only as a threat, and those in between, 

should all be able to agree on the necessity of Chinese language 

training in America. 

Do the CIs raise any kinds of questions? Yes, they do. I think 

there are two kinds of questions, one that you have raised, I think 

correctly, about balance and reciprocity. Our Bureau of Public Diplomacy does stand ready to open up more cultural centers, more 

American libraries staffed by Americans with American cultural 

programming in China. They are not allowed to do that. Such centers would be welcomed by the Chinese people. So, I do want to associate myself with all of the remarks on reciprocity. 

The second question which has been raised broadly is whether 

our universities’ collaboration with the Chinese Government and 

various agencies of the Chinese Government, not only on Confucius 

Institutes, but on many other programs as well, presents a threat 

to academic freedom. Again, I think that it is a legitimate question, 

but I would want to point out that American universities have 

ample experience in dealing with donors of various kinds, including 

nations, including corporations, and including individuals, who 

want to shape higher education through their giving. 

So, Hanban doesn’t present challenges that are new in kind. It 

is a familiar set of challenges to American universities, which are 

also honed to most of our leading China scholars who, as has been 

mentioned, are skeptical and they take a role in shaping their university’s response. 

Just in closing and in trying to summarize this vast question of 

public diplomacy very briefly, I think that we need to be a little bit 

more confident about the institutions of our civil society that are 

founded on freedom and their ability to engage with China across 

the board actively here and there to, yes, gradually, slowly, at a 

pace that doesn’t satisfy any of us, but still inexorably does change 

the state of play on the ground in China. 

I think we can be a little bit more confident that Americans who 

have a free press and many sources of news will see CCTV, 

40

Xinhua, and the China Daily for the most part for what they are. 

I think we have a pretty good nose for it. 

I actually think your idea of having a very clear designation, 

‘‘This is provided by a foreign government,’’ that seems to me well 

worth considering. 

But I think we can go into this very confidently. There may be 

one restaurant in LA that has this Maoist theme. There are Hard 

Rock Cafes all over China with pictures of Bob Dylan in them and 

young Chinese there until two o’clock in the morning. There are 

Starbucks and McDonalds and KFCs and American universities, 

corporations, images, popular music. 

We have a public diplomacy deficit with China, but we have an 

enormous soft power surplus that I think we can be very proud of 

and confident in. We don’t have to go into a defensive crouch over 

these issues, although I would agree that we should be paying attention to these questions of reciprocity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:]

41


73537d-1.eps
42


73537d-2.eps
43


73537d-3.eps
44


73537d-4.eps
45


73537d-5.eps
46


73537d-6.eps
47

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and we did give you 

a few extra minutes to make sure that we were able to balance off 

the opinions there. 

I will start off the questions with a challenge. Mr. Mosher didn’t 

get his Ph.D. We have got the Chinese Government channeling 

money into our educational institutions. And the first thing you 

know, you have got a guy who does a study on the one-child China 

policy and all of its horrendous implications, the murderous implications, and he is denied by the faculty of one of our major universities an academic credit in order to placate these vicious monsters 

who are actually initiating the murder of every unborn child that 

is the second child of a woman in China. 

Now wouldn’t you say, if they are going to be able to pollute the 

decisionmaking process of the top faculty at a major university, 

doesn’t that make you fearful of the incredible influence they could 

have on everybody else who perhaps are not as educated? 

Mr. DALY. Well, I would have to hear Stanford University’s side 

of it. I have only heard one characterization of these events. I believe they happened quite a while ago, long before the advent of 

Confucius Institutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. DALY. You could correct me if I am wrong. So, I wouldn’t 

want to conflate that with the Confucius Institutes. They may be 

related, but they are separate issues. 

I do think that the broad question stands. I would encourage you 

to meet with actually academic leaders—we don’t have academic 

leaders on this panel today—to talk to them about this question of, 

does the fact that universities, not only now teach about China and 

conduct research about China, but understand themselves as having interests vis-a`-vis China that are not necessarily academic interests per se, does that have implications for the universities? I 

applaud the question. I am not sure this is the right panel to address it to. I think it would be a good idea to bring in a number 

of American university faculty. 

But I would also point out that it is not only American universities that now have China interests, and in some sense it is China 

policies, which, therefore, yes, could be subject to certain kinds of 

suasion. Local governments, county governments, city governments, corporations—China and America now are interlinked at all 

levels. China is very much present at the United States, and there 

are interests even in public school systems. 

So, it is not simply the university side——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, our question is not the university side. 

Mr. DALY [continuing]. But our NGOs. We all have to address 

this issue. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What I was asking, and the reason I asked 

that, because, demonstrably, as the universities should be, if nothing, more immune to this type of negative influence. 

Let me just note I participated in a hearing, in a congressional 

hearing, at Stanford University. It was a hearing, and I brought up 

the issue of graduate students from mainland China receiving 

training in technology projects that are vital to our national security, meaning people don’t have to steal some file if they put the 

file in the head of their Ph.D.’s, and the Ph.D. goes back to China 

48

and develops their weapons system that is now capable of obliterating American lives. 

The president of Stanford University couldn’t understand that. 

‘‘No, no, we are an educational institution. We are not here for national security purposes.’’

Mr. DALY. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Something is wrong with that. I think that 

the Chinese money has helped grease this misperception. And I 

mean Chinese money, I mean tyranny money, money from tyrants 

and gangsters who control a large portion of humankind has created this monstrous misperception of even the heads of our major 

universities that they don’t have to worry about that. 

Mr. DALY. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Mosher, we have been using you as an 

example there. Maybe you will have a comment all the way down 

the line, but we will start with you, and then we will go to Mr. 

Carnahan. 

Mr. MOSHER. Well, the last witness made an eloquent defense of 

learning about Chinese culture and learning the Chinese language, 

with which I heartily agree, having learned about Chinese culture 

and language at the Chinese University of Hong Kong many years 

ago, and being in the position now of encouraging others to do the 

same thing. Because China, despite the shortcomings of its current 

political system, is an important international player. 

Our point here is no one is saying that we should avoid learning 

those things, only that a party-run organization probably should 

not be funding setting the curriculum parameters and providing 

teachers for American students to learn these things. Because in 

the process of developing that curriculum and providing those 

teachers, they are certainly putting certain things out of bounds. 

I run a nonprofit organization. I am very aware of the kinds of 

pressure that funding organizations, be they individuals or foundations or governments, can put on you. I guarantee you that the directors of the Confucius Institutes are very clear about who is filling their rice bowl and are very careful not to raise subjects that 

would irritate those who have the power to break that same rice 

bowl. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chen? 

Mr. CHEN. I have been actively involved in the protest in southern California in a school district called Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, which the Chinese Consulate and Hanban targeted to implement their Confucius classrooms. I examined the materials that they provided. We successfully protested and denied 

the funding of that program by the Chinese Government. 

But the school authorities accepted the material, which I examined and in which I found many, many instances that can be 

termed ‘‘poisonous,’’ to say the least. But just to say that what you 

don’t say in the classroom is often more important than what you 

taught in the classroom. 

For example, there is a picture of Tiananmen Square, 

Tiananmen Gate, in that material. When you show this material 

to the students, are you going to mention who is the one, the 

image, that is on the Tiananmen Gate? Who is hanging there? 

What did they do? Are you going to mention that in the school in 

49

your classroom programs? Are you going to mention the 

Tiananmen Square massacre when you see that image? No, you are 

not going to mention that and you avoid that subject. By avoiding 

that subject, you are brainwashing American students, thinking 

this is a normal program, thinking this is a normal country. 

The Chinese map, when I reviewed this program’s material, the 

first thing they see, the students will see, what China looks like. 

So, they see a Chinese map hanging there. It says, ‘‘People’s Republic of China.’’ When you accept that title, you are already being 

poisoned. That is one thing. 

Another thing is the border including Taiwan and the South 

China Sea and everywhere that the Chinese authorities claim, and 

are you going to explain to the students that those are legitimate 

claims? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let’s make sure that we understand exactly 

what you are referring to. Chinese maps are different than perhaps 

the maps that we might get here in the United States. The maps 

that China would present as part of their educational institution 

without perhaps alerting people would have the South China Sea 

as part of China’s sovereign area, as well as perhaps those areas 

in India and elsewhere that are being claimed. Also, just even 

when we take a look at some of the other claims, for example, of 

Tibet and Taiwan, of course, wouldn’t be mentioned at all, and 

those things. 

So, you have some very good points. I don’t think that is in conflict with what Mr. Daly is saying, but let us put it this way: It 

could be. 

Mr. DALY. It could be. My experience in the classrooms—and I 

am sort of bothered by the same thing. When I see these maps, I 

am aware that there is some legitimacy to these criticisms, but I 

think that it is overblown and that brainwashing is going way beyond the pale. 

The People’s Republic of China is also the name that the United 

Nations, the United States Government, and the House of Representatives uses to refer to China. Are they drinking poison every 

time they say that? No, they are using the name that they use that 

people can understand. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We don’t all, but we don’t include a big picture of Mao Zedong on the front page of a document to them. 

Mr. DALY. Well, I haven’t seen it. Again, I think that it is a good 

idea to get beyond characterizations of the Confucius Institutes 

based on our suspicions and based on several anecdotes. A survey 

might be very much in order. I don’t think that they are not concerns, but what we have heard primarily is surveys about what 

may lie behind them and a few anecdotes. 

When I have been in these classrooms with children, they are not 

looking at the nine-dash line, if it is there on the map. They are 

learning that ‘‘Da Hai’’ is ‘‘ocean’’ and trying to remember it and 

trying to learn how to write the character. 

And then, later, when they go to high school and university and 

they take political science, they learn about these issues. It is not 

a Manchurian Candidate kind of situation where these old maps 

will be rising up to find them sympathizers. I actually don’t believe 

that. 

50

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I guess if there was a regime that still had 

big pictures of Adolph Hitler around, I guess there would be a lot 

of people who would be naturally suspicious that perhaps the values being taught by the money that was put out by the regime that 

still had the pictures of Adolph Hitler prominently displayed and 

quotes from Chairman Hitler, that there would probably be legitimate concern there that maybe there were some other bad messages going in there. 

Mr. Chen, you wanted to make one more point? 

Mr. CHEN. One more point. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHEN. The very use of the Confucius name, the Confucius 

classroom, is problematic to American values. I think it is fundamentally Confucianism is against American values. 

For example, Confucianism is not a philosophy. It is a political 

ideology. It is a behavior code by which people behave according to 

their birth, gender, social positions, trade, governmental positions, 

by birth. That is diametrically against American ideals that we are 

all created equal. 

So, by simply using Confucius as a title creates a value conflict 

between the United States and this program. I have to stress that 

point. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, you see that Confucianism itself as—obviously, the Chinese see it as something. The Chinese Government 

is not doing—let’s put it this way: The motive of the Chinese Government in trying to put these Confucian centers all over the 

United States, I have to assume that they are not just doing it because they are benevolent and love us and like us, but maybe they 

have some other purpose in mind. But maybe I am just too suspicious. 

Mr. Autry? 

Mr. AUTRY. I wanted to concur with my fellow witness that 

learning Mandarin is certainly an admirable goal. I have my own 

son in high school in the Yorba Linda Placentia School District 

learning Mandarin. I struggle with it myself. That is obviously not 

the issue. And getting us to argue about that is, rather, a complete 

red herring. 

Of course, the Confucius Institute material is bland and boring, 

as he points out, because the Chinese Government has learned a 

lot since the Cultural Revolution. They are going to be very, very 

subtle and very, very patient with their propaganda. 

And the first goal of the propaganda is to normalize the appearance of a brutal totalitarian state with aggressive military goals 

aimed at America’s allies and America’s people. The first step in 

this is, indeed, getting people in the United States Government to 

utter the lie ‘‘People’s Republic.’’ And I would challenge the witness 

to tell me that ‘‘People’s Republic’’ is not a lie, along with the rest 

of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China which guarantees things like freedom of religion, freedom of expression. 

We should never have anything in our public education system 

financed by a foreign government who is fundamentally hostile to 

the values that America represents and is building a military 

aimed at the people of the United States and doing what it does 

to its own people. 

51

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Okay. You just stated a proposition, 

and my last question will be for Mr. Daly. Then, I am going to let 

Mr. Carnahan have as much time as I have had here. 

What about that proposition? Should we permit a government 

that obviously is even an anti-democratic government, whether we 

call it China or whether we call it Nazis, or whoever they are, 

should we permit them to finance educational forays into the 

American educational system and have them presented as something that is an equal philosophy to be considered by our children? 

Mr. DALY. I am all for the truth-in-labeling components of what 

has been suggested, but I think that the costs of limiting our own 

freedom and openness to speak, as other countries are not open 

and free, I think that those costs are far too high, and that we can 

let them in in the spirit of reciprocity, and we should remain true 

to our values. We should fight hard for reciprocity. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you do believe in reciprocity? 

Mr. DALY. There is the question of how we fight for that, which 

we haven’t touched on much today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. DALY. And we can let them in, confident—I think the issues 

that have been raised, many of them I agree with. I think that I 

am just more confident that our openness, our values, our institutions, the vibrancy of our culture, the multitude of voices that people will hear, are going to overcome the nuance of the fourth graders——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but your answer, then, is it is okay as 

long as that government is agreeing to a reciprocity for us to put 

ours in their society? Is that your answer? 

Mr. DALY. And even when there are problems with reciprocity as 

there are, we can have the confidence to not threaten our own 

openness just because other countries are not themselves open, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but if they don’t, if they are not, if 

there is no reciprocity, you would not make that a stumbling point? 

If they are not going to permit our people to have or something financed by our Government or by people here to present our position there in their schools, you would not say that—demanding reciprocity, you wouldn’t demand that then? 

Mr. DALY. Well, where we sit today, I would have probably 

fought for it a little bit harder upfront at the get-go. But given 

where they are now, no. Again, I think that we can be very confident in our institutions and our ability to discern propaganda, 

and in the meantime be very glad that more Americans are learning Chinese. It is in our interest. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but the answer to my question is no? 

Is that correct? 

Mr. DALY. I would not close down the Confucius Institutes, even 

if they did not open up American cultural centers, but I would fight 

for the opening. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So, why would we ever expect them to 

open cultural centers of the United States then? So, we wouldn’t. 

But that is okay. I mean, we are confident that our system is open 

and our people understand these things. 

Mr. Carnahan, you can have as much time as I had. Go right 

ahead. 

52

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have appreciated this exchange really covering a broad range 

of issues and answers here. 

I wanted to get back on the exchange programs that we spoke 

about earlier. Over the last decade, there has been strong bipartisan support in Congress that building these person-to-person relationships has been a critical contribution to our national security. 

I wanted to really ask each of the witnesses, what type of exchange programs are we seeing in China now? What kind of results 

we are seeing from them? And, of course, the numbers are very uneven. They send more students here than any other country. Yet, 

I think the U.S. I see here is listed, I think, fifth in terms of U.S. 

students. China is the fifth destination in terms of numbers. Finally, what can we do to encourage more Americans to study in 

China, to help get us back to closer equilibrium here? 

Why don’t we start with Mr. Chen? 

Mr. CHEN. Yes, thank you. 

I think, as far as I know, if you are selected by the Chinese Government to teach English in China, there are some rules you cannot break. You cannot mention Tiananmen Square. You cannot 

mention Falun Gong. You cannot mention the Great Leap Forward. 

You cannot mention the Great Famine. You cannot mention Cultural Revolution. 

Then, what is the purpose of teaching if you set up all these tabu 

areas when you teach English in China? Once you touch those 

areas, you are expelled from their country. You are denied a visa 

next time, the next round. 

This is how they control academia in America. That means, if 

you publish a paper in the U.S. that is critical of the Chinese Government, next round they will not issue you a visa. They will blacklist you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I understand and appreciate what you are describing, but my question had to do with exchange programs in 

terms of what is working and what can we do to help increase the 

number of American students that are studying in China and 

learning Chinese. 

Mr. CHEN. Well, for me, fundamentally, the downfall of the Communist Party is the final solution. I don’t know how to answer that 

question. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. We will move on to Mr. Autry. 

Mr. AUTRY. Okay. Thank you for your question. 

You note that over the last decade that these exchanges have 

been an important part of our ‘‘national security’’ and I think our 

economic interaction with China. I would point out that, in my 

opinion, and the opinion of a number of people who I think are very 

educated on this subject, our economic and national security standings are much, much weaker than they were 10 years ago. 

And a great deal of the reason behind that is due to the actions 

of the Chinese Communist Party in gutting America’s manufacturing base and our military supply chain, in keeping us off-balance in places like Korea and the Taiwan Straits on purpose. 

That said, what can we do about getting more American students 

to China? Well, first of all, our students are flooded, our schools are 

flooded with Chinese students. Many of them, frankly, are really 

53

good students. I teach them. I would point out that I have been on 

the faculty at the Merage School of Business at UC-Irvine as a lecturer in business strategy, and as a Ph.D. student, I am teaching, 

assist, and interact routinely with faculty who are interested in 

this question. 

Often, 25 percent or more of the students in a classroom can be 

from mainland China. This isn’t the way that it used to be. We 

used to have a diverse international classroom 10 years ago. If I 

was in an MBA class, we would have students from Japan and Taiwan, Germany, Argentina. Now it is the cohort of Chinese students 

and a few others. It is actually, I think, not to the benefit of the 

school. 

Secondly, why should American students want to go to China? 

Their universities are not at all respected, frankly, in the academic 

community because they are not open to outside thought. They are 

corrupt. When you go to a Chinese university—I spoke about a 

year ago at Chengdu Electromechanical College. I asked somebody 

what was this graffiti I saw, because you don’t see too much graffiti 

in China because the police are pretty tough. But there would be 

these phone numbers sprayed all over campus, just a phone number. 

I was told this is the phone number for the counterfeiters of academic records, and you can call and get fake test results. You can 

get whole fake college degrees if you call these phone numbers. 

Well, why don’t the police get rid of them? Because the counterfeiters work with the police. So, it is not a problem. 

I have spoken to Chinese students in America who admit that 

academic fraud is the norm in Chinese universities. So, no, I don’t 

see any reason why we would want to encourage more American 

students to go to a university system that is both subpar and politically manipulative. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. Mr. Daly? 

Mr. DALY. Well, a number of issues. One, I would agree that Chinese universities, there are a number of problems. They are in a 

state of crisis. But most Americans who go there don’t actually go 

there to earn academic degrees. They go there to have an experience in China and to improve their Chinese. 

And furthermore, they have access to a number of programs, including American programs in China that have been there for 

years. Often, those American-run programs or American-affiliated 

programs are the most rigorous. They are more rigorous than the 

Chinese universities. 

The IUP program, Inter-University Program, run out of Berkeley, the Hopkins-Nanjing Center, Princeton and Beijing, Cornell’s 

FALCON Chinese, these are proliferating fairly quickly. 

I strongly support the 100,000-strong initiative that you have 

mentioned, which is at the State Department. I think that anything that the House could do to support that in the forms of scholarship support for more Americans to go, that would be helpful. 

I feel that the single strongest need that we have is not so much 

study abroad—I think that can come later—as foreign language 

study, including Chinese study, K through 12 in the public schools. 

My own view, off-topic, is Spanish I think would be an obvious No. 

1; I think Chinese would be No. 2. 

54

It is in the individual interest of students to study Chinese. It 

is in their community interest to have these programs. And again, 

it is profoundly in the national interest to have a large group of 

men and women in all of the professions who speak Chinese fluently, who know China and how to function there, and still represent their profession. 

So, I would actually put public school language programs ahead 

of study abroad. If we can get more students studying Chinese 

young, the study abroad will take care of itself. The demand will 

be there. 

One of the problems we have now is most of our students start 

studying Chinese in the university, and that is a little too late to 

get true professional fluency. After they graduate, they are getting 

their graduate degrees; they are getting professional training, and 

Chinese becomes something that they used to do. It is not deep 

enough in. So, I see the issue as being one of Chinese in the public 

schools starting in the first grade. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Next, I wanted to look at the issues of censorship, and we have 

certainly seen the power of the internet and social media across the 

Middle East and North Africa. We have a pretty clear understanding of how effective and severe the censorship is within 

China. Given that fact and those challenges, what are some of the 

best ways to really ramp-up our public diplomacy efforts there? 

We will start again with Mr. Chen. 

Mr. CHEN. Thank you very much. 

I have to mention President Ronald Reagan. He taught us a lot 

of things in dealing with such a regime. Well, first, you have to define the nature of the regime. Like Mr. Reagan said, an ‘‘evil empire,’’ and ‘‘this Wall needs to be torn down,’’ and ‘‘These people 

need to be free.’’

Every time Ronald Reagan went to the Soviet Union he demanded, first, to meet the dissidents. But today we don’t see that. 

Every major U.S. politician, including Presidents, when they went 

to China, they don’t want to see, they don’t want to talk over the 

regime to the Chinese people. They don’t want to talk to the dissidents. They ignore Liu Xiaobo, who is still languishing in Chinese 

jail, while inviting those jailers to the U.S. through a banquet. 

And this is China must be changed with the outside message 

from the United States, like Ronald Reagan did tirelessly. Every 

time he stepped on the podium during the 1980s he talks about the 

principles of freedom, talks about America, talks about human dignity. That culminated through the 1980s into the Tiananmen 

Square protest. 

But if we fail in that way, we either kowtow to the Chinese or 

appease the Chinese, we are only prolonging our agony. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Autry? 

Mr. AUTRY. Yes, your question on the internet, I have been a victim of the Chinese internet a number of times. One event that 

comes to my mind was, 1 year ago December, I was traveling from 

Shanghai to Shenzhen, and I was going to meet an underground 

Christian minister, a victim of Tiananmen Square who had done 

55

some jail time afterwards and a human rights advocate that was 

coming in from Guangzhou to meet me at the Shenzhen Airport. 

My flight was delayed for 15 minutes for ‘‘ground control requests.’’ And when I got to the airport, my party wasn’t there. I 

called them on their cell phones and texted them, and their cell 

phones were apparently disconnected, not just unanswered, but 

disconnected. 

I waited in the airport for quite some time at the McDonald’s, 

our local American cultural institution. I, then, e-mailed them and 

said I was going to go to my hotel and I would be up until 10 

o’clock, and if they wanted to get together, to get back to me. 

So, I went to sleep. I woke up the next morning. I had an e-mail, 

and apparently my friends had been arrested by the police and 

then driven around until about 11 o’clock. They kept them away 

just long enough so that they couldn’t meet with me, which was interesting to know that my e-mails or perhaps my text messages 

were being intercepted by the Chinese Government. 

I sent an e-mail then and said, ‘‘Let’s meet at the Shenzhen train 

station across from my hotel this morning.’’ Within 1⁄2 hour, I got 

an e-mail back that said, ‘‘The police just called me telling me not 

to meet the American writer at the train station.’’

So, this is the level of what is going on in the Chinese internet, 

not to mention the fact I can’t post on Facebook there without 

using a VPN and going to an internet cafe ́ and bribing somebody 

to get a fake national ID card. 

What I think we should do is prevent access to the U.S. market 

by Chinese firms, the same way that they cobble our firms, like 

making it impossible for Google to work well in China, making it 

impossible to get to Facebook at all. 

We should also prevent Chinese internet firms from having access to U.S. capital markets. The absurdity that Renren, China’s 

competitor to Facebook, gets millions of dollars from American investors in order to develop in a nurtured and protected environment to compete with Facebook that is not allowed in China galls 

me. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Daly? 

Mr. DALY. Yes, the original question was about censorship, including of the internet. I think here that we have to keep calling 

it as we see it. It is not a subtle problem. We do need to keep raising reciprocity, as this committee does, and we have to keep on 

pointing out that the Chinese press is not free and advocating for 

it, for example, to let the Broadcasting Board of Governors broadcast to China and its Web sites be unjammed and unblocked. I 

think that that is something that Congress has led in quite effectively. 

I think we could perhaps also ask some of our commercial networks why, when they have Spanish language channels and Arabic 

and other languages, why do they not even venture for a Chinese 

language station. It would be an interesting thing to push for and 

to try. 

I would agree with Kai Chen that a lot of American leaders of 

various kinds who go to China have perhaps become too accustomed to the Chinese way of doing things, and that they do not 

56

raise issues of censorship, reciprocity, press freedom, human rights, 

as often as they used to. I think that that has been a discernible 

trend over the past 10 years. I would agree with that. 

At the same time, we have to ask, if you wish to make a human 

rights representation—and I hope we continue to do so—how is 

that made most effectively so that you have the highest chance of 

actually freeing dissidents or changing policies and plans in China? 

We have to make our representations not only so that our domestic 

audiences can hear them and we can broadcast what we want to 

broadcast. The question is, how can we be most effective? 

How can we make representations that we know are offensive to 

the Chinese, which we don’t mind being offensive to the Chinese 

in many cases, while we also do have to work with them on a number of problems that are in the mutual interest? Part of the answer 

to that, as America, and I think part of our strength we can be confident about, is that we speak to China with a multiplicity of 

voices. 

So that some elements of the government tend to be a little bit 

more hard-line and speak about human rights. Some others have 

to be more cooperative and work day-in and day-out with Chinese 

counterparts on issues of public health, pollution, in some cases 

international crime, trade, a whole number of issues. Those people 

simply can’t be in the business of offending China, even if their 

principles are sound, if they are, in fact, going to work with China 

in the way that we need to. 

And so, we need to have Americans who take different approaches to China, who speak to China with different voices, and, 

yes, who get into Chinese institutions, agencies, and even work 

closely with the Chinese Government to solve international problems and to model American best practices. We need people who 

pound the table about human rights and gradualists who work 

slowly through civil society organs and who work with public diplomacy. And the people who take the gradualist approach of working 

with China, they I think in the long-term would have the same 

goals as everybody here, but they deserve to pursue their work 

without being called sellouts or apologists or worse. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I am going to yield back my time to the chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. The Chair intends to have a very 

short closing statement on my part and, then, Mr. Carnahan. Or 

maybe I will let you go first. And then, what I will do is have a 

very short closing statement. 

But I also would like to give our witnesses each 1 minute to summarize their thoughts. So, you may proceed, Mr. Chen, and we will 

just give everybody 1 minute. And then, we will have very short 

statements to close up the hearing. 

Mr. CHEN. Thank you very much. 

I just notice that we are focusing on what to do to China, but 

ignoring what China did to us. When I was with the school district, 

the protest, I noticed the method of infiltration is through the corruption of U.S. officials, through our human weaknesses. They invite your officials to go to China and give you red-carpet banquets, 

tour, women, everything. Then you come back and are pushing the 

57

program for them. So, we should be concerned more about what 

they do to us now, instead of what we can do to them. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chen. 

Mr. Autry? 

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Daly I think made the comment that Congress 

has led quite effectively on this. You know, gee, I wish I could believe that. 

But we have been treading water here for 22 years with China 

on issues of censorship, human rights, the rest of the thing, trying 

to be nice and take the gradualist approach. And all we are doing 

is getting run over. It is time to do something. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Daly? 

Mr. DALY. I would say that we have already done a great deal. 

We have done most of it as a catalyst through our soft power by 

engaging with China and letting a range of American institutions 

be involved with China. I think that has already had a transformative, albeit an insufficient, effect on China. 

I went there first in 1987. Today, while many of the problems 

with freedom and censorship persist, it is, in fact, a far better, 

more humane country in which most Chinese citizens in their daily 

lives enjoy a far greater range of freedoms, of course, as long as 

they don’t have great political aspirations or advocate that the Chinese Communist Party loses its monopoly on power. They lead richer lives. They are physically healthier. They have access to a great 

deal of information, despite censorship, and a lot of that is because 

of work that we have done in the United States. I think we can 

be very proud of it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Feel free to take an extra 30 seconds. I mean, 

you have actually been on the short end of some of the arguments. 

Do you have anything else you would like to say? 

Mr. DALY. No. I feel I have already had the better of all the arguments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Good. Good come back. Excellent. 

Go right ahead. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, I was going to make that point, too, Mr. 

Daly. 

But I did really want to thank all of the witnesses here today 

and thank the chairman. 

To Mr. Daly’s point about the U.S. Government speaking with 

different voices, we have certainly heard some different voices here 

today. But I think that is a really healthy thing. This I think is 

a really healthy conversation for our country. I think it is informative and I think will help shape how we deal with some of these 

complex issues going forward. 

China, no question, is complicated. I think that is one thing we 

can all agree on. But we need to really look at what works, what 

hasn’t worked, and how we can really move forward in a smart 

way. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you being an instigator 

on this conversation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Always the instigator. [Laughter.] 

58

So, for my own closing statements, actually, this quote came to 

mind with Mr. Chen’s original statement here, in reaction to my 

opening statement. And that is, there was an Irishman about 100 

years ago who had a foreword to a book that I read. It said that 

every person in the United States has two flags, the flag of the 

United States of America and the flag of his or her ancestral home. 

But he added this: Every person in the world who loves freedom 

and liberty has two flags, the flag in the nation in which they live 

and the flag of the United States of America. 

I think that our identification with the cause of freedom is something that our Founding Fathers wanted and that is something 

that gives America the strength, its ultimate strength and power 

in this world. 

Mr. Chen, you also said something that was very profound. You 

talked about having people, a confusion of what freedom is and a 

confusion of culture versus the culture of freedom. And wearing a 

Mao button, I mean, that was a cultural thing, but that really did 

confuse basic values. You know, what did that mean? Kids used to 

wear Che buttons and they also have these Che T-shirts. 

The communist movement over the world, over its history, has 

been one of the bloodiest movements in the history of humankind. 

The Chinese people are still being oppressed by those who adhere 

to that social structure, that concept. 

I do not believe that we would have the same academic discussion if we were talking in the 1930s and the Nazi regime was offering to set up Nietzsche Institutes in our major universities. And I 

don’t believe that we would have people who would be moving forward and talking about, ‘‘Well, this would help us understand the 

German culture and the richness of the German language.’’

The folks that still control China are still loyal to the philosophy 

that slaughtered so many millions and today is the world’s worst 

human rights abuser on this planet. Today Falun Gong practitioners, as we speak, there’s probably some people in the Falun 

Gong religion who are being thrown into prison, who will be murdered, and whose organs will be taken from them and sold to Westerners, whose values, as Mr. Chen pointed out, are confused. 

When we lose sight of our basic values and that we value freedom above all these others, that will be the road that will take us 

down to the destruction of the United States of America. 

So, today let us stand firm and let us again celebrate, as Mr. 

Carnahan noted, that we can all disagree and respect each other. 

So, thank you all today. This hearing has been, I think, very 

worthwhile. We have got some areas where people will be able to 

discuss this in China and overseas and here at home as well with 

the local press. 

So, I now say that this hearing is—we are not suspending it; 

what is the word I am looking for?—adjourned. 

Thank you very much. God bless. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60

f


73537n.eps
61

Æ


73537m.eps