CULTURAL EXCHANGES I should say a word about the specific area of cultural exchanges, as distinct from scholarships and trade. China's goals have been very heavily in cultivating public opinion within the United States, developing an image, and therefore heavily toward large spectaculars, performing arts groups, sports teams, and so on, and relatively less in regard to serious educational, professional, and civic affairs delegations. The National Committee on United States-China Relations has had a rather difficult time arranging for substantive groups from the PRL in fields such as urban affairs, world affairs, or education to visit this country. It is one of the critical imbalances in the exchange relationship. In the last minute or two, I will add what perhaps should have been the first point in these remarks. That is the critical distinction between what have come to be called the government-facilitated exchanges and the entirely private exchanges. GOVERNMENT FACILITATED EXCHANGES In the Shanghai Communique, the two governments agreed that they would facilitate exchange relationships. Exchanges that meet the purposes of the Shanghai Communique are negotiated and handled in the United States by private organizations, primarily the Committee on Scholarly Communication and the National Committee on United States-China Relations, and in a few cases by other organizations. These exchanges are negotiated both by the private U.S. organizations with their Chinese counterparts, and simultaneously between the two governments. But these government-facilitated exchanges account for barely 6 percent of the Americans who have visited the PRC and only about two-thirds of the Chinese who have come to this country. Something like 10,000 Americans have gone to China without any reference to U.S. Government facilitation. I think we are going to see the government-facilitated exchanges playing an even smaller role in the total proportion, the total volume, and perhaps in the visibility of exchanges. PRIVATE EFFORTS In regard to private efforts within this country, given the fascination that American citizens have developed about China, a number of organizations other than those designated to conduct facilitated exchanges have come to play an active role. I would specifically mention the United States-China People's Friendship Associations, which in the last 3 years have proliferated to the point that they now have chapters in over 70 American cities. They annually receive quotas from the PRC, enabling them to send anywhere from two to five or six delegations per year from each of three geographic regions. Within the last 3 years, several hundred Americans have visited China through United States-China People's Friendship Association auspices. It seems likely that the volume will increase steadily. No Chinese delegations have yet come to the United States under their auspices. I do think that the imbalance between the volume of exchange taking place under the Government-facilitated rubric and that taking place through strictly private channels is going to increase, and that unless a major effort is made by the U.S. side, we may find that official efforts to fulfill the Shanghai Communique are going to become invisible or relatively so. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Douglas P. Murray follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS P. MURRAY, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS PROGRAM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS In November, 1975, the "senior official" on board Dr. Kissinger's aircraft returning from Peking commented that "the Chinese will do just enough in bilateral relations with the United States as they think they need to give a certain impression to the world--it's a matter of how close they want to symbolize their relationship wih us." His statement is an appropriate prologue to any discussion of cultural exchanges with the People's Republic (PRC). On the one hand, the U.S. has become one of China's major partners, not only in trade but also in cultural relations. Since 1971, more than 10.000 Americans have visited the PRC, and some 700 Chinese citizens have come to the U.S., for scholarly, cultural, or commercial purposes. On the other, while having an independent life and real problems of its own, the exchange process has been largely a barometer of the peculiar political relationship, continuing as it does without benefit of formal diplomatic ties. The future of cultural exchanges will continue to depend heavily on steps taken in the political arena. Many have remarked on the similarities, in style and substance, between our cultural relations with the PRC and earlier experiences with the socialist states of Eastern Europe. The parallels are real, but less important than the differences. During the Cold War decades, our exchange partners were countries we officially recognized but considered adversaries; China today, although hardly an ally, is at least far from being an enemy. Rather than hard-won deviations from a strained formal relationship, academic and cultural exchanges with China in the past five years have been active, joint demonstrations of an important political link-one that has not yet been diplomatically "normalized" because of residual U.S. interests on Taiwan. Through exchanges, a continued commitment to the spirit and objectives of the 1972 Shanghai Communique can be signaled, even in the face of specific policy disagreements. Popular support for rapprochement can be cultivated, in China as well as in the U.S. And, as seemed to happen in China late in 1975, if the underlying rationale of rapprochement comes into serious question, the exchange process can be slowed to signal displeasure. There are many ways to approach the issue of exchanges and cultural relations with the PRC. For example, three private American organizations have principal responsibility for conducting "quasi-official" exchanges in the areas of (a) scholarship, (b) performing arts, sports, and public affairs, and (c) commerce. Their activities involve a close working relationship with the U.S. government, and presumably are of particular interest to the Congress. Yet over 90% of the American visitors to China and perhaps % of the Chinese visitors to the United States have traveled through other means. They represent a steadily increasing proportion of exchange activity, and raise a variety of questions about the future of U.S.-China cultural relations. Others will be presenting testimony specifically on the scholarly and traderelated exchanges noted above. While attempting to provide some perspective on the third area of quasi-official exchanges, I have chosen here to give a general overview which might place the exchange activities of all organizations in context. ORIGINS AND OVERVIEWS The first year of cultural relations began with China's startling invitation to the U.S. Table Tennis Team in April of 1971, saw Secretary Kissinger and President Nixon visit Peking, and concluded with the reciprocal U.S. tour of China's table tennis team in April of 1972. It was a year in which Americans, by the hundreds of thousands, "rediscovered" China, apparently inundating 1 New York Times, October 20, 1975. 68-793-76-5 . Chinese government offices in other countries and Peking with visa applications; and both Chinese and American officials learned, through ping-pong, that PRC citizens could tour this country without serious problems of security or political harassment. Even more important, the Shanghai Communique signed by President Nixon and Premier Chou had inscribed the importance of exchanges in the .official guidelines for U.S.-China relations: The two sides agreed that it was desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to / facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges. Thus, "government-facilitated exchanges," discussed below, have been one of the principal categories of our cultural relations with the PRC. Although only about six percent (roughly 700) of the 10,000 to 12,000 Americans to visit China in recent years, and barely two-thirds of the 700 Chinese to come here, fall under this rubric, this is the only channel through which reasonable reciprocity in numbers and kind is possible through prior agreement. The above figures demonstrate a dramatic though understandable imbalance in the overall flow of private citizens between the two countries. The "essential differences" in the social systems of China and the United States, noted in the Shanghai Communique, obviously include differing policies toward freedom of travel, in the private financial resources that make travel possible, and in the fundamental purposes that visits and exchanges serve. For China, where "politics is in command," cultural relations are primarily an instrument for cultivating world opinion and obtaining information and insights useful to her own development. Our government certainly has similar goals, but is only one actor in the piece of the U.S. side. Official efforts have been almost overshadowed by the activities of private American citizens pursuing their own disparate interests with unbounded enthusiasm and, frequently, considerable frustration. The American demand for both Chinese visas and Chinese visitors continues to far exceed the supply; while the U.S. cannot inhibit its own citizens from visiting China, it has had no reason to refuse visas to the relatively small numbers of Chinese applicants. Consequently, China effectively controls the flow of traffic in both directions, generally being able to select who to send and who to receive. TYPES OF EXCHANGES AND VISITS Within the U.S., two general exchange categories and four distinct "channels" have emerged since the 1971-72 phase. Their respective significance can be appreciated only with reference to the difference between the two societies and to the lack of a formal cultural agreement between the two governments. Pursuing an active exchange program in the absence of diplomatic relations has produced some unusual and often ambiguous distinctions regarding what is “otlicial” and what is "private." A. "Government-facilitated" exchanges Several important elements distinguish this quasi-official category. First, both governments expect that all in-country costs will be met by the hosts, with the visitors responsible only for their international travel. Second, special attention is given to the program and general welfare of the guests, which on the U.S. side has particularly meant providing immigration courtesies, security escorts, and frequent White House receptions. Third, and most important, both governments consider these projects to be both necessary and sufficient conditions for implementing the "spirit" of the Shanghai Communique in regard to people-to-people contacts. The "facilitated" exchanges themselves fall under two rubrics: 1. Exchanges of federal and state officials, arranged and administered directly by the government. In practice, "official" exchanges have involved a one-way path toward China, since Peking insists that apart from the diplomats posted to her Liaison Office (Washington) and U.N. Mission (New York), PRC officials as such will not come here as long as the offending Taiwan embassy remains. None of Secretary Kissinger's eight trips to Peking, much less the journeys of Presidents Nixon and Ford, have yet been reciprocated. Through November of 1975, six congressional delegations (both representatives and senators), a group of White House Fellows, and a contingent of state governors had toured the PRC through intergovernmental arrangements. It is worth noting, however, that China also had directly invited one congressional delegation (August, 1975) and several individual senators and state governors without recourse to the "facilitated" route. 2. Scholarly and cultural exchanges involving private citizens, arranged by designated U.S. organizations. In the private sector, the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China (CSCPRC), sponsored jointly by three academic organizations * and based at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations (NCUSCR), an independent educational organization in New York, have been considered the appropriate sponsors of "facilitated" exchanges. In principle, the CSCPRC is concerned with exchanges in all scholarly fields, including the social sciences and humanities; but because of China's strong (and usually prevailing) preferences, exchanges in the natural and physical sciences have predominated in practice. The NCUSCR, with an equally wide span of interests in public affairs, education, performing arts, and sports, has encountered similar difficulties in conducting a balanced and comprehensive program. Each of these committees was formed in 1966, the CSCPRC specifically to promote scholarly interchange with China (an effort initially thwarted by China's introversion during the Cultural Revolution), and the National Committee to stimulate public education and policy discussions on U.S.-China relations. The latter provided financial and administrative assistance to the U.S. Table Tennis Association during the return visit of the Chinese team in 1972, and from that experience decided to seek additional cultural exchange opportunities. Both organizations sought and developed cooperative working relationships with the Department of State and with Chinese counterpart groups-the CSCPRC with the Chinese Scientific and Technical Association, and the National Committee, working through the new PRC Liaison Office in Washington, indirectly with such organizations as the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, and the All-China Sports Federation. Both committees receive annual grants and occasional project support from the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs to supplement their funding from private foundation and other sources. It should also be noted that a new National Council for U.S.-China Trade (NCUSCT), a private organization based upon corporate memberships, was established in 1973 after close consultation with the Department of Commerce. With "government facilitation," the Council has sponsored several trade-related delegations to and from China. Like those of the CSCPRC, its activities are the subject of a separate presentation. The two exchange committees annually submit proposals to the appropriate Chinese organizations or offices regarding the kinds of groups each hopes to send, and review reciprocal proposals from China. Parallel discussions are conducted between the two governments, and from this dual process mutual agreements eventually are reached. These exchanges, like most other visits, have involved relatively short-term (two-to-six, but usually three-to-four week) tours to a variety of cities and sites rather than extended stays specifically for professional purposes. While the CSCPRC normally serves as sole sponsor of its projects, systematically selecting delegation members or institutional hosts according to academic criteria, the NCUSCR often invites the co-sponsorship of an appropriate professional body in the respective field. Both committees seek to include an academic China specialist in each group they send in order to provide cultural perspective and language skills, and in part to compensate for the dearth of direct exchange opportunities in Chinese Studies. Through the fall of 1975, the CSCPRC had sent fifteen scholarly delegations to China, eleven of which represented scientific or technical fields. It had served as host to significantly more groups from the PRC (twenty-one), all but two (librarians and language teachers) in scientific fields. For its part, the NCUSCR had sponsored substantially fewer but often much larger exchanges in the areas of performing arts, sports, and public affairs: six visits in each direction, including (a) the Table Tennis Team, Shenyang Acrobatic Troupe, Wushu (traditional Sports) Troupe, and two athletic teams from China; and (b) delegations of American secondary educators, world affairs specialists, university presidents. and an AAU track-and-field team to the PRC. The National Committee also had sent to China two delegations of scholars and civic leaders drawn from its Board of Directors, and during 1973 had played a major though non-sponsoring role in three other "facilitated" exchanges: the China tours of an American swimming team, of men's and women's collegiate basketball teams, and of the Philadelphia Orchestra. Roughly half of the participants in "facilitated exchanges," in both directions, have been members of athletic or performing arts delegations. Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the Social Science Research Council, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Although China firmly insists on the "people-to-people" rather than official nature of all exchanges with the U.S., the operational distinction is not always easy to maintain, even on the U.S. side. Certain projects, such as the 1973 Philadelphia Orchestra tour, have been of sufficient magnitude/or delicacy to require direct government assistance to professional organizations other than the two exchange committees. The most complex case was the magnificent Chinese Exhibition of Archaeological Finds (shown in Washington, D.C., Kansas City, and San Francisco between December, 1974 and August, 1975). Major logistical problems, expenditures and insurance commitments in the millions of dollars, and extremely detailed negotiations, required a flexible partnership between governmental and private resources. Although administrative responsibility initially was placed with the Natinal Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., the Gallery worked nominally in association with an ad hoc host committee including representatives from several museums, the Department of State, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the NCUSCR. Nonetheless, much of the day-to-day negotiations had to be conducted at the governmental level. B. Private visits and exchanges The vast majority of American travelers have gone to China through entirely private arrangements, at their own or their organization's initiative. Less affected by shifts in U.S.-China political relations per se, private visits nevertheless are strongly influenced by changing moods within China. The 1971-72 period, when the U.S.-China relationship was being renewed, was one of relative domestic relaxation following the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution. During times of "political mobilization," such as the 1974 campaign to "criticize Confucius and Lin Piao," foreign visits to China have dropped sharply. Since the National People's Congress in January of 1975, which appeared to resolve various internal political questions, the influx of foreigners has again increased. The demand for Chinese visas-informed speculation puts the requests in the millions, and thus the acceptance rate well below one percent-has probably astounded even the Chinese authorities. Of the roughly 10,000 Americans who have visited China through private arrangements (only the Chinese know the exact number), a substantial portion (some estimate as many as half) have been Americans of Chinese origin who, in general, are encouraged by the PRC to make fraternal visits. General tourism has not yet developed, with the rare exceptions of passengers from cruise ships invited to spend several days in Canton or Shanghai, in part because of China's severely limited, though expanding, hotel, transportation, and interpreter resources. The vast numbers of applications enable the Chinese to be highly selective; although sometimes hard to perceive, there usually are specific "reasons" for each invitation-to make an important symbolic gesture, gain access to informed views or technical information, cultivate public opinion, or to reciprocate past hospitality, friendships, or support. "Affinity groups" of up to twenty-five persons representing specific professional or institutional interests have been most common, even though the programs arranged by the Chinese hosts normally involve a broad, rather "touristic" schedule in addition to activities germane to the group's particular interests. These private visits can be considered under two headings-the third and fourth of the "channels" mentioned above. There are the truly ad hoc arrangements and, increasingly, visits arranged through intermediary organizations which have developed a "special" relationship with the PRC. Although this dichotomy is somewhat artificial, since today's ad hoc visit may initiate tomorrow's special relationship, certain features merit separate consideration. 3. Ad hoc visits and exchanges. In the fall of 1970, Chairman Mao had told Edgar Snow that Americans of all backgrounds and viewpoints would be welcome in China, signaling even before ping-pong the possible end of mutual isolation. From the outset, this principle seemed alive and well, even though the earliest visitors, naturally enough, were people already known to China's leaders through personal acquaintance or public reputation who presumably would be responsible and compatible guests. Journalists from The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, businessmen, eminent scientists and other scholars, and delegations from ethnic minority and radical organizations such as the Black Panthers, Young Lords, and the Socialist tabloid Guardian found their paths crossing the PRC. Many early visitors subsequently introduced other prospective travelers, and Chinese officials began to indicate, usually privately but sometimes publicly, persons or groups they wished to welcome. Some Americans went as guests with all expenses met, but as the numbers grew and China's hosting |