The US, in turn, is probably happy to get qualified teachers to meet the growing demand for Chinese classes, as well as a chance to introduce the American way of life to a group of young Chinese people, who will presumably return to their home country and tell their friends. The superintendent of the school district in which the teacher in the article had been placed was particularly blunt about the program’s goal:

Barry Beauchamp, the Lawton superintendent, said he was thrilled to have Ms. Zheng and two other Chinese instructors working in the district. But he said he believed that the guest teachers were learning the most from the cultural exchange.

“Part of them coming here is us indoctrinating them about our great country and our freedoms,” he said. “We’ve seen them go to church and to family reunions, country music concerts, rodeos. So it’s been interesting to see them soak up our culture.”

I’m not sure how indoctrinated these teachers will be after three years in rural Oklahoma, at least if indoctrination means coming to the conclusion that America is the best country in the world. Overall, I think it’s true that the volunteers are the ones who gain the most from these exchanges — I doubt that many volunteers come back from the experience having decided that their host country is far superior to their home county, but friendly exchange is on the whole is good for everyone involved. And I like the idea that China is sending out its own army of volunteers, to match those being sent out from the US, or setting out on their own from Western Europe — the more countries participating in these kinds of exchanges, the more it feels like a mutual exchange rather than cultural imperialism. 中国，加油！

A Chinese-language forum then translated some of this coverage, which led to comments, and ChinaSMACK in turn translated some of these comments back into English. It seems the bloggers have become the bloggees.

You can see the 33 second commercial on ChinaSMACK. It’s a well-made ad, but seems like a very expensive way to have a very small impact on a not-very-targeted group of consumers. Improving quality control (so that we don’t drink poisoned milk or buy lead-painted toys for example) would probably do a lot more both to win over consumers and to prevent the kinds of things that damage the reputation of Chinese manufacturing in the first place. But maybe there’s a master plan that includes that too.

Comments on these kinds of forums tend to be all over the place, but I thought this one from Mop (translated by ChinaSMACK) was particularly reasonable:

Actually, foreigners are just like Chinese people, some people think “Made in China” is not bad, cheap, practical. There are also people who think “Made in China” is synonymous with fake goods, low-grade goods. Different people with different life backgrounds, economic ability, front different places, will necessarily have different perspectives.
But while Mop netizens enthusiastically talk, it is necessary to let everyone know, “Made in China” is the same as “Made in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico.” Most are all low-value-added products, and indeed the grade of those products are not high quality products.
That the go-vern-ment now puts out this large-scale advertisement is indeed a remedial effort, trying to rescue the “Made in China” reputation. However, this too could be a good thing, China raising its own image, preparing to invest even more Chinese-made products.
Economics is not a game, and a country’s image is also not formed overnight. What was previously owed, definitely now must be repaid. I just hope that in the future, in these advertisements, what comes after “Designed by” is not some other country.

I also googled the author of the op-ed piece, Ben Simpfendorfer, and he has recently written a book about deepening ties between China and the Middle East, and apparently speaks fluent Arabic and Chinese… impressive.

Any money in the plan for a very deserving Swede in Wuhan?

Conflicts arose when China tried to prevent the fair from allowing dissident writers to participate, and the organizers tried to balance the desires of the guest of honor with the need to respect freedom of speech. In the end, dissident writers were allowed to attend, but it seems the Chinese delegation wasn’t entirely happy that more wasn’t done to control who was there and to allow China to use the fair to project the image of itself it wanted to project, one free from controversial issues.

The Times puts the tensions that the book fair highlighted into the larger context of China’s efforts to build its “soft power”, essentially a huge PR campaign to control its image in the world and increase its cultural and diplomatic power.

Since 2004, China has pursued what it calls its “going out” policy on the cultural front, trying to square its economic influence and new status as a global power, while trying to defuse criticism on issues like Tib-t, Taiw-n and hum-n r-ghts.

There have been yearlong cultural exchanges with many countries; the opening of hundreds of language teaching centers known as Confucius Institutes; new foreign-language services from official media like Xinhua and CCTV; and new interest in foreign platforms like the Kennedy Center and the Europalia festival in Brussels.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article on reform of the country’s media and entertainment industry. The government plans to invest billions and to loosen controls of some of these industries in the hopes of building media empires that will rival the News Corporation and Time Warner.

“There appears to be a feeling at the highest levels of government that they need a media machine commensurate to the rising status and power of China,” says Jim Laurie, a former ABC News correspondent who teaches at Hong Kong University and recently met with Chinese state broadcasting executives.

Beijing hopes the moves will even improve the nation’s image overseas — part of a longstanding effort to use “soft power,” rather than military might to win friends abroad.

The use of soft power as an alternative (or as a complement) to hard power doesn’t necessarily have to be bad — a media empire seems less scary than an invading army, even though maybe it’s more subversive and something we should in reality be more wary of. Either way, the policies seem very smart. Something interesting to watch in the future.