Leading “defense expert” Bharat Verma recently stated that “China will launch an attack on India before 2012,” citing China’s hunger for dominance in Asia and the need to divert attention from its own internal social unrest as main points leading to his rather incendiary conclusion. A few months ago, Wang Xiaodong, one of the authors of Unhappy China stated that, if the US and other Western countries do not share their resources with China, “the earth will be finished.” Verma’s and Wang’s conclusions, while exploitive and  headline-worthy, are most likely accurate. If we are to base them on current modes of international politics, there is a fair probability that we will see another major World War within the next few decades directly involving the US, China, and India. I came to this conclusion in 2002 as well as surmising that, despite its socioeconomic hurdles, China would catapult its way to global dominance while the US buckled under the systems and ideals that had once fueled its unparalleled successes. When I originally shared this theory with my fellow graduate students, I was nearly laughed out of class and I am certain that there are some of you reading this who will also be quick to discredit this assumption. To clarify, I do not believe that this outcome is inevitable- if it were, I’d find it relatively pointless to persist in writing this blog, continue with my research interests, or engage with influencers in the US-China equation. However, if instrumental individuals and government actors continue to guarantee their own positions of power by employing a reactionary framework rather than practicing a solutions-based dialogue- and this applies to commerce, diplomacy, academia, and journalism- then Wang may be right: “the earth will be finished.”

With this in mind, I have been wearily following this week’s coverage on US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue which has proven to be, as some expected, a typical showcase of pomp and circumstance that provided no measurable steps towards collective action. From a more personal perspective and after straddling the realms of business, government and NGOs, I have also concluded that our true US-China diplomats do not reside in charitable institutions or D.C./Beijing houses or the Ivory Tower, but in the trenches of industry. It is also apparent to me that current systems of US-China diplomacy are in desperate need of a brave and highly innovative overhaul- one that reflects the realities of globalization while rejecting outdated notions of the “West vs. the Rest.” I will wage that, without a highly proactive and flexible group of next-generation global leaders, the East-West relationship will find itself at a dangerous impasse within the next twenty-five years due mainly because of a pervasive inflexibility. It is not my intention to be a doomsayer but to come clean about my own perspective while fueling some food for thought among international business leaders and tomorrow’s influencers and productively challenging the very systems that we currently rely on.

Therefore, I have a few suggestions:

1. More business influencers and “youth leaders” need to be involved in steering already-established organizations toward a course that reflects today’s highly interactive and interdependent reality. Currently, most NGOs and academic institutions engaged in US-China discussion rely almost exclusively on their Ph.D’s, placing incredible weight on status and letters while eschewing other perspectives. And, after attending 50+ conferences sponsored by these types of fiscally powerful organizations, I have noticed that the vast majority of the audience represents a very small global population- white, male, 50+. To accurately discuss China in the US, representative Chinese voices must be heard while encouraging dynamic inclusion that meets criteria regarding viability, security, demography, and governance.

2. Our business leaders are, in fact, our “on-the-ground” ambassadors. Inclusion of their perspectives in diplomatic/political discussions is imperative. Bilateral organizations which facilitate equal engagement among industry rainmakers representative of the US and China need to be erected, supported and financially funded by both countries.

3. Our kids in the US desperately need intensive yet engaging Mandarin language classes and our Mandarin-speaking adults could definitely use low-cost programs which build upon use of current language skills already acquired. According to recent statistics, fewer than 50,000 American students study Chinese, compared with 200 million Chinese students studying English. Mandarin Corner in New York City, anyone?

4. Current China-media focus in the West has typically addressed issues concerning human rights, run-of the-mill diplomacy, and issues of trade and finance while overlooking practical, solutions-based articles authored by journalists knowledgeable in the US-China equation. US writers covering the China beat should possess, at the least, an ability to converse on the ground in Mandarin, some knowledge of China’s history and government, and a willingness to live in the country they are covering long-term. It is not nearly enough to study a country from afar; to convey the circumstances of that country, one should practice immersion.

5. Research institutions/think tanks that support 50/50 US-China collaboration have yet to surface. Instead, think tanks and research institutions have traditionally relied on a very small pool of US-born academics who have typically arrived to their positions from similar backgrounds and only incorporate 1 or 2 Chinese-born specialists (look at any Board of Directors list or staff directory and you will see what I mean). I would propose a new type of “equal access” organization that focuses on tangible goals in very specific fields requiring US-China participation. The conventional think tank model is archaic and does not reflect today’s realities.

The bottom line? Today’s popular approaches to the US-China dynamic are not applicable or effective given tomorrow’s reality. My suggestions are also easier said than done, so I’m posing the following two questions:

1. What one specific action can the US and China take to improve their relationship overall?
2. How can international business leaders serve as positive US-China “diplomats” and, is it even their job to do so?

Leave your thoughts in the comments section- this is a collaborative effort!

Commentary china, diplomacy, Government, international business, U.S.

Dan Harris of China Law Blog published an excellent post this week entitled, “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Can You Say China Relevant?” which pays homage to Richard Cassin’s FCPA Blog while providing very timely FCPA advice for companies doing business in China. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act definitely needs more attention these days, particularly as it applies to China, and I was glad to see that Dan Harris once again took the time to point out its importance. Read this post if you’re doing business overseas… or if you’d like to know what “respondeat superior” means!

Commentary china, China Law Blog, corruption, Dan Harris, FCPA, FCPA Blog, Richard Cassin