On US-China Relations: Our Next-Generation Ambassadors
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!
Aimee, great blog. I came to some of the same conclusions myself as an undergraduate – not withstanding technologial breakthroughs that may or may not solve environmental problems, hunger, overcrowding and disease, the pressure on the Earth will grow to the point where the only outlets are nasty and brutish, including war, famine, and plague, as has been the case throughout history. That we have managed to feed over six billion humans is already a point of wonder.”
Honestly, though, I have my doubts now. Humanity, and the Earth itself, are more durable than we think. We peered into the abyss of nuclear annihilation for more than three decades with the Cold War and somehow emerged alive (though, if you believe comments from Stephen Hawking and others, we were simply lucky, and could still be wiped out at any time by our own stupidity) and I think the rising powers in the new world will certainly not spell its doom either. Things will be different, but not fatally so. Growing populations hungry for modern lifestyles represent an enormous pressure, but history and the status quo carry a great inertia of their own. We will not wake up tomorrow and find ourselves living in a world dominated by any rising power. Indeed, the rise of China, as rapid as it has been in large historical terms, has been foreseen, predicted, and talked to death. Only the blind didn’t see this coming. The ‘hyperpower’ moment of the United States may already be passing, but that was an anomaly to begin with. We (Americans) ought to welcome the rise of China and India. Why?
We need both global competitors and global partners. China and India are both interested in a lot of the same things we are (growth, stability) but different enough that they force us to question our own assumptions and do things better. At the same time, we can cooperate to counter the most obvious common threats to the world (climate change, disease, terrorism) even if our solutions and defintions may differ. Those common interests are so much weightier than anything that might provoke a war (I don’t know about China and India) that I do not seriously consider that a near-term possibility any longer. If resources really do dry up suddenly, that equation changes completely. That, too, is not a certainty, peak oil or not.
I completely agree with your points #1 and #2 – the young people working in the ‘China’ field, broadly defined, are some of the most knowledgable and capable. Given time to build up useful professional and personal networks, we will be very effective at keeping backchannels open and promoting mutual understanding. Business deals might get a heck of a lot easier, with less mistrust on both sides, too. As for #3, yes, the circle of Mandarin students is still surprisingly small, especially those with no Asian heritage. But it is getting bigger, and I personally know enough people with Mandarin far better than my own, which is passable, that I am not worried about a critical shortage anytime soon.
If there was one thing I would do to promote greater cooperation between our countries and our various cultures and subcultures, it would be more privately-funded study abroad programs. I don’t want either government controlling the programs, because they’d plan them based around assumptions that are probably wrong-headed. There are many Chinese students studying in the US – but will any of them be policy leaders in the future China? So far, party leaders tend to be grown in a Chinese greenhouse. What about alumni of prestigious study abroad programs in China? Are any of them making decisions for MNCs or the US government now? I’d guess at least a few. But such programs are, partly because Mandarin is so time-intensive, still a refuge for specialists and researchers, who then serve as the brain trust to the guys who never had time for that. Specialists are good, but they can’t really supply the life experience that living and interacting with people abroad does.
I’d also try and get China to stop slamming the door on the Internet every chance it gets, but that’s another issue…
An excellent post for a lot of reasons. People forget that before September 11th, China was generally regarded as the US’s next big “enemy”, until our national psyche was seized by the war on terror.
Mandarin courses, particularly from an early age, would be an important step, but a major obstacle is that our education system in general focuses on our connections with our old European roots when our future will largely be determined by our connections to the east.
High schools should offer courses on recent Chinese history (18th,19th, 20th century) so students can better understand how closely the West and China are connected. This way we could build a framework for more nuanced thinking and allow students without language aptitude (like myself) to build a connection with China, or at least demystify it.
Although all study of history is important, I doubt my future child’s knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars will help him/her change the world, but an understanding of the opium wars may have real implications for our future.
My final suggestion would be for groups of entrepreneurs to open up more authentic Chinese restaurants that didn’t offer orange and lemon chicken on their menus. Excellent food is a great source of soft power, yet Americanized eastern cuisine, often served in buffet format, spreads sad misconceptions about a central aspect of Chinese culture.
Just a couple points:
First, the Davos and CFR set is unrepresentative of the global population because the academic and power elite is also unrepresentative of the Western population. It is too white, and also too male, too doctrinarily liberal or cynically realist,* too upper and upper middle class, too obsessed with quantitative models, and, even as power and wealth have flowed Eastward and Southward, it is still too Eurocentric. This is a chronic disease in need of a cure, and flawed China thinking is only the most recent in a long chain of symptoms. TED has emerged as a kind of anti- or post-Davos and is welcome, but TED alone cannot make up for the fact that tenured academia and analysts at Foggy Bottom are afflicted with this structural weakness. We’re going to have to wait a generation (at least) for real change.
Second, while Western on-the-ground media in China has improved in the last decade, the residual problems are purposeful anti-Chinese editorializing, Guardian and Der Spiegel-style, and sloppy, ignorant copywriting in American newsrooms. From what I’ve seen, the institution that may help save Western media from itself might not be Western at all — namely, Al Jazeera, which offers international coverage that is consistently as good as if not better than the Beeb and CNN International, and is even supposedly the model for China’s new stab at international news coverage. If Western news wants to improve, they need to look East first.
Third, though it would be advantageous, Mandarin classes won’t happen en masse in the US because demographic changes almost mandate everyone in the next generation learning Spanish — and that by itself is a hard pill for many to swallow. I believe, however, that Mandarin will muscle ahead of more difficult European languages like German in college teaching in the next ten years, and that Chinese language expertise may eventually be seen as a valued white collar skill.
Onto your final two questions:
1) Both countries have to work to correct the contradiction of Chinese financed US deficit spending and the simultaneous trade deficit created as Americans spend money given to them by the Chinese on products manufactured in China. Our current state of affairs creates twin resentments — Chinese anger at US mismanagement of their “assets” and American anger at the proliferation of Chinese goods and the “artificially” low price of the CNY. For the US, correcting the contradiction means returning to some semblance of fiscal sanity — which neither party wants at the moment, sadly. And for the Chinese, correcting the contradiction means bringing about a much needed shift away from export manufacture towards domestic development and enrichment of the service sector while becoming less generous towards America, finance-wise. (In other words, the US needs to go to rehab, and China needs to practice tough love.)
2) Businesspeople will always be constrained in their “dollar diplomacy” by the domestic political environment in their home countries. For example, when a Western government rejects a biz. deal with Chinese companies, it makes it that much harder for Western businesses to secure deals here. Accordingly, the mercantilist/protectionist turn in Western economies can only undermine business leadership abroad. What’s more, there are some issues — human rights, etc. — that businesses can only address within the context of Chinese law, despite criticisms to the contrary by loud voices in the West. For instance, Google, despite the angry wrath of Western bloggers, could not have produced an uncensored version of Google.cn, and even Yahoo may not have been able to resist giving up Shi Tao. At the same time, following the various scandals involving Foxconn, Apple has been correct to demand Foxconn follow Chinese law to protect employee rights, and other foreign companies should should join Apple by making sure businesses in China actually follow rather than skirt Chinese laws. Finally, no matter what some businesses do, they will sometimes fall victim to nationalist sentiment among Chinese, so they should cultivate “good partner” images within China whenever possible, images which will, in turn, benefit their home countries and allow for soft landings in the event of boycotts and other crises of confidence. On this note, I’ve no doubt that the positive track record of German companies in China helps to explain why Chinese people love Germany despite German media steering Germans in a very anti-Chinese direction.
* If there is a future, it belongs to pragmatism, not rigid doctrines. We should neither incessantly hammer China on liberal political rights nor constantly see them as a rabid dog to be fenced in militarily — we must push when pushing is right and give when giving is right, and most of all, learn to coexist.
I hope the Chinese will not attack India at all but will live peaceably with their neighbors.Also I hope the Chinese government will allow more of Bible Christianity into their country and The United States will once again embrace the faith of their founding fathers at least some in believing the Holy Bible was Gods and Providences word to us all all matters of faith and practice. Indeed the very word of God given by divine intervention,spoken to particular men,prophets and apostles to write down to be preserved to every generation.(Psalm 12:6-7 ) Philosophies of men such as atheism,darwinism,freudism,and other isms only bring human beings down to a sinful base level. And do not uplift or promote nations but debase them and make them odious to other nations around it , no matter which nation it is,including The United States of America.So lets once again believe it America by faith(John Chapter 3 and Romans Chapter 10 and I Corithians 15:1-4. The gospel if for all people who want new life,and eternal life in a place called heaven,and hope today and prosperity for the here and now.Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,and thy house.(Acts 16:31).And Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Sincerely to all nations,George ,For more information,www.FellowshipTractLeague.org , or http://www.AntrimFaithBaptistChurch , or http://www.FBN.com Thank You,very much!
Great thinking. I could not agree more. I think China will be headed towards aggression sooner than later.
Wang Xiaodong’s “Earth will be finished” words were carefully measured. A global struggle for the Earth’s resources could be controlled or chaos. Limited global resources and countries acting selfishly could test China’s culture of patience in solving serious problems. In the near term in my opinion.
My thoughts on the good questions you pose -
1. What action can leadership take? Demand education of the other by each. The immersion in Chinese language and culture necessary for the US to successfully relate to China will be tough if not impossible, taking at least a generation. Our population is quite frankly ignorant today. Do we have the time? We must try.
2. What can the Chinese / US business people do? Continue to cross-pollinate ideas, culture, language, environmentalism. Environmentalism can’t be a bad word to the business worlds in any country. We must create a awareness around the world that, in particular, Chinese economic growth is creating resource demands that are completely unsustainable. All thinkers around the world need to feel that they have an important role in building solutions here. We need to create conditions where China does not feel desperate. The world is not used to an impatient China.
i have seen hundreds of young western kids in china this year .. they think of shanghai like their older brothers thought of seattle, as somewhere to go that is cool … this is the ambassador program you seek, the lonely planet jet plane back packers are everywhere … as are chinese kids with michael jackson t-shirts and an insatiable curiosity about the world ..
as for business people, the shakeout in world business reality is simply going to force a different way of thinking upon everybody, east and west ..
Aimee,
I concur with your first point most directly. I think that most of the problems China and the US face are exacerbated by the fact that it is all 50+ year old males from similar historical and socio-economic backgrounds that make our decisions.