Ren Xiao: Don't get lost in "taking it for granted" in china research

Source: Global Times

The formulation of a foreign policy by one Government towards another must be based on an accurate understanding and grasp of that country. If it is based on wrong grasp and judgment, then the policy formulated must not be correct, but may produce great errors. For some time now, some of the suggestions and reports issued by the US policy research community and the government research department are far from the reality of China's development. Their judgment of the relevant trends is also full of loopholes.

For example, some people in the American academic circles have recently "hotly discussed" whether the Chinese mainland will attack Taiwan by force, and some people even advocate the "scorched earth policy" under the "nesting", suggesting that TSMC be destroyed when necessary so that the attacking party cannot get any chips, thus dissolving the attack on Taiwan. Such a "high theory" has to lead people to conclude that there has been a serious deviation in the judgment of the US policy research community on China. Moreover, the existence of this problem is no longer a matter of one day or two days.

Notably, the December 2017 Trump administration issued a national security strategy document ruling that China was "trying to replace the United States in the Indo-Pacific," which is clearly inconsistent with the facts. In addition, Bai Bangrui, who was praised by the Trump team as a "top China expert", was once known for the book "Centennial Marathon", but many of the contents of the book were unreliable. For example, the book quotes extensively from Poirot's hearsay in China, as if the book represented the policy thinking of Chinese policymakers. Anyone who knows or does a little bit about China's decision-making process knows that this is not the case. In the book, Mr. Blanc behaves like "discovering the great secrets of heaven," arguing that China has a strategy of "replacing the United States as a global superpower." Just by relying on hearsay rumors, if you don't do solid research, the difference here is a thousand miles.

In China-related matters, there has always been a group of "China observers" in the United States. Some of them belong to the "china contact faction" and some belong to the "hawks." In recent years, being tough on China has become the new "political correctness" of the United States. Conversely, if you are not tough, you are vulnerable to attack. On the question of how to deal with China, the United States has developed an atmosphere similar to the "McCarthyism" of that year. If you are "hard" and "ruthless" to China, you are easy to be affirmed, while if you are objective in your view of China, you are vulnerable to attack and are regarded as "embracing the panda faction." In this atmosphere, there are more people who could have expressed a more objective view on a certain issue than less, preferring not to speak out. As a result, American scholars who are truly more knowledgeable about China are often marginalized or self-marginalized. In china policy, what is gaining the upper hand is a group of so-called "strategic factions." They do not have a special study of China, but mostly only deductive reasoning based on a certain kind of "strategic thinking", and then put forward policy ideas and suggestions.

In a recent study tour in the United States, I learned that the number of students studying Chinese at the University of California, Berkeley, which ranks among the top universities in the United States and is one of the top universities in the United States, is declining, while the number of students learning Japanese and Korean/Korean is growing. This surprised me a lot. According to authoritative sources, this situation is most likely affected by the decline in Sino-US relations in recent years, and the bad atmosphere has also damaged the interest and enthusiasm of young students in learning Chinese. Clearly, this is a worrying trend. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of students learning Japanese and Korean languages may be that both Japan and South Korea are allies of the United States. Judging from the fund-raising of several country research centers in this period, donations from Japan and South Korea are generally accepted. Donations from China, whether private or not, must be marked with a big question mark, and may even be avoided. In this context, it is only natural that Chinese studies will also be negatively affected.

In fact, the American academic community has a very good tradition in Chinese studies. Fairbank, who is well known to people, made many Chinese friends, and during World War II, he also worked at the US Embassy in China to advise the US government. The subsequent Vogel is a legend. American scholars of East Asian studies are already very good at mastering one of the three main languages of Chinese, Japanese and Korean, while Vogel has mastered and can use two of them (Chinese and Japanese). There have been more than one monograph on Japanese studies and Chinese studies, and his works have been considered very deeply and are praised as classics. More recently, Lampton, and Ke Qingsheng, who is still in the Mesozoic Era, have also attached importance to field research on China. Ke Qingsheng can also give speeches in Chinese, which I have heard on the spot. All of these can be regarded as examples for American scholars studying China.

I can't speak Chinese, I can't do field research in China, so many times some people in the United States can only rely on imagination when they look at China. For example, on the topic of Xinjiang, if we temporarily put aside the malicious smear and slander of US politicians and the media, in the serious circle of scholars, there are actually many people who believe that China has "systematically violated human rights" in Xinjiang, which is very helpless. The so-called "large-scale violation of human rights" in Xinjiang, and even the so-called "genocide", is a non-existent thing, and it is not difficult to prove falsification, as long as you take a trip to Xinjiang with the attitude of finding out for the truth, you can find out. I hope that after the COVID-19 epidemic eases, people from all walks of life in the United States will be able to take a walk in Xinjiang and take a look at it to discern what the facts are.

In the 1950s, there was a "McCarthyism" in the United States, artificially creating a large number of imaginary "cases". In the red panic shrouded by "McCarthyism," a considerable number of Americans who know China and tell the truth have suffered injustices, lost public office, or fled away, and the US China policy has also embarked on the road of containing and resisting the embargo, which has lasted for many years. History has long proven that "McCarthyism" is completely wrong, but the consequences have already been inflicted.

Relatively speaking, the United States is a young country, and young people will lack a sense of history, which in turn will affect the absorption of historical lessons. After the United States hastily withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, some analysts believe that the United States will not conduct a deep reflection on this lesson. If that's the case, it's a pity. Experience is a wealth, whether it is a person or a country, you should learn something from your own experience to grow. The same is true in the analysis and judgment of today's China and the study of China policy. Not understanding China, misjudging China and its intentions, and making policies based solely on imagination can lead to big mistakes. (The author is a professor at Fudan University)