Author: Cui Jianshu, School of International Relations, National University of Defense Technology
Abstract: Regional country studies refer to systematic research on specific regions or countries with significant consistency using different disciplines such as linguistics, anthropology, and history. This research arose in the colonial era after the great geographical discovery, matured in the period of hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union, and developed in depth under the impetus of economic globalization. As far as the purpose of the research is concerned, the regional country studies in early Europe served the colonial development of the European powers; the regional country studies of the two camps of the United States and the Soviet Union served the hegemonic struggle; after the end of the Cold War, with the advancement of globalization and the increasingly serious challenges of global problems, regional country studies represented by China paid more attention to solving global problems. In terms of theory and practice, proficiency in local languages is the primary condition for conducting regional country studies, and the real maturity of regional country studies in China depends to a certain extent on the improvement of the teaching level of foreign Chinese and the deepening of research.
Keywords: regional country studies; colonial development; hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union; global issues
I. Introduction
Traditional academic research follows the "discipline system", such as ancient Chinese books are divided into four major departments: "classics", "history", "sub", "collection"; the university disciplines in medieval Europe were divided into four categories of literature, medicine, law and theology, and their Chinese belonged to the basic disciplines, mainly including grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. The regional country research that emerged after the Great Voyage broke down the traditional disciplinary barriers - it used different disciplinary methods such as linguistics, ethnology, anthropology, religion, geography, naturalism, political science, economics, sociology, history, etc., to conduct systematic research on specific regions or countries that have significant consistency in history, language, culture, etc., such as Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Russia, Japan, etc., thus forming a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field of knowledge. In the early American academic system, there were many names for "regional studies", such as "regional studies", "foreign area and language studies", "area study", "areal studies", "world area studies", "foreign area studies", "international and area" Studies", "international studies", etc., now generally use "area studies", but there are exceptions, such as Harvard University still uses "regional studies" (Niu Ke 2016). From the perspective of academic history, regional country studies appeared relatively early. Aristotle's "Political Science," which claims to be the "chronicle of wind and things" in the ancient Greek era, can be regarded as the pioneering work of regional country studies (Aquinas 2003: 181). However, the real sense of regional country studies began in the colonial era after the great geographical discovery, developed in the United States after World War II, with the advancement of globalization and the emergence of global problems, the breadth and depth of regional country studies have been further expanded, and the term "regional country studies" has gradually been used in those academic fields that are called "international", "world" and "foreign" studies.
Serving Colonial Development: The Rise of Regional Country Studies in Modern Europe
The primary impetus for the rise of regional country studies was the breaking of the medieval state of geographical isolation. Before the advent of the Age of Discovery, the world was divided into four major civilization zones due to geographical isolation — the Confucian civilization zone, the Hindu civilization zone, the Islamic civilization zone, and the European Christian civilization zone, in addition to a number of small civilization zones in the Americas and Africa that can be called "candlelight" civilization. The advent of the Age of Discovery broke down the geographical isolation between civilizations. "Towards 1500, after a thousand years of development and reorganization of European nations from the decline of the Roman Empire to the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire in the East", "the ties of the classical period have been loosened, the Pope is no longer an acceptable messenger of peace, and the idea of establishing an international code of law based on the will and sovereignty of the state is no longer possible" (Acton 2007:15), and the political, cultural, and social reorganization of Europe has accelerated. Unable to expand in Europe due to its geographical constraints, Portugal turned its attention overseas and embarked on a nationwide global expedition (Wallerstein 1998). After six rounds of overseas exploration and colonial expansion, Portugal extended its tentacles to Africa, Asia and the Americas. Driven by Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France, England and other countries have also begun overseas adventures.
Overseas expansion depends not only on hardware, but also on software, "knowledge." Samuel Johnson, in his novel The History of Rasselas: Prince of Abysnia (1759), raises the historical question of "what made Europeans so powerful?" Johnson's answer, borrowed from the novel's characters, is: "Knowledge always triumphs over ignorance, just as man can dominate other animals." (Chang Xiuming, 2010) Johnson's insight is an echo of the British philosopher Bacon's view that "knowledge is power." The same is true of the fact that, as Foucault concluded from his discursive analysis, power is "a creative web that permeates and intertwines throughout society", and that there is no power that does not involve knowledge, and that knowledge does not exercise power (Foucault 1980:119). After the discovery of geography, the biggest impetus for Europe to attach importance to regional country studies was to use "knowledge" to serve colonial expansion. In 1508, King Don Manuel of Portugal When Manuel sent Diogo Lopes de Sequeira to Malacca with his fleet, he also instructed him to gather intelligence about China, that is, "we must find out what is going on with the Chins, where they come from?" How far is the road? When did they come to Malacca or elsewhere where they traded? ...... Did they return home the year they came? Do they have agents or commercial stations in Malacca or other countries? Are they wealthy merchants? Are they cowardly or tough? Do they have weapons or artillery? After establishing contact with China in Portugal, Juan Gonsales de Mendoza, a Spanish Jesuit missionary of military origin, learned of the Catholic Church's eagerness to expand its power into China when he met with the Pope in 1583, but suffered from ignorance of China's history, culture, and society. He offered to the Pope the task of studying China. On the basis of extensive research on the letters, reports, and memoirs of European missionaries to China, he published a history of the Greater Chinese Empire in 1585, which conducted a more in-depth study of China's territory, history, culture, and language (Mendoza 1998). When Napoleon expeditioned to Egypt in 1798, there were 167 experts and scholars accompanying the army, who were responsible for collecting intelligence on the geography, biology, culture and ancient architecture of Egypt. The expedition, although unsuccessful, was a success in promoting regional country studies, as exemplified by the discovery of the Roseda Stone. Shang Bolian and others solved the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs by studying this stone tablet. Archaeological rubbings and other materials brought back by military scholars were later edited and published. This set of publications, entitled Egyptology, was a huge 23-volume publication that caused great repercussions in European academic circles. Shang Bolian and others solved the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and the publication of the Egyptian Chronicle marked the birth of Egyptology.
The event that best illustrates that "knowledge is power" was the visit of the British Macartney Mission to China. In 1792, the British government sent Macartney to China with a large number of experts proficient in military, astronomical, geographical, cartography, etc., who surveyed river channels, drew maps, and collected political and social intelligence on China along the way. Although Britain's diplomatic activities did not open the door to China, the "Diary of Macartney" written by Macartney, the "Record of the British Envoy's Visit to Qianlong" written by his deputy Staunton, and the "Record of China accompanying China" and "China Travels" written by attachés Anderson and Balau respectively enabled the British government to have a relatively reliable understanding of China and also obtained first-hand strategic intelligence about China. Through an analysis of the above strategic intelligence, Macartney argues that the Qing Empire had "vast superstructure foundations empty" and that "in fact the Empire has grown to the point of being overwhelmed and out of balance" and "will wither rapidly" (Macartney, Barrow 2019:29). On the other hand, the Qing government, until the outbreak of the First Opium War, still believed that the legs of the British were straight and that the servants could not rise from their own feet (Zhang Ming 2016:36). Western proverb: "The kingdom of the blind is king with one eye." Before the First Opium War, the British may have "half-understood" China, but the Qing government was completely ignorant of Britain. It can be said that the victory or defeat of the First Opium War can be predicted decades before.
Regional country studies in Europe also had the function of creating "legitimacy" for colonialism. The American scholar Edward W. Said clearly pointed out in his book "Orientalism" that "Orientalism" has "strong and arbitrary political overtones of European colonialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries", and this academic field "deals with the East by making statements related to the East, making authoritative judgments about the Orient, describing, teaching, colonizing, and ruling the Orient." In short, see Orientalism as a way for the West to control, rebuild, and king-in"(Sayyid 1999:3-4). Before and after the First Opium War, British academics described China as the "Opium Empire", that is, a semi-barbaric empire, and the only reasonable way to deal with barbarism was war. In other words, these studies created "legitimacy" for Britain to wage the Opium War against China.
The study of regional european countries, which began in the Age of Discovery, mainly served colonial development, and mainly paid attention to the customs and cultures, ruling methods, politics, physical geography and distribution of animals and plants of colonial objects in terms of research content. Therefore, the methods of linguistics, history and naturalism are used more in research methods. However, it should be pointed out that regional country studies in early Europe were still relatively fragmented, did not completely break the traditional disciplinary divisions in the higher education and research system, and did not form a formal regional country research system.
Serving the World: Regional Country Studies in the United States
Unlike the European regional country studies represented by Britain and France, which were limited to and served colonial expansion, the rise of regional country studies in the United States was caused by World War II. In 1935, although the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States funded Yale University to establish the Institute of International Relations to train experts on international issues who were proficient in regional affairs, the number of people trained was limited. According to statistics, in 1940, only about 200 of the 150,000 teachers in American universities were engaged in regional country studies. At that time, the United States' understanding of the outside world was mainly based on missionaries, diplomats, businessmen, travelers and journalists, and most of the knowledge provided by these people came from perceptual understanding rather than in-depth systematic research, so the United States' understanding of the outside world at that time was scattered and shallow, far from meeting the needs of the increasingly powerful Foreign Political and Economic Activities of the United States. After the outbreak of World War II, the United States' intelligence activities and foreign military operations urgently needed a large number of talents who were proficient in regional affairs, and the problem of insufficient training of talents in regional and national research at local universities was highlighted.
In June 1942, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the creation of the Office of Strategic Services, headed by William J. Donovan. Donovan organized the talent collected from universities across the Country into different regional groups and organized them to carry out intelligence work. After the war, Truman dissolved the Strategic Intelligence Agency, and these regional country researchers with extensive intelligence experience retired from active service and went to American universities to continue to study international issues. In addition, in order to quickly train qualified military and political officials in the occupied areas, the U.S. military launched regional affairs training programs based on local universities, including the Army Specialized Training Program and the Navy's School of Military Government and Administration. The Army Professional Training Program was established in the spring of 1943 with the participation of 227 universities or colleges. The Foreign Area and Language Study Curriculum under the program has trained tens of thousands of foreign language talents for the U.S. military. In addition to universities, academic groups such as the American Council of Learned Society, the National Research Council, and the Smithsonian Institution have also been included in the training system for military-local cooperation. Consortiums such as the Rockefeller Foundation provide financial support to these groups to help them develop regional affairs talents for the military. As a result, the power of the military, the intelligence of local universities, and the financial resources of foundations formed a close triangular relationship around the cultivation of training in wartime regional and country studies. These collaborations have provided a wealth of experience in postwar regional country studies in the United States, leaving a large amount of literature, training a large number of highly trained experts on regional issues, and stimulating a strong interest in regional affairs in American universities. In 1955, 8 regional comprehensive research projects carried out by 28 prestigious universities in the United States all originated from World War II (Liang Zhi 2010). It can be said that the Second World War laid the foundation for regional country studies at American universities.
After the end of World War II, the demand for regional country research talents in the United States not only did not decrease, but further increased. This situation arose first and foremost to meet the needs of US hegemonism. After the end of the war, American politics underwent a transformation, that is, from the pre-war anti-nationalism, anti-militarism and isolationist trinity of political forms to a national security-centered political form, the "national security state" came into being, and the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the War Mobilization Bureau, and the War Production Committee were established one after another. The establishment of a national security-type government was intended to compete with the Soviet Union for post-war world hegemony and oppose the so-called "infiltration" and "subversion" activities of the Soviet Union against the United States and American allies. In other words, in order to compete with the Soviet Union for hegemony, the United States must always pay attention to and react to changes in global events. This requires the United States to increase its study of regional issues, especially the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. In 1946, Columbia University recruited Gerod Robinson, former chief of the Soviet section of the Bureau of Strategic Intelligence, to form the Russian Institute. A significant proportion of the institute's students entered U.S. national security and diplomatic institutions, having a major impact on U.S. Soviet policy. Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley also established the Russian Research Center and the Slavic Institute (renamed the Slavic Research Center in 1956 and later renamed the Slavic and Eastern European Research Center). After 9/11, U.S. universities, think tanks, and regional country-specific research institutes at U.S. military academies focused on the Middle East and terrorism. As Trump defines China as a "strategic competitor" and judges the world strategic situation as "a major country returning to geopolitical competition", the US hegemonic protection strategy and how to curb China's rise are becoming the focus of regional country research in the United States. Second, in order to meet the needs of overseas troops, it is necessary to strengthen the study of countries that are friendly with the United States. Before World War II, the interest of the United States in foreign strategy was mainly concentrated in the Americas, and the United States pursued an "isolationist" policy toward Europe and an "open door" policy toward the Far East. At the end of World War II, the United States pushed its power globally, with more than 5,000 military bases and more than 9 million troops stationed around the world at its peak. After the war, the United States drastically reduced its military, but still retained more than 1,000 military bases overseas. Because the language and culture of the countries where the US troops are stationed are very different from those of the United States, in order to minimize friction or conflicts with the locals, the US government requires the garrison to "follow the customs of the locals and enter the soil to ask for prohibitions." However, the United States does not know very much about what kind of customs and taboos are in the garrison countries, so it is necessary to strengthen research. Finally, it was to respond to the needs of the post-war national liberation movement. World War II dealt a heavy blow to the old colonial powers of Europe, and national liberation movements formed a galloping and victorious momentum in Asia, Latin America and Africa. For these newly independent countries, the United States and the Soviet Union fought with all their might. Out of strategic interests, the United States is particularly concerned about what kind of political system these countries that have achieved national independence will adopt, what kind of development path they will choose, and what kind of challenges these countries will encounter in the process of modernization. Answering these questions is also inseparable from the study of these countries. In the case of African studies, for example, there were only 20 African researchers in the United States in 1950, which increased to 200 in 1960, and 7 universities could award master's degrees in African studies (Robinson 2003). Similarly, due to the rapid development of national liberation movements in the Middle East, coupled with the rise of the strategic position of petroleum resources and the insoluble internal conflicts in the region, Middle East studies have been heating up since the establishment of the Middle East Institute at American universities in 1946, and by 1973 the number of researchers in this area increased to 1630 (Kramer 2001:5-12).
Compared with the previous regional country studies of European countries represented by Britain and France, the relevant research in the United States is more organized, the degree of military-civilian integration is higher, the financial support is also greater, and the research method emphasizes the behaviorist orientation of social science and pursues precision. In terms of the organization of regional country studies, as early as World War II, the U.S. Council for Social Sciences established the Committee on World Area Research in the Social Sciences, which was later renamed the Committee on World Area Research. It aims to use the academic community to plan and promote regional country research in the United States. At the governmental level, the U.S. government enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which encouraged the federal government to enter into contracts with local universities to establish regional country research institutes, and in 1966, the U.S. government introduced the International Education Act (Bendix 2003), which aims to enhance the understanding of American students about foreign countries and to provide training for students to work abroad. The U.S. government and civil society organizations have never skimped money on regional country research. In 1966, the U.S. International Education Act authorized the U.S. government to provide $131 million in funding for regional country research at U.S. universities; the Ford Foundation in the United States used $270 million in funding for regional country research and related programs from 1951 to 1966 (Liang Zhi 2010); and rand Corporation, a well-known U.S. think tank, had $345 million in revenue in 2019, of which 76% was used for project research. In terms of regional country research division of labor and cooperation, the United States has formed a pattern of close military-civilian integration and universities and think tanks sharing heavy responsibilities. The United States is the dominant player in the current international order, the US military's overseas bases are almost all over the world, the US multinational companies are all over the world, and the US capital market is integrated with other countries, which determines that the United States from the military to the civilian, from top to bottom, there is a consensus in understanding the world, understanding the world and dominating other countries, and it also determines that the United States needs to cooperate closely in the study of regional country issues. As soon as World War II ended, the U.S. Air Force, at the suggestion of von Carmen, set up a "Rand Plan", the predecessor of the RAND Corporation (Abez 2009:7). After the RAND Corporation became an independent think tank in 1948, it mainly served the military, advising it on security matters. The success of the RAND Corporation attracted many imitators, and nearly 2,000 think tanks of all sizes were established in the United States, and a considerable number of them focused on regional affairs, such as the famous Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The former is mainly engaged in the study of real regional issues and serves national decision-making or an interest group; the latter also undertakes the task of cultivating talents in addition to the study of practical problems. It is worth noting that due to the openness of American politics, the United States has also formed a job transfer mechanism between government officials, think tank researchers and university professors, the so-called "revolving door". Kissinger is one of the most prominent and prominent, teaching at Harvard University in his early years, then abandoning politics and becoming the U.S. National Security Adviser (now the U.S. President's Assistant to National Security Affairs) and secretary of state, and then quit politics and then moved to think tanks and business. Unlike the use of anthropological and naturalistic research methods in early modern Europe, regional country studies in the United States gathered a group of specialized social science scholars who "have full confidence in the scientific quality and public utility of the social sciences, but also feel anxious that the 'legitimacy' of the social sciences as sciences is widely questioned and denigrated in American society" (Niu Ke 2016:20). The confidence and anxiety of researchers on regional country issues in the United States have led to a preference for interdisciplinary integration and empirical research in their research orientation. The Hamilton Report, which plans regional country studies in the United States, argues that "effective research and teaching in any region must presuppose the full mobilization of anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians, political scientists, social psychologists, and sociologists who have a thorough understanding of a particular region", in other words, "regional studies must represent all social and humanities" (quoted from Niu Ke 2016:21).
Exploring Solutions to "Global Problems": Regional Country Studies in the Context of Globalization Represented by China
After the 1970s, especially after the end of the Cold War, the typical characteristics of world political development were the surge of globalization and the prominence of global problems.
The American scholar Immanuel Wallerstein argues that globalization began in the 15th century from the perspective of the formation of the modern world system. In pre-modern society before the 16th century, there were many "world empires" in the world, but there was no corresponding "world economy"; from the 16th century, under the impetus of the capitalist mode of production, the world economic system began to emerge and develop, and the formation process of the world economic system was also the process of "globalization" (Wallerstein 1998). Similar to Wallerstein's view, Thomas Friedman agreed that globalization began with the Great Discovery of Geography. He divided the historical evolution of globalization into three phases: 1) The 1.0 version of globalization lasted from the Great Discovery of Geography in 1492 to 1800. "During this period, influenced by religion or imperialism (or a combination of both), states and governments used violence to tear down barriers and merge parts of the world into one." (Friedman 2006:8) 2) Version 2.0 of globalization lasted from around 1800 to 2000. "During this period, the main force driving global integration was multinational corporations, which went abroad in search of markets and labour." (Friedman 2006:8) Among them, the steam revolution brought about by the first industrial revolution reduced transportation costs, while the information technology such as telephone, telegraph, satellite, and optical fiber that appeared after the second industrial revolution reduced communication costs and increased communication speeds, thus greatly promoting the integration process of the global economy. 3) After 2000, human society entered the 3.0 version of globalization, and the "global village" became the "earth office". "If the main driving force of the Globalization 1.0 version is the state, and the main driving force of Globalization 2.0 is the company, then the unique driving force of Globalization 3.0 is the cooperation and competition of individuals on a global scale." (Friedman 2006: 9) However, in terms of conceptual history, the term "globalization" appeared in 1943 and became an academic term after 1972 (Delbruck 1993). Globalization is the most solid cornerstone of the current prosperity and overall peace of the world economy. Friedman even optimistically argues that globalization has eliminated not only geographical boundaries but also human boundaries, "tending to transform all enemies and friends into 'competitors'" and that "no two countries with McDonald's have fought each other" (Cai Aimei 2004). However, from a dialectical point of view, global problems represented by global warming, global pollution and international terrorism are the inevitable products of economic globalization. Global warming directly endangers the survival of mankind in the future; the global pollution problem reduces the quality of human life and endangers human health; and the global spread of international terrorist activities endangers the safety of human life. In addition, the drug problem, transnational crime, refugee problems, etc. are also to some extent the negative consequences of globalization. Global problems cannot be solved by the provision of "public goods" by hegemonic powers, and the emergence of the global turmoil arc is closely related to the so-called hegemonic security practiced by the United States in the Middle East. From the perspective of theoretical analysis and practical experience, solving global problems requires the cooperation of all countries and can only be resolved under the concept and framework of a true "community with a shared future for mankind". It is precisely in the context of the deepening of globalization and the increasingly serious global problems that regional country research has entered the third stage of development, that is, to explore the solution of global problems and establish the concept of "community with a shared future for mankind". China's great development in regional country research has been achieved in the above context.
China's regional country studies began in 1949, with china supported by the socialist camp led by the Soviet Union, but the capitalist camp led by the United States pursued a policy of total hostility to New China. In this context, the Foreign-related Departments of the Chinese Government and major institutions of higher learning began to carry out regional country-specific studies, the main research directions of which were the Soviet Union, the United States, Japan, and Europe, focusing on criticizing the decadence of the capitalist system in Western countries headed by the United States and exposing their imperialist ambitions for foreign expansion. In 1956, at the suggestion of Zhang Wentian, then executive vice minister of foreign affairs, and with the approval of the State Council, the Institute of International Relations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (renamed the Institute of International Relations in 1958, decoupled from the Chinese Academy of Sciences) was established to serve China's diplomacy. After the rupture of Sino-Soviet relations, the demand for regional country research in China surged.
In the winter of 1963, on the eve of premier Zhou Enlai's visit to fourteen countries in Asia and Africa, he personally presided over the convening of a forum among responsible comrades of relevant departments to discuss how to strengthen the study of foreign work. After the meeting, the results of the comprehensive discussion were given to the central authorities in a "Report on Strengthening the Study of Foreign Work." On December 30, 1963, Chairman Mao Zedong reviewed the report and personally wrote down a 200-word criticism. The first sentence says, "This document is good. "Full affirmation of the report. Subsequently, the report was transmitted to the whole country, together with Mao Zedong's criticism, as a document of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (Zhongfa [63] No. 866). (Zhao Baoxu 2004: 142)
The "Report on Strengthening the Study of Foreign Work" pointed out that at that time, there were too few regional national research institutions and researchers in the country, and there were no problems such as international politics in institutions of higher learning (except for the Foreign Affairs College) (Zhao Baoxu 2004). In accordance with chairman Mao Zedong's instructions and the above-mentioned documents of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Peking University, Chinese University, and Fudan University established the Department of International Politics, which was responsible for the teaching and research of North American affairs in Asia and Africa, Eastern Europe of the Soviet Union, and Western Europe respectively (Zhao Baoxu 2004); An important step has been taken in the cultivation and research of regional country issues in China (Peng Shuzhi 1992). After China's reform and opening up in 1978, regional country research ushered in a stage of great development. The China Institute of Contemporary International Relations was formally established in 1980 (renamed the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations in 2003); in 1986, the rebuilt China Institute of International Relations (1973) was renamed the China Institute of International Studies; in addition, the border areas also set up corresponding regional country research institutions according to their respective geopolitical conditions and political, economic and cultural ties, such as the three northeastern provinces focusing on the Soviet Union and North Korea, Sichuan Province focusing on South Asian studies, and Fujian Province and Guangdong Province mainly studying Southeast Asian countries. Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Yunnan Province focus on research on Indochina Peninsula countries.
After entering the 21st century, with the significant enhancement of China's comprehensive national strength and international influence, especially after President Xi Jinping proposed the "Belt and Road" initiative in 2013, the urgency and importance of regional country research have been further emphasized. In 2011, the Ministry of Education launched the "National and Regional Research Incubation Base" project, and set up 37 bases in Universities such as Peking University, including 23 regional research bases and 14 country research bases. In 2015, the Ministry of Education proposed to increase the training of regional country research talents to better serve the national strategic needs. In 2016, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Several Opinions on Doing a Good Job in Opening Up Education to the Outside World in the New Era, requiring "improving the layout of national and regional research bases and strengthening research on international issues". Under the needs of the situation and the promotion of higher authorities, Chinese universities have set up regional country-specific research institutions. For example, Peking University, as an important center of regional country research in China, has made regional country studies an important part of the construction of first-class universities, and has established regional and country research committees to formulate development plans, guide institutional settings and promote project research. In addition, China's new think tank construction has also made great achievements, and a considerable number of these think tanks are mainly engaged in regional country research.
China's regional country studies are driven by globalization and global issues, especially China's "Belt and Road" initiative, so there are significant differences in research orientation from those of the United States. The promotion of globalization and the resolution of global problems concern the interests of all countries and require the joint cooperation of all countries, and the "Belt and Road" initiative is an inevitable choice made by China to comply with the development trend of globalization. In other words, globalization will inevitably lead to a "community of human destiny" to deepen its advancement and the increasingly serious global problems, and the implementation of the "Belt and Road" initiative is China's initiative to take the lead in responding to and promoting the concept of "community of human destiny". This is why China's regional country studies focus more on cross-cultural understanding, international cooperation, and "international symbiosis" (Ren Xiao, 2015). It is worth noting that under the guidance of global issues, global regional research institutions are also paying more and more attention to global warming, environmental pollution, international terrorism and other issues, and research in these fields has received more and more project funding. For example, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and the Center for Climate and Security in the United States have both achieved fruitful results in climate change research.
5. Conclusion
Judging from the rise and evolution of regional country studies, it has gone through three stages: colonial development in the service of European powers, service for the United States to compete for hegemony, and service for solving global problems. With the advancement of globalization and China's increasing integration into the global economic system, the need for the convergence of sovereign national interests and cross-cultural understanding will further prompt the international academic community to pay more attention to regional country studies. Doing a good job of regional country studies must be based on proficiency in local languages, meticulous fieldwork on the ground, and interdisciplinary approaches (reprinted from Ren Xiao 2008:90). As far as China's current regional country research is concerned, the lack of language proficiency is the main obstacle restricting the in-depth advancement of research in this field. Perspectives and approaches to foreign Chinese and literature can often play a unique role in regional country studies (Li Jianbo, Li Xiao'an, 2019). Scholars engaged in foreign Chinese language research, especially small language researchers, may wish to take regional country studies as the growth point of their academic careers.
Bibliography
Source: Journal of Zhejiang University of Foreign Chinese