作者：Cui Tiankai  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2013/12/4

旧文章ID：15806

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The Carter Center Forum on U.S.-China Relations, November 11-12, 2013. 

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/2/26

旧文章ID：15805

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/3/5

旧文章ID：15804

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/3/20

旧文章ID：15803

作者：Jimmy Carter  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/9/14

旧文章ID：15802

作者：Lang Yaoyuan  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

By Lang Yaoyuan

Since September, the US has shifted its diplomacy machine to high gears  against ISIS. Cooperation in anti-terrorism may become an opportunity for China and the US to build a new-type major country relationship.  Recently, US President Obama has gained majority domestic support to establish an international alliance, composed of more than 40 countries, determined to eradicate ISIS, the most savage terrorist group in the contemporary world. In China’s blogosphere, most netizens have expressed strong outrage against ISIS’s anti-humanitarian crimes and vowed to support the US in its efforts against ISIS. However, there are also a few individuals who bear schadenfreude, holding the opinion that “our enemy’s enemy is our friend”. We Chinese should have a sense of justice and should not tramp on human conscience out of a difference in ideology and cold-war mentality.  The extremist ISIS elements should be regarded as common enemies of humankind.

ISIS members sent chills down the spines of the American public by cruelly beheading an American journalist in front of TV cameras. Today they announced to have beheaded a British hostage who had engaged in humanitarian aid.  Members of ISIS have committed uncountable crimes, not only killing American and British hostages, but also killing non-Muslims and abusing women and children.  They equal killing to charisma.  They not only vow to attack the US and Russia but also threaten to expand their retaliation to countries and regions including China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Tunisia.  The Phoenix Weekly, in a recent cover story, quoted al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, as saying that “Muslims have been deprived of their rights. Look at Central Africa and Burma, they are just the tip of the iceberg of their plights.  Allah, we will have revenge!” If justice does not overpower savagery, savagery will only become rampant. In the eyes of American officials, fighting ISIS should be a new overlapping interest point between the US and China.  When the US President’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice, on her trip to Beijing, filled with hope, requested China to assist Obama and the alliance in fighting ISIS, China only responded with “we are interested” rather than making any commitment.  I think that such lukewarm gesture reflects the lacking in sense of moral and diplomatic charisma, which a responsible major power should possess. The new diplomatic strategy endorsed by President Xi Jinping advocates a “community of common destiny” – a new type of major country relationship based on equality, mutual trust, mutual respect and win-win principles, breaking the historical vicious cycle where a rising power and an established power must confront each other. In the words of President Xi, it is “non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win”.  Sincere embrace of the new rules of international relations will lead to positive-sum game and win-win will lead to the discarding of cold-war mentality and zero-sum game.  Facing the world’s common enemy, terrorist group ISIS, if China adopts an onlooker position and inactive policy, or even feeling schadenfreude for the US, how can President Xi’s  new diplomatic strategy be justified? How can China revert the negative perception of “selfish, indifferent, and irresponsible ” in the West? The US-led alliance against ISIS is a road-show test for the prospect of China-US building a new type of major country relations. The Chinese government should adopt a policy of “high-profile support and moderate participation”, voicing support and taking action.

First, high-profile support is needed. Whether or not China decides to send troops to join the alliance, it should voice its support to the US in a high-profile way, for the following three considerations.

Firstly, for national security. Supporting the US alliance to eradicate ISIS is in line with China’s national security and conducive for the formation of a united China-US anti-terrorist front.  ISIS’s covet of China’s Xinjiang poses a threat to Chinese national security.  Leave ISIS to grow and expand, there will be unthinkable consequences.  The blood-hungry ISIS will not have mercy on China.  If Xinjiang separatist forces inside China gang up with ISIS, that will have even more severe consequences.

Secondly for international image. China should make its anti-terrorist position and determination clear to the US and to the world.  This would help China build an upright and responsible image in the international community and enhance China’s leadership and international reputation.

Thirdly for China-US mutual trust. Helping the Obama administration to get rid of ISIS will negate Obama’s comment about China being a free-rider. Out of moral concerns, the US will no longer create stumbling blocks for China in China’s neighboring regions.  A new-type major country relationship between China and the US depends on both sides being broad-minded.  Don’t let myopia and misperception block your own vision.
Diplomacy is not only the play of power, but also the art of balance and the wisdom of trade-off. In China’s peaceful rise, China-US relations are the most important bilateral relations. President Xi has emphasized the application of Chinese wisdom to dissolve the Thucydides trap.  Confrontation between a rising power and an established power results from misconceptions of the international situation.  To build a new type of major country relations, both sides need to understand that today’s international environment is completely different from that of the past.  To avoid the historical trap of confrontation among major powers, we must build a new type of security system based on mutual security and get out of the security dilemma.

Because of domestic political pressures, lack of political capital, and its past failure in Iraq, the US is only able to combat ISIS in a limited capacity. As such, Washington will require greater cooperation from other powers. As the most important bilateral relationship in today’s world, the relationship between the United States and China needs greater stability and cooperation. Combating ISIS together provides such an opportunity. China should seize every chance to cultivate trust between the two nations, and endeavor to avoid suspicion and hostility between itself and the United States. This means neither bowing nor scraping in deference. On its rise to power, not only does China need to learn how to stand eye to eye with the United States; it needs to learn how to walk hand in hand. China not only needs the courage to compete with the superpower that is the United States, but it also needs to develop a sophisticated acumen to cooperate as well. For the US, a lack of cooperation between the two nations may be nothing but an inconvenience, but for China, a lack of cooperation will prove extremely troublesome.

Secondly, moderate participation is required. Through moderate participation, China offers high-profile cooperation in fighting ISIS. This will not necessarily mean that China will put boots on the ground in Iraq, nor will it mean that China approves of the US’s Iraq policy. While participating, China should keep in mind three primary goals for which it will assist the effort against ISIS.

The first goal for China in cooperating against ISIS is to boost China’s global image and support and enhance its role as a world leader. Though China may support the US in leading the fight against ISIS, it will not necessarily mean that China approves of US policies in Iraq. It must be made clear that the US is solely responsible for the current turmoil in Iraq, and that it should not seize the chance to throw the burden of Iraq to the UN or drag other countries into the chaos.

The second goal for China should be to not send it’s military to join in US air strikes, but instead offer support to the United Nations Security Council in logistics, coordination, and intelligence. Once the conflict has died down, China can contribute immensely to reconstruction efforts. Furthermore, the fight against ISIS will provide invaluable experience to the Chinese military, giving it training to protect the interests of protecting Chinese interests in foreign countries.

The third goal is distinction between anti-terrorist war and subversion. China should support the US in air strike against ISIS, but it should not allow the United States to escalate the anti-terrorist operation to the point where the United States seeks to attack and subvert the Assad regime.

There is no lack of precedent for China sending troops abroad. In recent years, China has sent warships to the Gulf of Aden as well as Somalia to carry out escort missions and protect vessels from pirates. Last year, the Chinese military sent troops to participate in the peacekeeping operation for the first time , making the endeavor an excellent contribution in peace keeping and regional stability. Furthermore, China can prove itself as a responsible country in fulfilling international obligations. With the aim of dedication to peace and a just cause, the Chinese army has made a great contribution in improving China’s image in the world stage.

Chinese diplomacy should have deep strategic insights in regards to international incidents, as well as long-term strategic goals for an overall approach to foreign affairs. Such goals should not only be appropriate for the courage and insight of a great power, but also demonstrate the will and tenacity of a great power. Therefore, in response to the United States invitation to form a group to fight ISIS, China should not shy away with an indifferent attitude or even pursue a policy of supposed moderation. It would be a huge diplomatic mistake if China loses this chance to prove itself.

In one of his recent articles, Henry Kissinger wrote that “In a sense, a new world order is being formed, in which the key is the relationship between China and the United States. Neither China nor the United States is capable of solving problems by itself. Cooperation is the only way to succeed. It is not easy for China and the United States to cooperate because of the two countries’ differences in history and in the way of doing things. Based on my understanding of Chinese government and Chinese people, I believe that the reform that China is currently undergoing, in combination with the change that has been brought to the U.S. by reality,  has established a basis for dialogue and cooperation between the two countries. I’m deeply convinced that the two great powers can work hand in hand in the new world order.”

Lang Yaoyuan is an independent commentator and a marketing expert in China.

Translated from Chinese by Edward and Elizabeth. The original article is here:

http://www.chinaelections.com/article/1944/233279.html

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/9/26

旧文章ID：15801

作者：Hu Angang  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Is the United States really in decline? Is the decline a temporary one or a long-term one? What are the factors causing the decline? If the U.S. continues its decline, what are the consequences? For China, how should we seize the strategic opportunities, enhance our strategic capabilities, and take advantage of the trend to build a new type of major country relations?

Over 20 years ago, with the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. became the sole superpower hegemon in the world. Until the 1990’s, the U.S. sustained a rather high growth rate, and its economic indicators as a share in the world’s total were relatively stable.  The United States’ share of world GDP rose from 26.1% in 1990 to 30.8% in 2000.  In the first decade of the 21st century, however, its share of world GDP decreased to 22.0% in 2012, down 8.8 percentage points from the year 2000.  On the other hand, the first decade of the 21st century was a major era in the history of China’s rapid rise. In that ten-year span, China’s share of world GDP rose from 3.7% in 2000 to 11.6% in 2012.

What are the factors causing the decline of the U.S. as a world power?

First, it is the complacent and arrogant attitude of the U.S. Since China is still a developing country, it is not in a position to appear superior to others, but rather is always humble and cautious. On the contrary, the highly developed United States is very prideful of its accomplishments and looks at China’s progress with contempt.  From a cultural perspective, modesty is a Chinese virtue, while pride is an American virtue. From the perspective of cultural exchange, China is keen to learn from the U.S., while the U.S. has never thought to learn from China. This is the cultural root cause for the U.S. decline.

The second cause of the United States’ decline is the American obsession with war and military intervention.  Historically, whenever the U.S. started a war, its share of world GDP inevitably decreased. According to Angus Maddison’s statistics based on the value of constant 1990 U.S. dollars, the U.S.’s share of world GDP decreased 0.8 percentage points after the Korean War (1950-1955). After the Vietnam War, it decreased 3.1 percentage points. Yet the U.S. has yet to learn any lessons from history.  In the 21st century, during the first term of President George W. Bush alone, the U.S. launched two wars over the events on September 11th, namely the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.  Based on the value of the U.S. dollar in 1990, the U.S.’s share of world GDP decreased 3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2008.  The cost of the two wars are much higher than that of the Vietnam War, and they have served to accelerate the decline of the U.S.

Thirdly, it is the economic crisis resulting from American capitalism.  American capitalism has the innate and inevitable potential for economic crises.  Historically, there was the Great Depression, which evolved from a U.S. crisis into a global crisis.  In 2005 and 2006, the real estate bubble burst and the default rate rose sharply.  Mortgage-backed securities lost the bulk of their value.  In 2007, the New Century Financial Corporation, the second largest subprime mortgage lender in the U.S., went bankrupt, signaling the expansion of the crisis from the real estate industry to the financial industry and the escalation to a world financial crisis.  Even though the U.S. economy has recovered to a certain degree, it is still living under the shadow of an impending financial crisis.

Lastly, it is the excessive military spending of the U.S. From 2000 to 2010, the U.S. military spending stood above 40% of the world’s total.  U.S. military spending peaked in 2005 when it reached 44.9%, or 1.6 times of United State’s share of global GDP, or 5.2 times of the United States’ share of global exports.  Even when it fell to 39.1% in 2012, it still represented 1.78 times of the United States’ share of global GDP (which was 22.0%).  Paul Kennedy said that if a country spends the majority of its resources on military expenditures rather than wealth creation, it will very likely weaken that country in the long run.

Competition between countries ultimately boils down to the competition between the institutions they represent.  American capitalism, which replaced feudalism more than 200 years ago, transformed the United States from a untouched, undeveloped land to the most advanced and powerful country in the world. But the structural problems inherent in the American system, namely aging, petrification, and failure to catch up with time, have put the U.S. in decline.  The People’s Republic of China, founded only a few decades ago, have established a modern socialist institution.  Deng Xiaoping’s reforms re-invented socialism as an institution and made socialism demonstrate once again its superiority over American capitalism.  As a new type of socialist major power, China continues to be innovative while staying humble in attitude, keeping itself abreast of modern time.

Hu Angang is a professor in economics at Tsinghua University and Director of the Center for China Study at Tsinghua-CAS (Chinese Academy of Sciences). He is known in China for his strong support of socialism and the Chinese Communist Party.

By HU ANGANG in China Elections

Translated from Chinese by LI ZHIFENG

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/10/1

旧文章ID：15800

作者：Travis Miller  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

By TRAVIS M. MILLER October 15, 2014

This series has focused on the gap in managing the 2014 outbreak of the Ebola virus, describing a potential cooperation between the U.S. and China in containing and preventing the spread of the disease. The first installment noted the differing intentions that may influence why the U.S. and China each have a multitude of interests in combating the disease. The second part of the series was meant to illustrate the individual expertise that both states possess in disease containment/prevention practices. The purpose of this conclusion is to examine the arguments against a bilateral U.S.-China Ebola strategy, outlining the issues that could potentially arise if such a path were taken and how each state could manage conflicts that may occur.

POLICY GOING FORWARD

In the case of fighting Ebola, the compatibility of capabilities between the U.S. and China could take a key role in facilitating a major breakthrough in the ongoing struggle. For China, lessons learned in high-level coordination across a vast land for principles of containment would initiate the counterattack against Ebola. The basic reproduction value that measures the amount of humans that one person with a particular disease is expected to infect, prior to recovering or death, is measured at 1.8 individuals for Ebola, a number closer to the seasonal flu (1.3) than to S.A.R.S. (3.5) Considering the initial debacles of fighting S.A.R.S. in China and the swiftness of their recovery to contain the spread of the illness, particularly given its relatively elevated basic reproduction value and the number of urban areas with high levels of population concentration in China, curbing the spread of Ebola should be a formidable, but manageable, task. American officials and experts from NGO’s can be enlisted to handle the finance side, funneling aid from abroad to Chinese directors and international medical volunteers in the field. As the effort to contain the virus is conducted, research institutions across the globe may continue research on finding a solution to combating the virus (particularly in the U.S. where the experimental Ebola treatment ZMapp is being produced). This two-pronged approach will capitalize on the strengths of both states to bring containment to the disease, a much-needed development as the death toll continues to climb daily across West Africa.

There are potential issues in this scenario that would have to be resolved internally between the states and externally with the African people. First, the containment and treatment phases will have to remain separate to avoid potential disputes concerning ownership over the pharmaceutical outcome. If Americans commit to the finance side of the containment phase, producing funding for Chinese experts on the ground, this will be seen as a shared effort on behalf of both states. It should be understood that the second phase, treatment, is the continuation of the same healthy race between scientists and medical researchers worldwide to develop new and innovative treatments that has persisted for decades. While the U.S. has certain advantages in the medical research realm (as mentioned previously), a lack of deference to one nation or another on the question of Ebola treatment allows questions over profit from a pharmaceutical to be null and void.

Questions concerning who will lead this effort between the U.S. and China can be mitigated to a degree through the two-pronged approach. By treating cooperation as a dual-faceted operation, instances of organizational disputes over power and bureaucracy will be less frequent. By allowing a U.S.-led administrative/finance division and a Chinese-led containment division with independent functions, both states may proceed unencumbered. Volunteer foreign medical aid workers will interact with both divisions but each state will be responsible in maintaining a sense of equal power within the operation as a whole.

A second potential issue that will have to be resolved is more pressing and involves African states allowing this joint effort to take place within their borders. To avoid the potential distrust and enmity towards a foreign-led group practicing certain containment tactics such as quarantining, the Chinese containment division will need to rely on training African personnel in the field. This will involve working directly with states and their citizens to structure an atmosphere conducive to this approach. This will likely be the most difficult diplomatic blockade in the entire operation, but given that military personnel from the United Kingdom and the U.S. are now operating in the region, the likelihood of allowing such a large-scale containment operation seems quite high at this juncture.

One final contention stemming more broadly from the pursuit of bilateral aid initiatives is their ability to inhibit the capacity of IO’s in their continued growth and development. In order for IO’s to progress into outlets that can successfully manage humanitarian crises, they need the full support of the states that back them during these times of emergency. Yet if it is in the best interest of a state to act bilaterally, then IO’s are never granted the opportunity to act in a proficient manner. This is the unfortunate paradox that the world must deal with as attempts to delegate responsibilities upwards from state governments to international bodies clash with the traditional notions of sovereignty. States in coming decades will be forced to decide between investing in norms of international governance or bypassing them in favor of unilateral or multilateral solutions that command less of an international consensus. Leaders will have to determine whether or not to reform the bureaucratic hindrances of IO’s, and in making such decisions, whether or not to react to future humanitarian dilemmas with the full scope of their capabilities. No matter their decisions, it is imperative for capable governments to realize that not only is the clock ticking as the world watches the Ebola virus spread across the African continent, but unfortunately the death toll is as well. Perhaps the most desirable solution to the crisis is simply the quickest.

NOTE: The content of this work is the author’s opinion and does not reflect the position of the Carter Center.

REFERENCES
“Assessed Contributions Payable by Member States and Associate Members – 2012 2013.” (n.d.): n. pag. WHO. World Health Organization. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Brautigam, Deborah. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Caulderwood, Kathleen. “Ebola Outbreak 2014: China Adds To International Aid Efforts.” International Business Times. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Chakma, Justin, Gordon H. Sun, Jeffrey D. Steinberg, Stephen M. Sammut, and Reshma Jagsi. “Asia’s Ascent — Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures.” NEJM.org. The New England Journal of Medicine, 02 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Chan, L. H., P. K. Lee, and G. Chan. “China Engages Global Health Governance: Processes and Dilemmas.” Global Public Health 4.1 (2009): 1-30. Web.

“China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News – CCTV.com English.” China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News. China Central Television, 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Chinese Researchers Develop H7N9 Flu Vaccine.” CCTV News. China Central Television, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

“Fast Facts: United States Travel and Tourism Industry – 2013.” National Travel and Tourism Office (2014): n. pag.Travel.trade.gov. National Travel and Tourism Office, May 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Fever Rising.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Finley, JC. “WHO: Ebola Outbreak Can Be Stopped in 6-9 Months.” UPI. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

FlorCruz, Michelle. “China’s Response To H7N9 Bird Flu Is Rapid, Unlike Previous SARS Epidemic.” International Business Times. N.p., 05 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2013. Rep. Global Humanitarian Assistance, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Knobler, Stacey. Learning from SARS: Preparing for the next Disease Outbreak: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2004. Print.

Lianxing, Li. “Outbreak Making Chinese Investors Skittish.” Asia News Network. N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Osborne, Hannah. “H7N9 Bird Flu ‘One of Most Lethal Influenza Viruses’ and Greater Risk than H5N1 [VIDEO].” International Business Times RSS. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Silver, Nate. “Role Models.” The Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail–but Some Don’t. New York: Penguin, 2012. N. pag. Print.

“Summary of Probable SARS Cases with Onset of Illness from 1 November 2002 to 31 July 2003.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Sun, Lena H., and Juliet Eilperin. “Obama: U.S. Military to Provide Equipment, Resources to Battle Ebola Epidemic in Africa.”Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Tiezzi, Shannon. “Armed With SARS Lessons, China Fights H7N9 Bird Flu.” The Diplomat. N.p., 07 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

“The Top 100 NGOs 2013.” The Global Journal 15 (2013): n. pag. Print.

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/10/15

旧文章ID：15799

作者：Travis Miller  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

By TRAVIS M. MILLER October 14, 2014

In the first part of this series, the idea of a bilateral U.S.-China response to the Ebola Crisis in Africa was posed. It was noted that though the intentions of both the U.S. and China in providing aid to Africa may raise eyebrows on both sides of the Pacific, the national interests of both states in this circumstance have a remarkable and rare overlap. Questions of these motivations may fuel some domestic opposition. In response, it should be expressed to Chinese and U.S. citizens that at the end of the day, regardless of whether it be for humanitarian, economic, or soft power purposes, both the U.S. and China share a similar desire for the Ebola virus to be contained and eliminated.

A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONTAINMENT

Once the intentions of the U.S. and China in Africa are set aside, the individual expertise of both states in combating the Ebola virus begin to rise into clarity. For China, a nation whose citizens compose nearly one-fifth the world’s total population, with an ever-increasing urban concentration, the spread of infectious disease has long been more than just a distant threat from an exotic land. Already in the twenty-first century has the state seen the outbreak of two infectious diseases, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (S.A.R.S.) and H7N9 (avian influenza), that have threatened to impact massive population centers and spread beyond China’s borders. China’s approach to both outbreaks was markedly different. S.A.R.S. represented a turbulent trial that tested the inclinations of the Chinese government to censor information that may cause a stir amongst its citizens. Nearly a decade later, the outbreak of H7N9 demonstrated the successful application of the lessons learned from the mistakes made in combating S.A.R.S. and legitimized the Chinese government’s capability to coordinate a strong response in the public health sector.

Criticism concerning the withholding of information from the public and initial mismanagement of the S.A.R.S. outbreak by the Chinese government is not unfounded. However, the experience of handling a genuine public health issue provided the Chinese invaluable lessons that were quickly adapted in order to assure optimum containment of the epidemic. Massive quarantines within universities, villages, and other potential epicenters were mobilized soon after policy was enacted. Interdepartmental coordination was improved, as Vice Premier Wu Yi was placed in charge of S.A.R.S. Control and Prevention Headquarters, issuing sets of regulations and task forces from the provincial level to the country level. A fund totaling over US$1.1 billion was established by the central and local governments, and free healthcare treatment was provided for any patients suffering from S.A.R.S.

Though the Chinese government was initially slow to respond, bogged down by a transition in high-level leadership, the state was able to suppress the outbreak. The death total managed to stay in the hundreds worldwide. This is despite fears of a much larger pandemic deriving from initial reports of S.A.R.S. originating within Guangdong, a province of China with a population of around 105 million. Moreover, the Chinese were further successful in limiting the fatality rate to below seven percent; the majority of other states with a significant number of suspected S.A.R.S. patients typically saw a double-digit figure.

The lessons learned from the S.A.R.S. outbreak were successfully applied in combating H7N9, a strain of avian influenza not known to infect humans until reports of Chinese citizens suffering from the virus emerged in March 2013. As opposed to the S.A.R.S. outbreak, Chinese officials were noted for their transparency in reporting updates of cases concerning the H7N9 virus early on. Methods to contain the avian flu, including the closing of live poultry trading zones and the disposal of birds, products and transportation vehicles believed to have been exposed to the virus were deemed highly successful. The organizational coordination between state and local officials also marked a China with greater experience in containing virus spread, as the National Health Commission worked closely with local health officials across the country to file daily reports on any possible cases of the flu and develop plans for further prevention of exposure. The result was a limit to the virus’s exposure and subsequent death toll (unofficially at 120 as of April 2014). This is despite W.H.O.’s Assistant Director-General for Health Security, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, claiming in 2013 that H7N9 “is definitely one of the most lethal influenza viruses we have seen so far.” Furthermore, in October 2013 the Chinese government announced the completion of a vaccination for H7N9, though containment of the virus has led to a hold on administering it nationwide. The Chinese government’s handling of the H7N9 influenza has been internationally lauded as a successful venture in containing a virus and its ability to wreak havoc at a national and international level.

THE AMERICAN RESEARCH MACHINE

 Prevention is a strong facet of the American health system, and despite the nearly seventy million foreign visitors that traveled to the country in 2013, the nation has remained relatively immune from many of the diseases that have afflicted other regions across the globe. Paradoxically, prevention can be a detrimental conquest when it comes to fighting an outbreak of a disease. For a state with the bulk of its medical staff trained in combating transmission through textbook methods and the C.D.C.-developed emergency plans, the amount of practical experience is limited to those who have traveled abroad to work in regions that have witnessed such unfortunate epidemics.

So what public health practices can the U.S. claim to have perfected? Unfortunately, the answer to that is very few. But there are areas of interest that the U.S. is remarkably proficient in. As aforementioned, one such strength of the U.S. is its ability to generate massive amounts of humanitarian aid funding. From the span of 2003-2012, the U.S. government donated one-third of all humanitarian assistance given worldwide. Though some European states are noted for giving a higher percentage in terms of GNI (gross national income), the figures by volume are not even close (European Union institutions gave a total of $17 billion over this time, compared to $38.9 billion by the U.S.). Regardless of how this money is allocated once in the field, the sheer magnitude of such contribution potential is impressive.

Not only has the U.S. government shown the ability to establish a wide funding base, but humanitarian assistance from the U.S. private sector also plays a significant role. According to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Financial Tracking Service, since 2000 both the largest foundation donor (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and largest private sector donor (Business Roundtable) have originated from the U.S. Several quality non-governmental organizations have also found their base out of the U.S. The Global Journal’s 2013 ranking of the “Top 100 NGO’s” worldwide (based on criteria of innovation, transparency, efficiency, impact, and other assorted standards) found an astoundingly disproportionate thirty-three ranked NGO’s emanating from within the U.S. These include prominent organizations such as Mercy Corps, Partners in Health, International Rescue Committee, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, International Medical Corps and several others in a multitude of fields. These kinds of enterprises often feature individuals with high rates of in-field experience, and many of the more noteworthy U.S. groups benefit from strong donor bases and relatively wealthy endowments. The NGO’s that mimic the U.S.’s success in the realm of donations must do so through their own groundwork and coordination for the solicitation of adequate financing, the unique skills and organizational commitment required to perform these tasks proving to be of the utmost value.

Another key facet to the U.S. humanitarian effort derives from the vast network of medical research institutions, scholarship and funding located within its borders. The New England Journal of Medicine stated that though declining, the U.S. share of global biomedical research and development expenditures was still set at 42.3% in 2012. Just as well, Forbes reported that of the approximately 3,000 biomedical academic research articles published in 2009, 40% emanated from the U.S. Large pharmaceutical companies from abroad are well-aware of the nation’s research strengths and have set up shop in the U.S. Novartis, a large Switzerland-based multinational pharmaceutical company, placed its research headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts near research powerhouses such as Harvard and M.I.T. This base of dynamic and influential research potential affords the U.S. an incomparable capacity to respond to global health crises like the Ebola virus with state-of-the-art biomedical solutions.

Despite this, it is almost certain that both states, along with the rest of the international community, will continue to race to develop their own pharmaceutical answer to Ebola while continuing to send unilateral humanitarian aid to Africa. Though this may wind up serving as a successful measure in assisting African nations stricken with Ebola, it would be wise to assess the respective expertise of the U.S. and China and ask ourselves, “To what extent could large-scale U.S.-China cooperation remedy what is quickly evolving into a global crisis?”

In tomorrow’s conclusion of this series, a policy proposal will be addressed to examine how the capacities of both states could shape what U.S.-China cooperation on Ebola would look like.

NOTE: The content of this work is the author’s opinion and does not reflect the position of the Carter Center.

REFERENCES
“Assessed Contributions Payable by Member States and Associate Members – 2012 2013.” (n.d.): n. pag. WHO. World Health Organization. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Brautigam, Deborah. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Caulderwood, Kathleen. “Ebola Outbreak 2014: China Adds To International Aid Efforts.” International Business Times. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Chakma, Justin, Gordon H. Sun, Jeffrey D. Steinberg, Stephen M. Sammut, and Reshma Jagsi. “Asia’s Ascent — Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures.” NEJM.org. The New England Journal of Medicine, 02 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Chan, L. H., P. K. Lee, and G. Chan. “China Engages Global Health Governance: Processes and Dilemmas.” Global Public Health 4.1 (2009): 1-30. Web.

“China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News – CCTV.com English.” China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News. China Central Television, 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Chinese Researchers Develop H7N9 Flu Vaccine.” CCTV News. China Central Television, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

“Fast Facts: United States Travel and Tourism Industry – 2013.” National Travel and Tourism Office (2014): n. pag.Travel.trade.gov. National Travel and Tourism Office, May 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Fever Rising.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Finley, JC. “WHO: Ebola Outbreak Can Be Stopped in 6-9 Months.” UPI. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

FlorCruz, Michelle. “China’s Response To H7N9 Bird Flu Is Rapid, Unlike Previous SARS Epidemic.” International Business Times. N.p., 05 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2013. Rep. Global Humanitarian Assistance, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Knobler, Stacey. Learning from SARS: Preparing for the next Disease Outbreak: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2004. Print.

Lianxing, Li. “Outbreak Making Chinese Investors Skittish.” Asia News Network. N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Osborne, Hannah. “H7N9 Bird Flu ‘One of Most Lethal Influenza Viruses’ and Greater Risk than H5N1 [VIDEO].” International Business Times RSS. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Silver, Nate. “Role Models.” The Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail–but Some Don’t. New York: Penguin, 2012. N. pag. Print.

“Summary of Probable SARS Cases with Onset of Illness from 1 November 2002 to 31 July 2003.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Sun, Lena H., and Juliet Eilperin. “Obama: U.S. Military to Provide Equipment, Resources to Battle Ebola Epidemic in Africa.”Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Tiezzi, Shannon. “Armed With SARS Lessons, China Fights H7N9 Bird Flu.” The Diplomat. N.p., 07 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

“The Top 100 NGOs 2013.” The Global Journal 15 (2013): n. pag. Print.

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/10/14

旧文章ID：15798

作者：Travis Miller  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

By TRAVIS M. MILLER October 13, 2014

As timetables for stopping the Ebola virus escalate and cost estimates skyrocket, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) has pleaded with the international community for resources to counter the spreading disease. From non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) to United Nations (U.N.) agencies and the private sector, the W.H.O. has requested aid and expertise from every conceivable outlet in its fight to stop Ebola. The response to calls by the W.H.O. (as well as Doctors Without Borders) for assistance have been met by largely unilateral efforts, with individual states sending relief in the form of supplies and medical workers from state- organizations such as the U.S. and China’s individual Centers for Disease Control (C.D.C.). Despite the spread of the disease developing into a truly international crisis, such a global response has the potential to cross the line from effective to impeding. The very nature of disease containment when addressing infectious disease requires the utmost coordination by the parties involved. Therefore, though numerous countries have rushed to administer aid to Ebola-stricken states, a concerted and focused effort will provide the best opportunity to minimize the extent of the crisis.

Yet while states still frequently act in a unilateral manner, many global issues do require greater action than individual states are willing to take on independently. However, if states would like to act around IO’s rather than with them, and still develop capable solutions, they could do so in bilateral engagements. These engagements would satisfy two common state interests. The first is that a bilateral initiative would limit some of the bureaucratic impediments that plague of organizations like the U.N., effectively cutting out the middleman. Just as well, bilateral programs would still allow states to pursue the relations initiatives that they so often seek, presenting aid packages internationally that create headlines more akin to “Country A and Country B cooperate to provide aid to Country C”, for example, as opposed to “The W.H.O. works with Country C to provide humanitarian assistance”. The benefits of bilateral humanitarian initiatives can thus be thought of as having the potential to satisfy national interests while simultaneously providing for the strongest capacity to respond to urgent humanitarian disasters. However, the crux of bilateral engagement relies on the alignment of national interests between the cooperative nations. This can be difficult for major powers, the states that often yield the greatest raw capability to assist in international crises.

Still, such difficulty should not be mistaken for impossibility. In fact, the recent Ebola crisis in West Africa provides an exemplary case in which the national interests of two major powers, the U.S. and China, are relatively aligned. Both states are concerned about the spread of the Ebola virus, and both would benefit from containment of the disease. One state has a multitude of economic investments that are potentially threatened by a pandemic. The other, while having some economic incentive, has a frequently-espoused commitment to human welfare and global stability to uphold. This series will examine these overlapping interests of the U.S. and Chinese governments in combating the spread of Ebola in Africa. Noted will be the individual expertise of both states that could best be aimed towards achieving the containment of present and future outbreaks in the region. The concluding policy recommendation will outline potential means of cooperative humanitarian effort as well as the benefits that cooperation would instill by satisfying national interests while simultaneously enhancing the welfare of the African people.

THE SPECTRUM OF INTENTIONS

While both China and the U.S. share an interest in containing the spread of infectious disease in Africa, their intentions for doing so may perhaps remain ideologically at odds. Such circumstances are hardly unique within this complex relationship, and with U.S.-China relations come decades of misperceptions and distrust of intentions. However, the scope of potential reasons on behalf of both states for desiring a cessation to the outbreak of Ebola and other deadly disease in Africa still each arrive at a conclusion that involves humanitarian action in some capacity.

The presence of Chinese investment on the continent of Africa is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Last year marked a fifth consecutive year that China remained Africa’s largest trade partner, and foreign direct investment from China to Africa was measured at US$15 billion in 2012. As trade and investment by the Chinese in Africa continues to increase immensely on an annual basis, such interdependency has established a need in fostering a stable environment for economic growth to persist. Funding and construction of infrastructure (China pledged US$20 billion for such activities alone in 2013) has created a two-fold benefit for the Chinese by both creating opportunities to earn government contracts from African states while also strengthening the means by which Chinese resource industries based out of the African continent can transport materials.

Some in the West, such as the European Parliament, have rushed to declare these practices as neo-colonialist, but the opposite end of the spectrum would cite an interest by the Chinese in forging stronger relations with unique and untapped foreign markets for the exportation of goods. As Deborah Brautagam notes in The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa, China’s approach is not solely focused on resource extraction but on developing business in the region. This process of the spread of capitalism is remarkably reminiscent of the Western economic ideologies advocated for hundreds of years; it is simply being conducted in exclusion of non-Western nations.

While infrastructure is crucial for industry to prosper, just as necessary are safe living conditions in which companies and workers are willing to brave thousands of miles to relocate to. With estimates of over one million Chinese currently living across the African continent, the push to attract greater business initiatives will require migrants to believe that they will prosper relatively uninhibited overseas. The Ebola crisis in West Africa has affected the ability of Chinese companies to conduct business in the region. A Chinese diplomat was quoted as claiming that while the nearly 1,500 Chinese workers in Liberia face little risk of exposure to Ebola, the disease has negatively impacted the operations of many Chinese businesses. Xue Xiaoming, vice-chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Nigeria, stated that many potential Chinese companies looking to invest in what has become Africa’s largest economy have put existing plans on hold in response to international airlines suspending flights to Ebola-affected countries.

This economic interest may have stirred up humanitarian aid by China in combating Ebola in West Africa. The relief efforts mark a rare action on their behalf when referring to overall global Chinese humanitarian aid. While China has quickly developed into the world’s second largest economy, the state ranked 29th in 2012 in international monetary humanitarian aid, remaining in stark contrast from its Western economic equivalents in terms of assistance. The continent of Africa represents a historical anomaly in traditional Chinese humanitarian efforts. For China, the state has dispatched over 20,000 medical practitioners to Africa dating back to Mao Zedong’s regime. Chinese workers worldwide administered over 240 million medical treatments in 71 countries, 45 of which located in Africa. These efforts were curbed under Deng Xiaoping when the state turned its efforts towards intensive economic development, perhaps a signal that the previous decades of work was not simply mercantilist policy but the result of humanitarian inspiration.

From the American perspective, the amount China has donated still reflects only a fraction of U.S. humanitarian monetary assistance. Even in West Africa, the U.S. (ranked 1st in 2012 in humanitarian assistance donations) allocated US$100 million to aid in the Ebola crisis through U.S.A.I.D. (United States Agency for International Development) as of September 2014, with congress assessing whether to send an additional amount in the form of C.D.C. personnel and equipment that would bring the overall total of U.S. aid to US$250 million. This is despite not possessing the same breadth of business interests as China in the region (only trading at a rate of nearly half that of China within the continent). However, the organizational purposes of U.S.A.I.D., “to end extreme poverty and to promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity”, reflect the myriad of intentions behind humanitarian aid donations backed by the U.S. government. Indeed, criticism has been levied against the American government from multiple angles, accusing the U.S. of overseeing the distribution of aid only to favorable regime-types or attaching political structural adjustment requirements in order to become a recipient. Still, regardless of motivations, both states have seemingly formed a stake in aiding the West African nations.

In the next part of this series, the expertise of both China and the U.S. in disease containment/prevention will be outlined to demonstrate the overlap of medical proficiencies.

NOTE: The content of this work is the author’s opinion and does not reflect the position of the Carter Center.

REFERENCES
“Assessed Contributions Payable by Member States and Associate Members – 2012 2013.” (n.d.): n. pag. WHO. World Health Organization. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Brautigam, Deborah. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Caulderwood, Kathleen. “Ebola Outbreak 2014: China Adds To International Aid Efforts.” International Business Times. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Chakma, Justin, Gordon H. Sun, Jeffrey D. Steinberg, Stephen M. Sammut, and Reshma Jagsi. “Asia’s Ascent — Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures.” NEJM.org. The New England Journal of Medicine, 02 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Chan, L. H., P. K. Lee, and G. Chan. “China Engages Global Health Governance: Processes and Dilemmas.” Global Public Health 4.1 (2009): 1-30. Web.

“China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News – CCTV.com English.” China Helps Africa Fight against Ebola Epidemic – CCTV News. China Central Television, 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Chinese Researchers Develop H7N9 Flu Vaccine.” CCTV News. China Central Television, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

“Fast Facts: United States Travel and Tourism Industry – 2013.” National Travel and Tourism Office (2014): n. pag.Travel.trade.gov. National Travel and Tourism Office, May 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

“Fever Rising.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Finley, JC. “WHO: Ebola Outbreak Can Be Stopped in 6-9 Months.” UPI. N.p., 03 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

FlorCruz, Michelle. “China’s Response To H7N9 Bird Flu Is Rapid, Unlike Previous SARS Epidemic.” International Business Times. N.p., 05 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2013. Rep. Global Humanitarian Assistance, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Knobler, Stacey. Learning from SARS: Preparing for the next Disease Outbreak: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2004. Print.

Lianxing, Li. “Outbreak Making Chinese Investors Skittish.” Asia News Network. N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Osborne, Hannah. “H7N9 Bird Flu ‘One of Most Lethal Influenza Viruses’ and Greater Risk than H5N1 [VIDEO].” International Business Times RSS. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.

Silver, Nate. “Role Models.” The Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail–but Some Don’t. New York: Penguin, 2012. N. pag. Print.

“Summary of Probable SARS Cases with Onset of Illness from 1 November 2002 to 31 July 2003.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.

Sun, Lena H., and Juliet Eilperin. “Obama: U.S. Military to Provide Equipment, Resources to Battle Ebola Epidemic in Africa.”Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Sept. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

Tiezzi, Shannon. “Armed With SARS Lessons, China Fights H7N9 Bird Flu.” The Diplomat. N.p., 07 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Sept. 2014.

“The Top 100 NGOs 2013.” The Global Journal 15 (2013): n. pag. Print.

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/10/13

旧文章ID：15797

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

In a collaborative event hosted by The Carter Center and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations (NCUSCR), former President Jimmy Carter fielded questions about the current and future state of the world’s most significant bilateral relationship. The event, “CHINA Town Hall, National Reflections, Local Connections” (CTH) was webcast live from Atlanta to over 70 venues across the U.S. This was the first time that the CTH was conducted in front of a live audience.

After an introduction by the new CEO of The Carter Center, Ambassador Mary Ann Peters, President Carter reflected fondly on his engagement with China over the past 35 years. He recalled his first contact with China via listening to Southern American missionaries, his getting to know more about China from his uncle, his first visit to China when the Chinese Communist Party was about to seize power from the Nationalists in 1949 and the memorable experiences from his efforts in normalizing U.S.-China relations alongside China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. He noted the serendipity of the overlapping numerous personal and national anniversaries that he and China both shared around the time of his most recent visit last month and recounted:

“[The timing of the trip] happened to be approaching my 90th birthday; it was also the 65th anniversary of my visiting China for the first time, the 65th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China being formed, the 35th anniversary of normalized diplomatic relations, and the 110th birthday of Deng Xiaoping….so we had a lot to celebrate, and it was a very pleasant and wonderful visit for me. I’ve been to China almost every year since I’ve been out of the White House, and I’ve met with Xi Jinping now four times, three times before he was the president of China. So I’ve had a wonderful relationship with China…”

Reminiscing on his presidency, Carter found an opportunity to cooperate with Deng Xiaoping “to sign an agreement with China to recognize it—Mainland China—as representative of the Chinese people in hopes that it would have good results.” And since then, “peace has prevailed in Asia. There hasn’t been another war, another armed conflict in Asia and the whole area progressed, I would say culturally and economically as well.”

Questions from the audiences across the nation ranged from current events to questions specifically recalling Carter’s term as president. Naturally, audience members were interested in the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, with NCUSCR president and moderator Steve Orlins posing a series of questions relating to the issue. Carter indicated that Obama should respect the sovereignty of China, and that for the United States to intervene would be a “violation”. He said that Beijing probably will not reverse its decision on how the next Hong Kong chief executive is going to be elected in 2017 but both sides can still work on how the 1,200 nomination committee members are chosen.

Other topics of conversation included the relationships that China had with other nations in the Pacific region, specifically Japan, Taiwan, North Korea, and South Korea. President Carter commented that China’s territorial disputes with neighboring nations will be resolved bilaterally and peacefully since interests in maintaining economic and trade relations will act as a barrier to conflict. As with previous CHINA Town Halls, people sent in questions about Chinese investment in developing countries (particularly in Africa), cyber warfare, global warming, and the appropriate actions the U.S. ought to take in response to developments in these arenas. In many of his responses, Carter noted that there was room for U.S.-China cooperation and urged for a “harmonious relationship” between the two.

Carter also reflected on the American perception of China’s government. Since the Xi Jinping administration is relatively new, Carter feels it unwise to deliberate on where it will take China in the coming years. Carter said President Xi Jinping is a strong leader, has vision and will certainly be responsive to both popular demand at home and the political trends of the world.

In response to a question, President Carter expressed his concern that both the American and the Chinese media outlets sometimes misrepresent each other and that American politicians tend to demonize China during the campaign season. He encouraged the leaders of both nations to address the issue.

President Carter believed meetings between top leaders of the U.S. and China are very conducive to the bilateral relationship. The Sunnylands Summit last year was a good start. There is high expectation about the upcoming meetings between President Obama and President Xi Jinping in November 2014 and January 2015. These meetings will be a good opportunity for the Obama administration to define what is the essence of the “pivot policy” since the United States has always been a Pacific power for the past century with many trade relations and military alliances. They will also provide a rare chance for President Obama to clarify his characterization of China as “a free-rider” in the past three decades when he was interviewed by the New York Times in August.

President Carter emphasized that the U.S. and China can work towards common goals for the betterment of their own bilateral relationship, and the benefit of the global community.

By Admin on October 20, 2014

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/10/20

旧文章ID：15796

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/11/3

旧文章ID：15795

作者：Zhou Xiaoping  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Dreams Shattered in America was written in 2013 by Zhou Xiaoping, who was relatively obscure at that time but has risen to overnight stardom recently as an internet writer since he was invited to meet with President Xi Jinping at a literature and art conference.  Following his meeting with President Xi, official media and Chinese websites have reprinted and reposted his articles nationwide. Zhou, with his nationalistic and patriotic writing, has appeared to be the Chinese government’s new face of internet propaganda.  However, Zhou and his articles have caused controversies; some regard him as a political speculator, writing to please the authorities.  In Dreams Shattered in America, Zhou, who has never been to the United States, depicts a U.S. where people live miserably, and declares the American Dream outdated, while calling for a greater China Dream. Notably, negative comments about Zhou and rebuttals to his article have been erased by Chinese censors.

“I followed you for thousands and thousands of miles, but you don’t really take it to heart.” Whenever I heard these lyrics in my childhood, I knew it was the TV drama “A Native of Beijing in New York” playing again. At the time, I did not really understand why even with aggressive American police, the high American crime rate, and nasty American food, Chinese people still blindly admire the United States. Later I realized, the United States has a lot of cars, massive amount of tall buildings, and color TVs… back then, we were so admiring and envious towards such an America! The process of pursuing a dream is strange, because when you are working hard toward that dream, you will often surpass the dream itself. Now it seems that the old “American Dream” is not big enough to fit the Chinese people’s eagerness, and it is time to pursue a bigger and more powerful “Chinese Dream”.

Nearly everybody in China participates in comparing China and the U.S.; the discussion has spread from the Internet to various newspapers and magazines over the years. However, due to the assessment of Internet “scholars” regarding freedom of the press, people cannot really see the truth, and it has produced a series of unrealistic “American Dreams”. In the American Dream built up by Internet “scholars”, the U.S. is a place where medical treatment, hospitalization, and education are free, and the prices of common goods and houses are extremely low. But I have been thinking, if that were the case, why would anybody go to the U.S. for business and sell products? Is America already practicing communism?

In recent years, whenever I talked to the study abroad students about America, we shared a feeling: as life becomes more comfortable, people tend to complain more, but when life becomes harsh they start to quiet down.

For example, those who complain how education is expensive in China, will become used to the unbelievably high tuition of an American university. When buying things in China, these students will never check the price; but when they are in the U.S., they suddenly learn to buy things only when they are on sale.

Those who used to complain about how school cafeteria food was really nasty would never take any steps to cook on their own. After enduring many days of hamburgers while studying in the U.S., they all learned to cook. Here, people would complain about not eating free-range chickens, but there they would be satisfied with chicken raised on artificial growth hormones.

Those who denounce the medical treatment expenses and the complicated procedure of seeing a doctor all learned to carry medicines with them. When they are sick, no doctors are needed at all: they would just take the medicine and push it through.

Those who complain about high housing prices in China show no anger in cramming in a small place with roommates in the US. No complaints are heard from riding the subway for hours to go to school. Here, people drink at the street stalls until midnight and nothing dangerous would happen; when studying in the U.S., people learn to avoid walking at night and always seek company when going off-campus.

When these people who complain so much, especially online, arrive in America, they suddenly become really hard working and tolerant. They learn to buy discounted goods, wash dishes, and forgo the idea of owning a home. They even learn not to criticize the government, and watch Occupy Wall Street indifferently as if nothing was happening.

Is this still the old “American Dream”?

Of course some would still say Americans have democracy and freedom, but these people forget that Chinese people have those too. In this world, democracy does not only refer to American Democracy. Chinese Democracy is also “Democracy”. The so-called American dream cannot pass as the whole human race’s dream at all.

The U.S. thinks it is possible to separate themselves from other continents and that wars and conflicts will not affect them. At the same time, the U.S. exports military threat and the culture of “American Democracy” to easily control other countries’ governments and turn them into puppets. The U.S. prevents technology transfers to achieve the dirty goal of keeping other nations’ technology level low, and thus prevent these nations from becoming really powerful.

China needs to implement its own “democracy”, but China cannot be democratized by America. The dream that America has portrayed to the world has been broken by the reality into pieces. It seems that the public still like the idea of “American Dream”, but the right path for humanity includes great change. China is now showing a more advanced and more equal “Chinese Dream”, which will gradually be accepted by more countries and more people.

The world is experiencing a revolution. Can we share peace in the future? Can civilization be continued? Hope is upon us, the new generation of young adults.

来源时间：2018/4/5   发布时间：2014/11/5

旧文章ID：15794