作者：Kevin Sonukan  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On August 25th, 2016, the Carter Center’s China Program and the Georgia China Alliance cohosted “U.S.-China Relations: After the 2016 Presidential Election.” This was a dialogue regarding multiple dimensions of U.S.-China relations and how they may change depending on the direction of the election this year. The speakers were Dr. Yawei Liu, Director of the Carter Center’s China Program, Dr. John Garver, Professor Emeritus of the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech, and Dr. Alan Abramowitz, Professor of Political Science at Emory University. Christopher Chan opened the event, acting as moderator and emphasizing that US-China relations will be one of the world’s most consequential relationships during the 21st Century. This relationship will have huge ramifications for peace and stability in Asia and the world. The outcome of the U.S. presidential election will impact the direction of the relationship, and the dialogue was opened to ponder how the rest of the election will unfold.

Dr. Abramowitz, who is famous for predicting every US presidential election correctly since 1988, stated that Hillary Clinton is winning the national popular vote by 5-8%. Additionally, there is a 50% chance that Democrats will take the Senate. The most likely outcome is that we will have a Democratic President in a Republican House, resulting in gridlock.

Dr. Garver went on to discuss how the only points Trump has discussed about China and East Asia in general are related to putting America first. All of his policies are likened to the US isolationist policies of the 1920s, threatening the status quo bi-partisan consensus on China and East Asian policy. Garver believes a Trump presidency is unlikely, but that it would undermine US engagement and deterrence of China. The politburo would believe Trump wants to destroy the Chinese Communist Party. The confrontation would force East Asian states to choose sides between US and China. His policies with Japanese rearmament pose more problems with insecurity for China as well.

Dr. Liu followed with a dialogue displaying how Hillary Clinton has experience dealing with China dating back to 1995 during the 4th UN World Conference on Women. Her perception of China has been shaped by her experiences. She has met with past and current leaders, efficiently managed the Chongqing police chief crisis, during which a police chief attempted to seek asylum with the US, and managed another asylum crisis, during which a blind lawyer snuck into the US embassy. She understands Chinese politics and culture, has a team of advisors for China, is very pro-business, and is comparatively more willing to create peace and end issues like terrorism.

These were the main points of the three speakers during the dialogue, but they went on with answers to various issues and questions that arose. Dr. Abramowitz believes that the trade deficit and currency manipulation are two legitimate concerns of Trump regarding China, but the means he wishes to use to solve them are wrong. Garver additionally noted that China started drawing out its sea territory in 2008, dealing with neighboring countries similar to the US with the Monroe Doctrine. China wants to become a world power that is equal to the US, but the US is having a hard time coming to terms with this. A big question for this would be whether China will challenge US power in the 21st century like Germany did during the 20thcentury.

Dr. Liu believes China is more domestically focused. He states that there are many voices in China and that China has benefitted too much from globalization to want to break it. He believes there will be no war, and that China is too connected with the US, as opposed to Russia, to form a coalition against the US. Dr. Garver responded by highlighting that China would want to drive a wedge between the US and its East Asian allies, and wage war against the Philippines and Japan if tensions arose. Garver believes that the Chinese Communist Party uses nationalist rhetoric to retain power, using so much that it creates a problem of escalation.

The audience inundated the panelists with questions, and everyone left with no consensus except that managing the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and China will be one of the toughest challenges for the next president of the U.S.

By Kevin Sonukan

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/8/31

旧文章ID：15727

作者：Adrian Lo  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

With Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) elections coming up on September 4th, Hong Kong is witnessing levels of dissent from its citizenry regarding the government’s election process similar to those experienced during the Umbrella Revolution in 2014, which were a series of sit-in protests among the city’s busiest districts over a three month period.  Many are demanding higher levels of autonomy on the sociopolitical front.  Some are going even further and proposing a full-scale separation from the Mainland.

Comprised of 70 members, the LegCo, which is effectively the parliament, has the ability to check the power of the Chief Executive among other lawmaking privileges.   Additionally, in conjunction with the Election Committee (1,200 members) as well as HK deputies from the National People’s Congress of China, chosen members from the LegCo will also be given voting power in the Chief Executive election.  The implications for the Chief Executive election in 2017 are undoubtedly understood by local political activists who are desperately keen to reshape the city’s political landscape and maintain its autonomy.  35 of the members are elected from various geographical constituencies (GCs) through direct democracy, and 30 members are elected from functional constituencies (FCs) through special interest groups and pro-Beijing bodies.  The remaining five seats, known as “super seats,” are filled by members of the District Council.  The controversy lies in the fact that the total electorate for FCs is around 240,000 electors, and they are given the power to vote in 30 members, whereas the total electorate for GCs, which is around 3 million voters, can only vote in 35 members to the LegCo.

Much of the pro-separatist movement is led by the younger demographic of the population; one of its prominent figures is founder and leader of the political party Hong Kong Indigenous, Edward Leung.  Initially openly critical of China’s involvement in Hong Kong’s election process, he eventually tempered his words and departed, at least ostensibly, from his controversial stance in a bid to secure eligibility for a spot in the LegCo.  However, on August 2nd, Leung was officially disqualified from running, despite having signed an election form stating that Hong Kong is an “inalienable part of China.”  He is one of six candidates who has now been disqualified from the election for harboring strong “localist” and pro-independence sentiment.

China is extremely wary of the potential damage figures like Leung, who blatantly rejects the aims of the Party, can cause if they are elected into positions of power, wielding their political influence from within and effecting policymaking.  So while there is a wave of anti-establishment currently sweeping the globe, it is unlikely that the Chinese government will budge on this issue.  Officials are aware of the dangerous precedent yielding to the demands of HK locals will set in the context of Taiwan reunification and the “One Country, Two Systems” model.  China will also take comfort in the knowledge that drastic socioeconomic and political ramifications mean that there is too much at stake for Hong Kong to even consider succumbing to the wishes of the disgruntled faction of its population, which is a reality that is most certainly not lost on the HK administration.  Worryingly for the pro-independence brigade, they are receiving no backing from the HK government.  The administration has not only come out in support of China’s decision to disqualify them, but have also mandated candidates to acknowledge the inseparable relationship between HK and China.  This has led to protestors and pro-independence candidates feeling ostracized and rejected.  It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that many of them have declared they will abstain from voting on September 4th.

In light of the recent Brexit referendum that has stunned Europe and the fervent support received by Republican nominee Donald Trump from the ethno-nationalist faction of the American population, the rise of nationalist sentiment and anti-globalization in the West has become increasingly prevalent; the idea of a nation-state is experiencing a revival.  Criticisms towards free trade, unfettered immigration, and the perceived loss of distinct national identity, are creating political dilemmas that have long been abandoned, as evidenced by the surge in popularity of far-right nationalist political candidates in Europe and the United States.  This phenomenon does not look like it will impact geopolitics in the Far East for now, though; hopes for a HK city-state have never seemed so distant.  Nevertheless, the context of this election is interesting because it positions the ever-growing independence movement in HK right at the forefront in direct opposition to the Chinese government.

By Adrian Lo

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/2

旧文章ID：15726

作者：Ian Pilcher  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

In the article, “Rising Sino-Japanese Competition in Africa,” Yun Sun, a nonresident fellow at the Global Economy and Development Africa Growth Initiative, identifies the similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese investment in Africa. August 27th and 28th marked the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VI) where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced $30 billion in public and private support. This is half the amount Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged during the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) December last year, but despite the difference in the amount each leader pledged, there is also a difference in how each country chooses to spend its investment money.

Both China and Japan’s financial pledges include infrastructure projects and loans, but some of the main differences come in project implementation. China prefers to use Chinese talent, imported from China, often resulting in ill feelings towards the Chinese. Japan, however, chooses to utilize local labor for projects, resulting not only in more money into the local economy, but also allows locals to develop skills and to receive training. Both countries clearly have economic interests in Africa as Japan and China need resources from African countries.

But besides these economic interests, Africa is also an area for both countries to expand political influence. In 2011, Japan opened a military base in Djibouti to address security threats off the Horn of Africa. China believed this was only an excuse for Japanese military expansion as Japan tries to alter the international system established after World War II. China states that it’s reason for building a naval base, also in Djibouti, is to combat terrorism in the region. Is that any different than Japan’s reason?

China accuses Japan of trying to “drive a wedge between China and African countries,” when in reality Japan simply chooses a different way to implement projects on the continent, and according to the article, locals believe the Japanese provide better quality. China also accuses Japanese investments to be politically motivated, although China used its influence over African countries to secure enough votes to be readmitted to the UN. Both countries, including the United States, use investment for political and economic reasons, but it seems that Chinese and Japanese competition in Africa is intensifying as Japan increases its international efforts

Both countries use investment in Africa for political and economic gain, but the important thing to remember is that responsible contributions from both China and Japan, or any country for that matter, will do more to benefit the continent than pointing fingers at one another.

By Ian Pilcher

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/2

旧文章ID：15725

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On September 11th, 2001, the world was stunned. That day, radicalized al-Qaeda terrorists crashed into America’s iconic World Trade Center buildings, killing almost 3,000 people and injuring another 6,000. In response to this act, U.S. President George W. Bush launched the Global War on Terror. Fifteen years later, terrorism still remains a prominent issue and continues to oppose the free world. Because terrorism is still so relevant, it is of vital importance that we not only continue to remember 9/11, but also take away all the best lessons. September 11th, 2001 was a strange day. What occurred that day has the immortal power to not only destroy but also restore faith in humanity. The aftermath of 9/11 was utterly moving. People all around the world expressed their deepest sympathies, many Americans even reached out and tried to join in the rescue and recovery effort. Everything clearly shows that most of us on the planet have no intention of siding with terror. And that is the single most important lesson from this devastating experience.

It is well known that the development of terrorism has led to the demonization and deploration of many Islamic followers. The psychology behind that is completely understandable. Many of us feel heavily anxious about terrorism and are especially worried for the future of our land. Nobody wants to live in a world that is not safe. Nobody wants to live in a world that is constantly plagued by dissent and uncertainties. However, it is of vital importance that we remember that we cannot blame the Islam faith for the rise of terrorism. To put it simply, the logic of that sort of generalization is similar to condemning all men just because more men have committed crimes. It is not only unfair, but is also completely dangerous. When we feel hatred and open ourselves up to xenophobia, we also become much more vulnerable for political manipulation. Furthermore, the discrimination against Islam only breeds more detestation among our own people. A world without trust only divides and segregates us. If the free world desires to continue moving forward, then its citizens must have the appropriate mindset to go along with these rapid changes. Therefore, it is so important for us to have an open mind and maintain the same values that make us proud of who we are.

As U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” We pulled through 9/11 because we were united and shared the special connection that only develops under extreme difficulties. And that is the single most valuable lesson to remember from that devastating day. We can overcome anything as long as we do it together.

By MARGARET LU Sept. 12, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/12

旧文章ID：15724

作者：Aaron Walayat  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Last week, a colleague of mine wrote an article which detailed some points made by Yun Sun, a nonresident fellow at the Africa Growth Initiative in her recent article titled, “Rising Sino-Japanese Competition in Africa.” During the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VI) held in Nairobi, Kenya this past year, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged that Japan would invest $30 billion by the year 2018.

This pledge, however, was interpreted as a call for competition with China, who has invested heavily in the region. China’s perception could not have been made clearer when Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated that Japan “attempted to impose its wills on African countries to gain selfish interests and drive a wedge between China and African countries” during a press conference on August 29th.

What accounts for China’s concern of Japanese competition in Africa?  China already dwarfs Japan in terms of pledges to Africa, with China having pledged some $90 billion since 2012 and Japan pledging about $62 billion since 2013. First of all, timing plays a key role. With the Philippines v. China arbitration case being decided in the Philippines’ favor, China, uncharacteristically vocal about the decision, sees Japan’s pledge as a timed slight at China’s relationship with its global partners. The South China Sea issue could shake up China relationship with littoral nations in South East Asia, most of which have strong trade relations with China. Furthermore, under these shaky circumstances, China then observes Japan attempting to pull away China’s African partners. The order of events certainly suggests something more than mere coincidence.

To further strain their relationship, who else but Shinzo Abe decides to announce Japan’s growing interest in Africa but Shinzo Abe? Abe’s reputation in China is not well received. From reinterpreting Japan’s Constitution to allow for more military flexibility and joining the United States and India in its annual Malabar exercises, to honoring the Yasukuni Shrine, he has created tension in both action and rhetoric. Few can forget the (hilarious) body language of Abe and China’s Xi Jinping in a photograph at the 2014 APEC summit.

However, China’s perception of Japan’s increased aid and investment in Africa is not totally unfounded. In a Japan Times article explaining Abe’s pledge, the author made it clear that Japan had its eye on China. “Japan hopes that quality will trump quantity in the battle against cash-rich China for influence on the continent” the article said.

Sadly, it appears that altruism is the last thing on these countries’ minds as Japan and China have elected to use competitive and hostile rhetoric toward each other in trade and investment matters in Africa. This is unfortunate, as there is an array of opportunities for cooperation between China and Japan in Africa as Japan begins focusing its investments on “quality” as opposed to China’s “quantity.”

China as global leader

Rather than being threatened by Japanese competition in Africa, China should recognize the reality that it has become a global leader in Africa’s development. China has taken the lead in Africa and is inspiring other countries, like Japan and India, to invest in Africa. China has changed the way the world sees aid and investment in Africa as China has focused more on infrastructure building rather than the poverty relief that defines Western aid. With China taking the lead with infrastructure-oriented aid, it seems that the global community is watching and following suit.

This China model of aid is also more like to relax interpretation of Asian involvement in Africa as a new “scramble for Africa” as Asian countries are acting more as partners than potentates. This is much more apparent in the general warmth of African leaders to seeking infrastructure focused development with China. China should not fear Japanese aid and investment as a way to influence the continent away from China. China should remember that Japan once took an investment strategy toward newly opened China, a country where Japan obviously does not pull the political strings. While an apparent field for Sino-Japanese competition, Africa seeks to benefit (or suffer) the most depending on how China and Japan chooses to behave with one another.

As He Wenping, an African Studies expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argues, there is a chance for complementary investment of both Japan and China in Africa, with each country focusing on its own strengths to develop the region. This could also lay the groundwork for potential cooperation between the two in the continent.

Ian Pilcher reminds us that “the important thing to remember is that responsible contributions from both China and Japan, or any country for that matter, will do more to benefit the continent than pointing fingers at one another.” While competition could serve to benefit Africa, conflict would only deter the opportunities the continent would hope to gain. For this reason, China and Japan must ensure stability in the continent in order to promote future development.

“Our struggle for development,” said Chad President Idriss Deby during TICAD, “cannot succeed without peace, stability and, above all, security.”

It would seem the age of condescending Western-style aid in Africa is coming to a close, stemming from a seeming lack of efficacy in return. In turn, Asia’s model for aid to Africa, bolstered by infrastructure, investment, and development, while not reaching out to the target population of Africa’s impoverished, seems to be taking a stronger foothold in in recent years as Asian and African leaders act more as partners rather than the benefactor-beneficiary relationship that has defined Western aid.

By inspiring other Asian nations to invest in Africa, China has become a leader of investment-driven aid to Africa. Rather than seeing growing Japanese and Indian aid and investment in the continent as an affront to China’s current involvement, China should recognize that it has become a virtual leader in the continent. However, the next steps will greatly impact Africa’s future, as Sino-Japanese relations in Africa have the potential to either expedite Africa’s development, or weaken the continent as a whole. This will be the true test of China’s ability to lead.

By Aaron Walayat, USCNPM Contributor, 13 September 2016

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/13

旧文章ID：15723

作者：Kevin Sonukan  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

When I went to Shanghai in 2015, I was placed in one of the most innovative and bustling cities in the world. Business and opportunity were waiting at every corner: as a fashion capital of Asia, a world finance center, and the biggest city in China in terms of population, it painted a clear picture of China’s economic and political rise on the world stage. This sort of innovation attracted people from every corner of the earth, so I felt like I was in a melting pot of cultures contained by Han Chinese culture.

This new wealth for the Chinese people means that they can feed their families, provide shelter, and provide them proper avenues to advance their futures in the direction they desire. However, I have noticed that it has also lead to rampant materialism and high expectations in dating. Wanting the best for yourself is one thing, but this is often taken to extremes, as seen in the infamous statement “I’d rather cry in a BMW than laugh on the back of a bicycle.”

One of my colleagues introduced me to the Chinese dating show If You Are the One. This show has several women judging men in order to determine if they should go on a date. The first few seasons were the subject of controversy, as these women often glorified materialism and appearance over other aspects of relationships. The content prompted the government to speak out and say that the show should stop focusing on materials, instead focusing on other aspects of relationships. Still, this hasn’t done much to curb the growing materialism in Chinese dating culture and in mainland China in general.

[LINK TO VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beC4KgolQiU]

That’s not to say America doesn’t have its own problems with materialism and obsession with appearance. After all, we have Kanye West’s new fashion line, which you could spend $1560 USD at for a new sweater. Or you could suck all the air out of a shot glass to get lips like Kylie Jenner. Perhaps this is not something unique only to China, but a global trend; as social media becomes more popular, people gain more insight into the lavish lifestyles of the rich and beautiful, and they want to attain that same likeness. Whatever the case may be, how it will play out in the future is unknown, but it will hopefully get better from here.

Written by: Kevin Sonukan

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/19

旧文章ID：15722

作者：Adrian Lo  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The China-North Korea alliance dates back to the Korean War in the 1950s. During the Cold War, the ideological clash between communism and capitalism, spearheaded by the Soviet Union and the United States respectively, triggered the proxy war along the Korean Peninsula. To the surprise of US General Douglas MacArthur and the UN forces tasked with supporting the South Korean army at the time, Mao, who was desperate to stake a claim for the newly founded People’s Republic of China and his legitimacy as its leader, ordered troops to ambush advancing American and UN units. Ultimately, China’s unexpected military resolve played an important part in deterring opposition troops and ending hostilities between the two sides.

As the DPRK’s historical communist ally, China finds itself in an increasingly uncomfortable position. The WTO and the UN Security Council both require member countries to have a certain level of government transparency and uphold certain ethical standards. So when faced with North Korean belligerence, China, being a member of both institutions, is somewhat conflicted. Does it uphold the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty and maintain healthy relations with a former ally, or does it distance itself from the demonstrably irreverent Kim Jong-Un and his volatile regime? This balancing act is further complicated by the ramifications on China’s global reputation if it continues to associate with Kim.

Beijing has every reason to be alarmed by the Pyongyang’s latest nuclear test, since any flexing of its nuclear capabilities threatens to kick-start a nuclear arms race with other East Asian countries. Besides that, further unrest in that region might exacerbate the refugee crisis in the northeastern region of China as more North Koreans look to flee the regime. Both scenarios would be detrimental to China in light of its ever-growing ambition to expand its economy and international role. Furthermore, North Korea acting as a strategic buffer zone still serves a purpose, given the US’ pivot to Asia in recent times and its long term partnership with the ROK. Containment of Kim’s regime makes sense for China. But at the same time, it remains in its interests to ensure that the international community proposes rational solutions to rein in Kim’s regime as opposed to resorting to knee-jerk decision-making.

Thus far, the international community has focused on imposing economic sanctions against North Korea. China, as P-5 member of the UNSC, has voiced its approval on a host of regulations. “Trade embargoes, financial restrictions, bans on the export of luxury gods, aid cuts, and travel sanctions” have all been enforced at one point or another. None have proven to be wholly effective, though, because North Korea is a well-insulated dictatorship. Normally, a country’s refusal to comply with international sanctions will engender domestic opposition as people’s livelihood becomes affected. But under an authoritarian regime, ruling power is not attained through socioeconomic empowerment of its people. Rather, it is achieved through physical compulsion and/or censorship. In other words, the ruling body in North Korea does not need a strong external support base in order to thrive.

However, a caveat here is that Beijing has not fully committed to these sanctions, and being North Korea’s biggest trading partner, that has rather large implications. China’s “livelihood” loophole in the latest “UN Resolution 2270, the package of new sanctions in March,” ends up giving Pyongyang some wiggle room in its coal exports, which is a huge driver of its economy. This clause allows for the export of a product to continue “if cutting it off might affect the livelihood of the exporter, so long as the revenue doesn’t go to North Korea’s nuclear program. The problem is, companies self-certify that’s the case.” If sanctions were carried out with more fervor and commitment from every actor that is involved, it is possible Kim might be more responsive to these economic threats. But for now, the absence of full-scale cooperation only lowers the chances for success.

It is also important to understand the reasons why North Korea has remained firm amidst international consensus for its denuclearization. The motivations behind building a nuclear program are a) to bolster national security and b) to use it as a bargaining chip.

Firstly, the notion of nuclear deterrence suggests that countries do not invade nuclear-armed states because it would lead to mutually assured destruction (MAD). This is why many developing countries, past and present, have strived to arm themselves. North Korea is no different. Its desire for a nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s, when the future of the communist axis was uncertain. China’s rapprochement with the US in the 1970s was a cause for concern, as was the Soviet Union’s increasing vulnerability. Fast forward to now, Sino-American relations still threatens Pyongyang because it relies heavily on China for trade; growing Sino-American engagement will only be further indication to Pyongyang that a nuclear arsenal is needed.

Secondly, nuclear weapons provide a bargaining chip which can be used for economic and political concessions. This is not a strategy unique to Pyongyang. That said, there are signs that “nuclear weapons development is no longer something Pyongyang is willing to trade away for economic support and promises of nonaggression.” Kim only has to turn to the fate that befell Gaddafi after he agreed to relinquish Libya’s nuclear program in 2003 in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, only to then see his regime toppled by the US during the Arab Spring. The loss of nuclear deterrence may prove equally fatal for Kim and he is aware of that.

There are indications that China is now looking for alternative solutions. The strengthening of economic and diplomatic ties with South Korea helps to reduce the need for a buffer zone. At the same time, it serves to disrupt the US-Korea alliance, though its effectiveness to this end remains to be seen. In broader terms, Beijing’s inaction is consistent with its foreign policy; apart from agreeing to more economic sanctions, it will most likely adopt a noninterventionist stance and outwait the Pyongyang regime until they reform their foreign policy under Kim.

By: Adrian Lo

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/21

旧文章ID：15721

作者：Adrian Lo  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Right Intentions; Wrong Execution?

This past week, news broke out in China that a company in Henan province had announced a new policy banning its employees from buying Apple’s newly released iPhone 7.  According to the official notice, which was issued on September 18th(the 85th anniversary of the Mukden Incident this year), if spotted with the latest iPhone, employees would kindly be asked to resign.  In the notice, the company also encouraged staff members to support local goods and boycott foreign products.

This decision has sparked controversy in China.  Many netizens feel that it is an encroachment on civil rights; what employees choose to spend their money on is nobody’s business but theirs.  That said, the policy has also received backing from some corners.  As it turns out, the company is not enforcing this just for laughs.  It actually hopes that this policy would help instill stronger family values in its workers.  Instead of buying into this widespread materialism culture in China, they are encouraged to spend more time with their family members and enjoy the simple pleasures in life.

While the company’s expression of nationalism and promulgation of traditional Chinese values are laudable, especially within the context of the rapid rise of consumerism in the country, perhaps the methodology used to promote virtue is not entirely appropriate or effective.

Legally speaking, once labor relationships are established, employers do not have the right to change the terms of labor contracts without the consent of the employees.  According to Article 17 of China’s Labor Law, “conclusion and alteration of labour contracts shall follow the principle of equality, voluntariness, and agreement through consultation. They shall not run counter to stipulations in laws or administrative decrees.”  Unless the employees of this company have gladly agreed to this mandate, the employer has no right to establish it.

Also, from an efficiency standpoint, inculcating values through force is generally an ineffective approach.  To address this phenomenon, China must tackle the problem of hyper-materialism at its roots and not its symptoms.  Kids selling kidneys so they can afford the latest Apple device is a mere symptom of the problem.  Outlawing kidney trafficking will not eradicate the problem; people will eventually find other organs to harvest.  Forcing people, who in the first place do not have the notion of virtue ingrained in them, to act virtuously is futile.  The root of the problem is in its education system.  To properly cultivate good values in the younger generation is imperative to restoring the country’s moral direction.  Currently, China’s education system receives a lot of criticism for being too exam-driven.  In addition, high school examinations focus too much on memorization.  So the latest guideline issued by the Ministry of Education (MOE) on September 20th is a step in the right direction.  It proposes that high school recruitment will be based on a more “comprehensive assessment of their (students’) qualities, according to the pilot program, which will first be implemented in 2017 and then be expanded across the nation in 2020.”  Therefore, students’ “morality, mental and physical health, artistic tastes, and social skills” will all be considered.  Once these values are universally endorsed at the education level, it will eventually trickle down to the household level.  Needless to say, this strategy will take time to implement, and it will take even longer to bear fruit.

By: Adrian Lo

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/23

旧文章ID：15720

作者：Aaron Walayat  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

This past July, I found that a colleague of mine had published an article about Peter Navarro, the University of California, Irvine professor who is now a key player in the Donald Trump campaign’s economic team. Navarro, the Harvard-educated economist, is a difficult figure when it comes to China, as his books are often criticized as damaging to the future of US-China relations.

Trump has made no secret of his contempt of China’s politico-economic strategies which he describes as “bad deals” for American workers. Trump’s very public views on China have been criticizes by social leftists and free traders alike, who deem Trump’s pseudo-protectionism as a dangerous step to a much more mercantilist trade policy. With the discovery of Navarro’s influence on Trump’s ideas, it is important to learn more about the UC Irvine professor, who could have an influential role to play in a possible Trump administration.

Naturally, I was quite curious to learn more about this fellow. In order to satisfy my inquisitiveness, I had the opportunity to take a look at two of Dr. Navarro’s books, namely Death by China and Crouching Tiger.

Diamonds in the rough

Death by China was an interesting read. In this 2001 book, which was made into a documentary in 2012, Navarro (with cohort Greg Autry) sets out their (rhetorically hyperbolic but factually argued) thesis that Chinese trade practices were “killing” America’s manufacturing base as well as the economy as a whole. The growth of China’s military and theft through intellectual property violations and hacking remained major national security concerns for the United States.

The most notable thing about the book is the writing style. Death by China possesses a litany of alarmist rhetoric, decrying China’s trade practices and even implying a sort of malevolence within China’s relations with the United States. Navarro and Autry, unsurprisingly, argue that the majority of America’s economic problems involved China in some way.

The implicit takeaway, however, was that China’s practices were personal, that the intention of China was to specifically weaken America’s economy and take away American jobs. This is particularly observable in the first few chapters of the book, in which Navarro and Autry describes cases of Chinese products which were dangerously defective when used in the United States. Although no review that I have read seems to acknowledge this point, I think that Navarro’s rhetoric, which implicitly paints China’s practices toward the United States as a personal attack, is the main inducer of negative criticism for the book. Navarro and Autry’s rhetoric does not paint China as a challenge, but as an existential enemy. Thus, the book is not about dealing with problems between the United States and China but dealing with the problem that is China.

Navarro has tried to shed the accusatory labels of “protectionist” and “mercantilist” in interviews in which he claimed that Trump’s tariffs would only be used as bargaining tools.  In terms of Navarro, it is difficult not to characterize someone a mercantilist when they label business leaders “turncoat” when they opt for China over America. Unfortunately, in terms of economics and world affairs it seems to me that Trump and Navarro are mistaken in this point. Trump and Navarro seem to be missing a major point, namely, that the United States is not the only country that China trades with.

The economic policies of Navarro do not seem to take the world as the interconnected place that it is. It seems to limit the world to the United States and China and is, therefore, a zero-sum game, and as Tim Worstall said “The idea that an economist could describe trade as a zero sum game is an absurdity in and of itself. [Trade is] a voluntary exchange – and thus, by definition, it must be beneficial to both parties taking part in it.” Indeed, the world is not so simple as Navarro would have us believe. China definitely poses challenges for the United States, however, it also provides many opportunities for growth.

Navarro and Autry also take time to discuss political, social, and environmental concerns for China, leading to a strange hodgepodge of the dangers of Chinese trade and military policies with the ideological disconnect between China and the United States.

The most unsettling part of the book, however, was the fact that Navarro and Autry actually pointed out important challenges for the United States and China. Intellectual property, currency manipulation, pollution, and military adventurism are not only real issues, but important challenges for the United States and China to face in the coming years. While some reviewers have responded hotly to the apparent lack of reference citations, the book does in fact cite its sources, albeit in an unconventional way.*

Navarro’s work was definitely polemic, but when it comes to China, we are in no short supply of Western scholarship critical of China.  Due to the biased and angry rhetoric, is hard to take the book’s arguments seriously (an example of accessible writing taking away from the overall experience) which is a shame, as the challenges posed in the book will be the major talking points of Sino-American relations in the future.

However, Navarro and Autry’s solutions to the challenges posed by China, which includes contacting your Congressperson to avoiding “Made in China” goods, ranges from ineffectual to mercantilist. Navarro and Autry offer no effectual solutions to deal with China which respects the integrated Sino-American trade relationship and security concerns for the Asia-Pacific region. In all, Navarro and Autry offer very strong points that are definitely worth thinking about. Unfortunately, the presentation leaves much to be desired and the book is slow to offer cooperative solutions for the United States and China focusing instead on punishment and brinkmanship.

A sudden turnaround

In Crouching Tiger, the alarmism that plagued Death by China had all but disappeared and was replaced by a much more level-headed approach to prose. In this book, Navarro had transitioned from Chicken Little to a respectable realist thinker.

Navarro goes through a point by point analysis to determine whether the United States and China are bound for war. Following John Mearsheimer’s realist tradition, Navarro calculates not on action, but on capabilities. Like Navarro’s previous work, Crouching Tiger poses real challenges for the United States and China, and in realist fashion, Navarro highlights how China’s growing power has led to a competition between the two powers in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, just as “ought” does not necessarily imply “is”, “can” does not necessarily imply “will.” While Navarro highlights reasons for political tensions in the Asia-Pacific region stemming from difficult US-China relations, he makes a logical leap that this situation will lead to war. Navarro does not provide a straw to break the camel’s back. As Mearsheimer mentions in Chapter 2 of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics while the “threat of great power war has not yet disappeared”, war is not necessarily “likely.”

This is not to say that Navarro’s work is not important. Crouching Tiger provides a harsh dose of realism into a liberal institutionalism rapidly becoming liberal utopianism. By introducing the heavy military, economic, and political challenges for the United States and China, Navarro provides an important interpretation of world affairs which political calculators would do well into incorporate into a more holistic interpretation of the global situation.

Unfortunately, most followers of Navarro are likely to diagnose the political situation and prescribe a dose of hard (military) power. Using Joseph Nye’s terminology, the United States will need “smart power” a strong mixture of hard and soft power in order to maintain its position in Asia.

Navarro provides an important view to the US-China relations discussion. Thinkers cannot continue to pretend Navarro’s black-and-white view of US-China relations does not exist. It is a worldview shared by many and is not something can be fixed by “educating” them. The most important thing, however, is to beware of those who live on theory alone as the real situation is consistently changing and will require an outlook that addresses the actual situation.

The United States and China faces a variety of challenges and opportunities. While Navarro provides a specific lens in interpreting the geopolitical situation, it is important to recognize that Navarro’s view is just one voice among many. Thinkers would do well not to immediately disregard Navarro, however, they should be wary of those who live on theory alone and be cautious to implement much of Navarro’s security-oriented and mercantilist views.

It is interesting, however to see the wellspring of much of Donald Trump’s views on US-China relations. It seems that the candidate who cites his “very good brain” as his foreign policy consultant, is still subject to John Maynard Keynes quote in his General Theory:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

By AARON WALAYAT, USCNPM Contributor, 26 September 2016

来源时间：2018/4/3   发布时间：2016/9/26

旧文章ID：15719