The recent PRC attacks on US Secretary of State Pompeo, primarily for his promotion of the hypothesis that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, have been remarkable. Pompeo seems to be walking those back a bit, as the evidence is not conclusive and key allies appear to have not signed on, but the damage is done. Who is likely to come out of this looking worse? See Thursday’s newsletter Pompeo pulling back on lab allegations?; 7 day NPC; Archaeologists declare proof of 5000 years of civilization and China Media Project’s Pompeo, “Public Enemy” for some background.
Yesterday was the 21st anniversary of the US bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade. Given the intensifying US-China tensions, what would happen today if there were a similar incident, or one like the 2001 “Hainan Island Incident” in which a PLAN fighter collided with a US EP-3E plane, resulting in the death of the PRC pilot and the emergency landing on Hainan of the US plane?
3. In a recent interview with Caixin Yan Xuetong 阎学通 downplayed the possibility of a minor incident sparking war （擦枪走火). He was specifically asked about the possibility of this occurring in the South China Sea or Taiwan. He was rather sanguine in the interview. link here: http://international.caixin.com/2020-04-30/101548885.html
I personally think we'd see such brinksmanship that it might invite war. Trump admin would use as saber to rally electoral support. The diplomatic Wolf Warriors would relish it... and the military ones?
Pottinger’s speech is pretty awful. Sure he has a BA in Chinese studies and can speak fluently, but that doesn’t make him a Chinese scholar and no one will take his thoughts on fundamental social values seriously. It’s cultural appropriation in scholarly clothing. In terms of its functions, I get that it’s commemorative but urging for a 1919 political and social framework to be realised now discounts how much China has changed since then. He speaks as if China has never reformed, as of HK happened in 1968 rather than 2020. A call for democracy now in China would be better served by references to the present, I.e. technology, financial liberalisation, climate change, rise of disinformation, nuclear proliferation, not stale political theory from 1919. The Universal declaration of human rights is close but a severely limited framework of its own. Also, doesn’t he see how framing America First as populist while deriding China’s nationalism is more than just a little ironic.
It's better understood as an olive branch for dialogue. No one seriously thinks he is making an academic argument about how to interpret the May 4th movement.
Pottinger is the latest in a long tradition of American figures who believe that they can reach out directly to the East and convert them. Some have succeeded in the past, most have ended up in the historically irrelevant trash heap. The sheer irony of having a member of the current administration preach about liberal values and "a little less nationalism, a little more populism" leaves me with little doubt on where Pottinger will find himself 50 years from now.
If Pottinger's goal was to "cut through the noise" and "open up a conversation" directly with the Chinese, the reality was that a very limited audience of elites was listening. That elite audience understands English and certainly doesn't need to put up with a gimmicky Chinese performance. And they certainly don't need to listen to an American pontificate about Chinese history and culture.
If Pottinger's goal was to reach out to the Chinese liberals and give their cause for reforms a boost, the reality is that he made their life more difficult. The liberals/doves in China are already marginalised and drowned out by the hawks, who will see Pottinger's speech as nothing other than interference in domestic politics. Those who use Pottinger's speech to call for more domestic reforms will simply be labelled traitors. There is a Chinese term for this, i.e. 弄巧成拙.
In summary, I think we have overstated the significance and impact of Pottinger's speech. But it's fine because he probably got a whole bunch of pats on the back and praises from the DC echo chamber, and that's what really matters right?
I agree with this take, but I'm not sure how it could have come across any other way.
Something I struggle with is how, as a foreigner, we can be taken seriously on political topics. If we speak from the context of living in modern China and sharing our lived experiences of the oppression we see right outside the window, we are accused of not having a deep understanding of Chinese culture and history. But foreigners like Pottinger who try to take a more cerebral path and root their commentary in aspects of Chinese culture and history are accused of being out of touch with the youth of today. It's a no win situation.
Personally I think if Americans want to use Chinese language communications to reach out to a non-elite audience, better to use slang and local pronunciation, and talk about working class problems. Unfortunately that sort of dialog is tough to establish from outside the country - it's already hard enough for locals to speak candidly on sensitive topics due to domestic censorship. So we are back at either producing highbrow content for elites, i.e. standard political theater, or not engaging in politics at all. And so the Party gets what they want either way.
I think the audience was also Chinese speakers elsewhere, who may be much more receptive to both the message and delivery. Seeing someone in the White House speaking Chinese and pushing these ideas would be very compelling for moderates in the Chinese diaspora, I would think. And when they then go to Wechat and see it censored, well, maybe they will take a moment to think about that.
"The liberals/doves in China are already marginalised" That is an interesting point, because someone chipped-in the question, if there had ever been liberals/doves in the higher echelons of the party, or if that has always been only a bait, dangling in front to western liberals/doves.
There are certainly liberals, albeit not in a western sense, but either they are Stalin's useful idiots, in which case they may carry on for a while, or they go into "hiding" in a futile attempt to avoid eradication. Everything any party official has ever said is a matter of record, you can't escape a serious purge.
I think Pompeo's rhetoric is hurtful. It is not helping the U.S. to pursuade people to follow our lead in global affairs. We should be pointing out that China has not been donating, but selling, equipment to these nations and that China is trying to use this global tragedy to improve their own imperialistic objectives. Pompeo is certainly playing to a base by trying to paint China as a malicious participant in creating/spreading Covid when their is just no evidence of this, however, i suppose he fails to notice the fragile, and eroding, trust that the global community has for American intelligence. Mr. Bishop previously said (and im seriously paraphrasing) that the US should be quiet and let China's own actions ruin them. I agree with this. China has already suffered a PR disaster and it would be easier for the U.S. to amplify global criticism of China as opposed to peddling conspiarcy theories.
Agree. There doesn't seem to be any need to embellish the CCP's actions to get a consensus among Western and Western allied nations about the need to stand up for our values and to the CCP. But you can't create consensus around obvious lies or exaggerations. Horrible alliance building work as usual by Pompeo/Trump. Clearly built on domestic political strategy as Steve Carroll pointed out below.
Rome 2.0... I tend to agree. Xi knows very well that Trump and his little merry little band are incompetent and wildly self-serving. But war would be ruinous to Xi’s very-long term goals. And Trump is not permanent.
Pottinger is to be applauded for his excellent Mandarin. However, he admonishes the PRC for its authoritarian stance and behaviors, while working for a US President attempting to do the very same thing. Lack of Transparency in both governments is morbidly obvious. Revealing truths to their citizens is horribly lacking. The corruption within the Trump administration appears to outdistance the corruption within the PRC, but both parties are autocrat, all orders from top to bottom with no breaking that chain. Speaking truth in the USA gets you fired, removed from your position, escorted out of the WH by goons, as well as those who peak truth in China - they disappear. No, Mr. Pottinger's fine mandarin cannot cover his absolute ignorance and his deplorable behaviors while supporting a most disinterested in Democracy movement this country has ever seen, and Populists are at the front line of ignorance. The universe is the universe, and by showing compassion for another, one becomes the main instrument in this universe - love. There is no love within the PRC for their citizens, nor in the Trump administration.
Corruption in the Trump administration? Really! You do realize the most corrupt administration of recent history was the Obama administration. Anyone who thinks differently is lost down a rabbit hole.
One must realize that there has been a Cold War with China for the last 20+ years. It was China and the CCP that tried to control the narrative about the China virus. Thus starting a pandemic and putting the world in the place it is now.
I think his Chinese is quite overrated. Very stale and had no emotion to it, he probably didn't write it and just tried to pronounce every character right without fully comprehending it all.
Matt told everyone during the session that he wrote the speech in English and had someone translate it for him. But his conversational Chinese is really quite good; He didn't just "read the pin yin" without comprehending it.
An interesting theory about Pinyin. Probably the only practical way to get it onto a teleprompter, at least an American one. He sounded pretty good to me, but like an American speaking Chinese.
His PRONUNCIATION was great. My Chinese is pretty good casually, but I too struggle when I speak formally - mostly just with getting the tones right, and that throws everything off. It’s rest hard even for good non-native mandarin speakers to speak formally.
The post basically sends a warning message saying that the two politicians, Pottinger and Rubio, are relatively young and not that friendly to China. Future sino-us relationship can be tough to deal with.
Yeah she's quite perceptive to point that out. If you look at the current "friends of China" they are getting a little long in the tooth. The seeds that were sown did bear fruit for a while but where is the next crop going to come from?
This is where all the influence operations have hurt them badly, you literally cannot say something positive about China on any western social media without getting called a bot or shill. I don't think that's the case with Iran or even North Korea.
Rubio and Pottinger both put US interests and principles first, that will make them relatively hard to deal with compared to the past 50 years of “friends of China”.
Well, all politicians always put the good of their own nation first. The question is always, what is good for the own nation.
While I don't always agree with Rubio, I must admit he has a fabulous grip on the big picture and eloquently carries across clear and concise messages. He should play a much bigger role in US politics.
I think about the Belgrade bombing and the EP-3 incidents a great deal because, despite lots of talk about bilateral tensions, neither Beijing nor Washington have had to handle a bilateral crisis like those in 1999 and 2001.
Indeed. The thing that worries me is China's reaction time during emergencies like these. And Beijing has similar concerns about the White House. During the EP-3 incident, it took a while to get any response from China. It seems to me that the in-built time lag caused by deliberations within the walls of Zhongnanhai during emergencies hasn't changed much at all over a couple of decades. Lots of similarities between China's reaction time during the original SARS outbreak and SARS-2. So it begs the question of how resilient China's crisis management mechanisms are. With China's saturation of the SCS I fear its a question of not if, but when, so Beijing and Washington need to jaw-jaw about this, perhaps in a track 2 setting.
The US-China relationship is undoubtedly a defining relationship for the rest of the world.
The real question here is, if Pompeo, Wang Yi and their radicalised, simplistic underlings should really be the people to handle this relationship of supreme importance.
Both, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US State Department have long left behind sensible diplomacy and instead have lowered themselves to a previously unthinkably primitive levels. The punks and huns, that both countries offer the world as "ambassadors", are also hardly suitable to foster good relationships.
Sometimes both, Wang Yi and Pompeo, remind me of Third Reich foreign minister Ribbentrop. It can't be, that either country's foreign ministers become among the most hated persons abroad. They must be Kissingers, Genschers, Shevardnadzes.
Whatever the feud at the top, both countries foreign affairs officials must be able to talk to each other face to face, without primitive insults lingering in the background.
Diplomats must never become an embarrassment to their own nation.
If both countries really want peace, they'd both have to retire their foreign ministers right now, along with a large number of their respective "diplomats", make substantial changes to their foreign policy and how it is carried out.
Hi Bill, any thoughts on the following: What do you think will be the future of academic exchanges between the US and China and do you think we should still encourage such exchanges?
Bill didn't say anything here (yet) but as a Yank working at a UK JV institution in China (and running a department of 450 students in IR/IS), I see increasing tension between Western academic values and the norms of CCP educational practice. We are seeing more and more textbooks blocked, more and more speakers blocked, and more and more pushback against critical pubs of faculty members. For now operations are still on (or will be when covid subsides more fully), but I don't think the future of such exchanges are bright unless we Westerners are willing to trade our scruples for access to the Middle Kingdom. At some point the Western universities in China are going to be in a position where they will say, "enough is enough, and zaijian." We are not there yet, but the day may be coming. I certainly would not recommend launching new Western universities in China, though limited student exchanges are probably going to be fine for a while. Or, perhaps the programs will just have to exclude humanities and social sciences, the ones wherein we are going to have a harder and harder time working together.
Pottinger’s speech strikes me as something that would have been appropriate under Hu, but that is far too removed for the present day.
One tic of conservative China-hands that he recapitulates is an anger that seems to stem primarily from the Party’s unwillingness to pay lip service to a western rhetoric of human rights, and only secondarily opposes the actual violation of people’s rights. The speech as a whole struck me as smarmy and overly abstract.
Any thoughts Bill on a non-US aspect - China’s editing of EU Ambassadors’ message to celebrate 45 years of EU China relations? Reference to Coronavirus “starting in China and spreading throughout the world” exited out in China Daily report of it. Gives more fuel to Pompeo I think
Who reads China Daily? Resident diplomats and English language students. It is a vanity and propaganda publication.
Quite regularly foreign country dignitaries like ambassadors publish self-praises and praises of their China relationship in that fish & chips wrapping paper.
Sometimes it is the PRC government that takes the initiative to insert features about certain countries or interviews with dignitaries on the question why-oh-why they are just so fabulous and China is so important.
Whatever the cases, contents are heavily edited by both sides. The current "censorship" is just cooked up from actually regular procedures.
Yeah this is an example of a short term double win, they got the propaganda and they successfully bullied someone. They don't consider the long-term costs of this. They are pushing normally sympathetic figures in other countries into a corner with these stunts.
It's more of the same pattern, Beijing is losing patience. I think the pro-establishment crowd are trying to preserve their existence while being crushed between Beijing and the protesters.
At a certain point I think both Beijing and the opposition will make the determination, "why do we need these people?"
Just one step in the chain of escalation by the pan-democrats. They need to precipitate a crackdown by Beijing, and seizing the government is the best way. Unable to gain control of the Executive, they are trying to generate a crisis through the Legislature. The other path (suboptimal) is through terrorist attacks, especially if they can conduct those within the mainland. There have been indications of that (bomb plots foiled) -- I think it is just a matter of time before the real Troubles begin.
I'm shocked you call terrorist attacks a suboptimal path. It reminds me of how during the cold war people (usually male) discussed nuclear wars with language such as "limited warfare", enemies "exchange" warheads; or use everyday language "deliver" "take out" to replace sentient human bodies and human lives" as entirely rational if only slightly unfortunate events. (for background, I recommend Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals by Carol Cohn)
Thanks for the recommendation. In an ideological/moral battle the ends justify the means, at least for the radicalized - and I think the pro-democracy group has been on a path of greater and greater radicalization for the last several years. This is the world of lum chao (揽炒). But the leaders know that is risky, so political paralysis is the better path to lure Beijing into the abyss.
I just think it is the job of us liberals to call out behaviors that are morally unacceptable no matter what their ends are. A salient feature of this movement is the joining force between moderates and radicals (I recommend CUHK professor Francis Lee's Solidarity in the Anti-Extradition Bill movement in Hong Kong) and a peculiar absence/silence of the political left. Outpouring admiration for Lee Kai Shiang and targeting the MTR (used by lower and middle-class HKers like myself) tell you where things have gone wrong.
I’ve been wondering a lot recently what US-China relations would be like if Clinton was president. I can’t help but think that maybe public statements from both sides would be a bit less bizarre. Trump and his administration has basically taken all face from China, pushing them to react with shrill statements and outlandish conspiracy theories.
On Q3, I'd hate to imagine what might happen were we to have a replay of the '99 embassy bombing or the '01 Hainan incident, or anything like them, in these times. It might be good to go back and re-read E.H. Carr's "Twenty Years Crisis." Many people think great powers today are not likely to go to war, that we've all learned from the past. Oh, I wish it were true. People in Carr's day and age thought that too. And then came 1939.
Regarding the attacks on Pompeo, calling him "the enemy of humanity" is a new low for recent Chinese wolf warrior diplomacy. He would be well-served to add some nuance to his words about Covid origins, given that we do not have a smoking gun (or if he does, we'd really like to know more). Experts around the world (intel and virology people) concur that the virus is not man-made, and that we can't say with certainty that it was leaked from one of the Wuhan labs. So while the US (and the world) should continue to press Beijing for answers about origins, it doesn't seem helpful to keep saying it was leaked or launched from the labs in Wuhan unless we know that is the case.
I think Pottinger's speech is very welcome in these very dark times. I haven't seen China-US relations this bad since June 4, 1989. And I think they are actually worse - the problems are much broader and deeper, more difficult to resolve. I would guess that the Chinese audience (whomever they are in the end) would appreciate the attempt of a leading US official to speak to them in Chinese, even though they can't agree with all he says. I think his speech is a win for the US and for diplomacy (though it probably won't change much in the long run - perhaps the good will expressed will help with the trade war phase one deal, and that would be important in and of itself.
I think the closest we would come to another Hai Nan incident would be a South China Sea FONOP disaster, either with official Chinese "civilians" or a legitimate PLAN-USN conflict where the former tries to push the boundary of the sphere of influence that they patrol and the latter refuses to change course citing that they are following normative procedures.
I guess its similar to how China recently spins that their patrols successfully "deterred" USN FONOP exercises from going somewhere they shouldn't, when in reality the FONOP just occurred in its usual fashion.
What concrete steps, if any, is China taking toward achieving socialism? Is it simply neoliberal state capitalism under the guise of socialist ideology? Some have made the argument that China's economic ascent is necessary in order to challenge the U.S.-led capitalist global order and establish non-capitalist spheres of governance.
Taiwan is the most thoroughly virus locked country and have had zero Domestic cases the last month. CKS airport had zero passengers a couple days ago. Zero. That is shocking. They are looking at starting flights with New Zealand, another virus safe country. By that standard US visitors may not be welcome for many months or even longer.
As to what would happen now if a Chinese craft attacks a US craft (naval or air) the outcome would be very different than in 2001. Fingers are much itchier now. So the risks are higher than ever before.
The Belgrade bombing happened 5 weeks after a US stealth bomber was shot down over Serbia. At the time in 1999 there was speculation of a “connection“. Part of that plane wreckage went to China.
I always wondered what if the Hainan plane crash incident had happened after 9/11 instead of soon before. How would Bush have reacted? The crash probably would not even have occurred. And was there a connection between the Belgrade embassy bombing in 1999 and Chinese harassment of US spy planes and naval ships in 2001?
Matt’s speech is as good in delivery as any foreigner speaking Chinese I have ever heard. The content was very good too. He knows every word he was speaking that is very clear. I am glad to see someone in the NSC who knows China well. Rita the reporter seems to respect him and fear the likes of Rubio and Pottinger who, unlike former and current presidents, only care about real interests vs Rubio and Pottinger who focus on principals and not just economic interest. Rita’s meaning is it is easy to have trade talks with Americans but not easy to deal on principles like human rights, the South China Sea, etc.
I have a question. Is there a point of no return, or a breaking point if you will where it will be extremely difficult to repair sino-US relations? Have we reached that point already? Even things like accusing the virus was mfg without strong evidence is extremely damaging. Thoughts?
What about the situation of the Catholic Church in China? It seems the situation of the underground Church worsend in the last few month, also because of the agreement with the Vatican.
Question: Ist the persecution still a regional/provincial problem or is it already a nation wide agenda?
China's restrictions on letting foreigners enter the country from overseas are still in place, and the government has not signaled a timeline for their relaxation. The rational is to track and curb the risk posed by imported cases, which data corroborates. To what extent are these restrictions on foreigners politically motivated as well? Given the finger pointing that continues to pervade U.S. and Chinese media exchanges, what are the chances that China will use resumed access/travel into its borders as a bargaining chip?
I may be overly optimistic but I think a blanket ban on foreigners is too blunt a tool. China is not the only country that has banned or severely restricted foreigners, and certainly it seems to be an agreed approach to reduce the chance of a second wave.
The focus in the Chinese media on 'imported' case omits the fact that these are all Chinese nationals given that it's been 6 weeks with a ban on entrant, so the continued rhetoric in both medias may continue to drive up some difficult treatment of foreigners. One thing it is still tough to get used to is how quickly public opinion changes, and has changed over the last year with US-China trade war, HK, and now Covid. In the taxi to work today I listened to the retort to the US messages (can they explain about this, can they explain this) and I was actually surprised the driver didn't ask me why 'we' were accusing China given the evidence to the contrary.
I was thinking more about the possibility of China pursuing a phased approach of allowing some foreigners to re-enter but not all at the same time - and then if so, what kind of criteria would they use? Number of COVID cases per country? Volume of trade? Travel reciprocity? Public praise? Etc. It's also worth noting, probably, that the United States still has its own travel ban in place on all foreigners from and who have been to China in the past 14 days.
I've never thought access itself was much of a bargaining chip, because once you enter, now you're the bargaining chip. If they really want to use people as leverage, it's a lot easier when those people are within its jurisdiction. Plus, stricter entry provisions only add to the ongoing chorus of reasons to take one's business elsewhere.
They are not required to leave, but since March 28 (give or take), foreigners have not been able to enter China from overseas regardless of whether they have valid visas or residence permits. Excludes diplomats.
This has been floated at various points over the last 4 years but my read is that people are happy with how EVUS is working and outside of that trimming validity is a logistical nightmare.
The reason they got a 10 year agreement was not really political but instead due to limited resources on the US processing/interview side.
Not saying it can't be taken away but it would introduce a lot of problems. That aside, Beijing has actually kept their side of the deal and Americans get 10 year visas as well which is convenient if you do business there.
Many Americans don't get 10 year visas. Tourists? Yes. Businessmen who have letters proving they need such visas? Yes. Think tank experts? Depends if they like you and what you write/say or not.
I got a three year visa at Zhejiang U, but my visas have gotten shorter and shorter the last few years, working at a British U. I wonder what kind of visas Daniel Bell gets ;-)
#3 I think it is more likely that the next "incident" with the PRC will be with one of our Allies/Friends in the region - most likely Taiwan and/or Japan. And, to be accurate, yesterday was the anniversary of the accidental bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade. It is very easy to understand how our military could have made such a mistake 21 years ago.
It's hard to believe it's a mistake when a b-2 stealth bomber flew directly from its US base all the way to Belgrade to only use precision bombs on a single target. On top of that, NATO apparently has no authority to use b-2.
Definitely Pompeo is gonna look worse though I wonder if China still cares about looking nice anyway. A bad and somewhat misogynistic term 泼妇骂街 accurately sums up the state attack against Pompeo imo.
Its because we are brainwashed with so called "liberal values" by the american regime. We need to destroy the american regime and give the american people freedom from the capitalists
3. In a recent interview with Caixin Yan Xuetong 阎学通 downplayed the possibility of a minor incident sparking war （擦枪走火). He was specifically asked about the possibility of this occurring in the South China Sea or Taiwan. He was rather sanguine in the interview. link here: http://international.caixin.com/2020-04-30/101548885.html
I personally think we'd see such brinksmanship that it might invite war. Trump admin would use as saber to rally electoral support. The diplomatic Wolf Warriors would relish it... and the military ones?
Pottinger’s speech is pretty awful. Sure he has a BA in Chinese studies and can speak fluently, but that doesn’t make him a Chinese scholar and no one will take his thoughts on fundamental social values seriously. It’s cultural appropriation in scholarly clothing. In terms of its functions, I get that it’s commemorative but urging for a 1919 political and social framework to be realised now discounts how much China has changed since then. He speaks as if China has never reformed, as of HK happened in 1968 rather than 2020. A call for democracy now in China would be better served by references to the present, I.e. technology, financial liberalisation, climate change, rise of disinformation, nuclear proliferation, not stale political theory from 1919. The Universal declaration of human rights is close but a severely limited framework of its own. Also, doesn’t he see how framing America First as populist while deriding China’s nationalism is more than just a little ironic.
It's better understood as an olive branch for dialogue. No one seriously thinks he is making an academic argument about how to interpret the May 4th movement.
More of an irrelevant light-hearted post, but someone created a funny, hitting too-close-to-home political compass for online Chinese.
I hope others may enjoy it.
https://i.redd.it/84blkdeh36x41.jpg
Yet another meme I didn’t know I needed.
Pottinger is the latest in a long tradition of American figures who believe that they can reach out directly to the East and convert them. Some have succeeded in the past, most have ended up in the historically irrelevant trash heap. The sheer irony of having a member of the current administration preach about liberal values and "a little less nationalism, a little more populism" leaves me with little doubt on where Pottinger will find himself 50 years from now.
If Pottinger's goal was to "cut through the noise" and "open up a conversation" directly with the Chinese, the reality was that a very limited audience of elites was listening. That elite audience understands English and certainly doesn't need to put up with a gimmicky Chinese performance. And they certainly don't need to listen to an American pontificate about Chinese history and culture.
If Pottinger's goal was to reach out to the Chinese liberals and give their cause for reforms a boost, the reality is that he made their life more difficult. The liberals/doves in China are already marginalised and drowned out by the hawks, who will see Pottinger's speech as nothing other than interference in domestic politics. Those who use Pottinger's speech to call for more domestic reforms will simply be labelled traitors. There is a Chinese term for this, i.e. 弄巧成拙.
In summary, I think we have overstated the significance and impact of Pottinger's speech. But it's fine because he probably got a whole bunch of pats on the back and praises from the DC echo chamber, and that's what really matters right?
I agree with this take, but I'm not sure how it could have come across any other way.
Something I struggle with is how, as a foreigner, we can be taken seriously on political topics. If we speak from the context of living in modern China and sharing our lived experiences of the oppression we see right outside the window, we are accused of not having a deep understanding of Chinese culture and history. But foreigners like Pottinger who try to take a more cerebral path and root their commentary in aspects of Chinese culture and history are accused of being out of touch with the youth of today. It's a no win situation.
Personally I think if Americans want to use Chinese language communications to reach out to a non-elite audience, better to use slang and local pronunciation, and talk about working class problems. Unfortunately that sort of dialog is tough to establish from outside the country - it's already hard enough for locals to speak candidly on sensitive topics due to domestic censorship. So we are back at either producing highbrow content for elites, i.e. standard political theater, or not engaging in politics at all. And so the Party gets what they want either way.
I think the audience was also Chinese speakers elsewhere, who may be much more receptive to both the message and delivery. Seeing someone in the White House speaking Chinese and pushing these ideas would be very compelling for moderates in the Chinese diaspora, I would think. And when they then go to Wechat and see it censored, well, maybe they will take a moment to think about that.
Agree, there is no way to reach a PRC audience anyway. And it sends a message to the CCP.
"The liberals/doves in China are already marginalised" That is an interesting point, because someone chipped-in the question, if there had ever been liberals/doves in the higher echelons of the party, or if that has always been only a bait, dangling in front to western liberals/doves.
There are certainly liberals, albeit not in a western sense, but either they are Stalin's useful idiots, in which case they may carry on for a while, or they go into "hiding" in a futile attempt to avoid eradication. Everything any party official has ever said is a matter of record, you can't escape a serious purge.
I think Pompeo's rhetoric is hurtful. It is not helping the U.S. to pursuade people to follow our lead in global affairs. We should be pointing out that China has not been donating, but selling, equipment to these nations and that China is trying to use this global tragedy to improve their own imperialistic objectives. Pompeo is certainly playing to a base by trying to paint China as a malicious participant in creating/spreading Covid when their is just no evidence of this, however, i suppose he fails to notice the fragile, and eroding, trust that the global community has for American intelligence. Mr. Bishop previously said (and im seriously paraphrasing) that the US should be quiet and let China's own actions ruin them. I agree with this. China has already suffered a PR disaster and it would be easier for the U.S. to amplify global criticism of China as opposed to peddling conspiarcy theories.
Agree. There doesn't seem to be any need to embellish the CCP's actions to get a consensus among Western and Western allied nations about the need to stand up for our values and to the CCP. But you can't create consensus around obvious lies or exaggerations. Horrible alliance building work as usual by Pompeo/Trump. Clearly built on domestic political strategy as Steve Carroll pointed out below.
The base need things pretty simple. That explains it.
Napoleon put it well; “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.“
Difficult to believe that anyone could make Xi’s Maoist cult look good but Trump and Pompeo manage to do so 8 times out of 10.
No-one outside of the USA trusts this administration.
From the outside looking in, it’s the Fall of Rome 2.0
Rome 2.0... I tend to agree. Xi knows very well that Trump and his little merry little band are incompetent and wildly self-serving. But war would be ruinous to Xi’s very-long term goals. And Trump is not permanent.
They love Trump, so easy to play.
Pottinger is to be applauded for his excellent Mandarin. However, he admonishes the PRC for its authoritarian stance and behaviors, while working for a US President attempting to do the very same thing. Lack of Transparency in both governments is morbidly obvious. Revealing truths to their citizens is horribly lacking. The corruption within the Trump administration appears to outdistance the corruption within the PRC, but both parties are autocrat, all orders from top to bottom with no breaking that chain. Speaking truth in the USA gets you fired, removed from your position, escorted out of the WH by goons, as well as those who peak truth in China - they disappear. No, Mr. Pottinger's fine mandarin cannot cover his absolute ignorance and his deplorable behaviors while supporting a most disinterested in Democracy movement this country has ever seen, and Populists are at the front line of ignorance. The universe is the universe, and by showing compassion for another, one becomes the main instrument in this universe - love. There is no love within the PRC for their citizens, nor in the Trump administration.
Corruption in the Trump administration? Really! You do realize the most corrupt administration of recent history was the Obama administration. Anyone who thinks differently is lost down a rabbit hole.
One must realize that there has been a Cold War with China for the last 20+ years. It was China and the CCP that tried to control the narrative about the China virus. Thus starting a pandemic and putting the world in the place it is now.
The Trump Rabbit hole is filled with cow dung, and has absorbed their ignorance, keeping it below the surface.
I think his Chinese is quite overrated. Very stale and had no emotion to it, he probably didn't write it and just tried to pronounce every character right without fully comprehending it all.
Matt told everyone during the session that he wrote the speech in English and had someone translate it for him. But his conversational Chinese is really quite good; He didn't just "read the pin yin" without comprehending it.
most likely was reading from pinyin cards, which would explain the (at times) exaggerated tones.
but as a symbol of respect and seriousness, I think it's admirable. also I'd bet he fully comprehended it all.
An interesting theory about Pinyin. Probably the only practical way to get it onto a teleprompter, at least an American one. He sounded pretty good to me, but like an American speaking Chinese.
His PRONUNCIATION was great. My Chinese is pretty good casually, but I too struggle when I speak formally - mostly just with getting the tones right, and that throws everything off. It’s rest hard even for good non-native mandarin speakers to speak formally.
** it’s just
I like the content though. It tries to awaken Chinese people rather than simply conflict with.
Umm sure but it’s still impressive and sends a msg to China. Effective in that he got his point across
I don't know Chinese, can anyone link to a rough translation of the Weibo post?
The post basically sends a warning message saying that the two politicians, Pottinger and Rubio, are relatively young and not that friendly to China. Future sino-us relationship can be tough to deal with.
Yeah she's quite perceptive to point that out. If you look at the current "friends of China" they are getting a little long in the tooth. The seeds that were sown did bear fruit for a while but where is the next crop going to come from?
This is where all the influence operations have hurt them badly, you literally cannot say something positive about China on any western social media without getting called a bot or shill. I don't think that's the case with Iran or even North Korea.
True!
Rubio and Pottinger both put US interests and principles first, that will make them relatively hard to deal with compared to the past 50 years of “friends of China”.
Well, all politicians always put the good of their own nation first. The question is always, what is good for the own nation.
While I don't always agree with Rubio, I must admit he has a fabulous grip on the big picture and eloquently carries across clear and concise messages. He should play a much bigger role in US politics.
This is worrisome
I think about the Belgrade bombing and the EP-3 incidents a great deal because, despite lots of talk about bilateral tensions, neither Beijing nor Washington have had to handle a bilateral crisis like those in 1999 and 2001.
Indeed. The thing that worries me is China's reaction time during emergencies like these. And Beijing has similar concerns about the White House. During the EP-3 incident, it took a while to get any response from China. It seems to me that the in-built time lag caused by deliberations within the walls of Zhongnanhai during emergencies hasn't changed much at all over a couple of decades. Lots of similarities between China's reaction time during the original SARS outbreak and SARS-2. So it begs the question of how resilient China's crisis management mechanisms are. With China's saturation of the SCS I fear its a question of not if, but when, so Beijing and Washington need to jaw-jaw about this, perhaps in a track 2 setting.
Obama chickened out of helping the Philippines (a treaty ally) over Scarborough Shoal too.
The USNS Impeccable incident in 2009 was close, but definitely of a lower signature than the EP-3 incident and the bombing of the embassy.
The US-China relationship is undoubtedly a defining relationship for the rest of the world.
The real question here is, if Pompeo, Wang Yi and their radicalised, simplistic underlings should really be the people to handle this relationship of supreme importance.
Both, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US State Department have long left behind sensible diplomacy and instead have lowered themselves to a previously unthinkably primitive levels. The punks and huns, that both countries offer the world as "ambassadors", are also hardly suitable to foster good relationships.
Sometimes both, Wang Yi and Pompeo, remind me of Third Reich foreign minister Ribbentrop. It can't be, that either country's foreign ministers become among the most hated persons abroad. They must be Kissingers, Genschers, Shevardnadzes.
Whatever the feud at the top, both countries foreign affairs officials must be able to talk to each other face to face, without primitive insults lingering in the background.
Diplomats must never become an embarrassment to their own nation.
If both countries really want peace, they'd both have to retire their foreign ministers right now, along with a large number of their respective "diplomats", make substantial changes to their foreign policy and how it is carried out.
Also on Weibo re: Pottinger: "那些当初在星巴克里殴打驻华记者Pottinger的人，绝对不会想到，他们竟然可以对历史进程产生了如此深远的影响。 "
Hi Bill, any thoughts on the following: What do you think will be the future of academic exchanges between the US and China and do you think we should still encourage such exchanges?
Bill didn't say anything here (yet) but as a Yank working at a UK JV institution in China (and running a department of 450 students in IR/IS), I see increasing tension between Western academic values and the norms of CCP educational practice. We are seeing more and more textbooks blocked, more and more speakers blocked, and more and more pushback against critical pubs of faculty members. For now operations are still on (or will be when covid subsides more fully), but I don't think the future of such exchanges are bright unless we Westerners are willing to trade our scruples for access to the Middle Kingdom. At some point the Western universities in China are going to be in a position where they will say, "enough is enough, and zaijian." We are not there yet, but the day may be coming. I certainly would not recommend launching new Western universities in China, though limited student exchanges are probably going to be fine for a while. Or, perhaps the programs will just have to exclude humanities and social sciences, the ones wherein we are going to have a harder and harder time working together.
Pottinger’s speech strikes me as something that would have been appropriate under Hu, but that is far too removed for the present day.
One tic of conservative China-hands that he recapitulates is an anger that seems to stem primarily from the Party’s unwillingness to pay lip service to a western rhetoric of human rights, and only secondarily opposes the actual violation of people’s rights. The speech as a whole struck me as smarmy and overly abstract.
I’m just happy something was said.
Any thoughts Bill on a non-US aspect - China’s editing of EU Ambassadors’ message to celebrate 45 years of EU China relations? Reference to Coronavirus “starting in China and spreading throughout the world” exited out in China Daily report of it. Gives more fuel to Pompeo I think
craven, and hurts the PRC in the EU
Who reads China Daily? Resident diplomats and English language students. It is a vanity and propaganda publication.
Quite regularly foreign country dignitaries like ambassadors publish self-praises and praises of their China relationship in that fish & chips wrapping paper.
Sometimes it is the PRC government that takes the initiative to insert features about certain countries or interviews with dignitaries on the question why-oh-why they are just so fabulous and China is so important.
Whatever the cases, contents are heavily edited by both sides. The current "censorship" is just cooked up from actually regular procedures.
Yeah this is an example of a short term double win, they got the propaganda and they successfully bullied someone. They don't consider the long-term costs of this. They are pushing normally sympathetic figures in other countries into a corner with these stunts.
No thoughts about what happened at HK LegCo Friday?
you are welcome to share yours and start a discussion
I'm asking your thoughts.
i do not have any yet, just saw some clips on facebook, looks pretty ugly
Beijing progressively and violently stamping out independent thought in Hong Kong.
It's more of the same pattern, Beijing is losing patience. I think the pro-establishment crowd are trying to preserve their existence while being crushed between Beijing and the protesters.
At a certain point I think both Beijing and the opposition will make the determination, "why do we need these people?"
Just one step in the chain of escalation by the pan-democrats. They need to precipitate a crackdown by Beijing, and seizing the government is the best way. Unable to gain control of the Executive, they are trying to generate a crisis through the Legislature. The other path (suboptimal) is through terrorist attacks, especially if they can conduct those within the mainland. There have been indications of that (bomb plots foiled) -- I think it is just a matter of time before the real Troubles begin.
I'm shocked you call terrorist attacks a suboptimal path. It reminds me of how during the cold war people (usually male) discussed nuclear wars with language such as "limited warfare", enemies "exchange" warheads; or use everyday language "deliver" "take out" to replace sentient human bodies and human lives" as entirely rational if only slightly unfortunate events. (for background, I recommend Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals by Carol Cohn)
Thanks for the recommendation. In an ideological/moral battle the ends justify the means, at least for the radicalized - and I think the pro-democracy group has been on a path of greater and greater radicalization for the last several years. This is the world of lum chao (揽炒). But the leaders know that is risky, so political paralysis is the better path to lure Beijing into the abyss.
I just think it is the job of us liberals to call out behaviors that are morally unacceptable no matter what their ends are. A salient feature of this movement is the joining force between moderates and radicals (I recommend CUHK professor Francis Lee's Solidarity in the Anti-Extradition Bill movement in Hong Kong) and a peculiar absence/silence of the political left. Outpouring admiration for Lee Kai Shiang and targeting the MTR (used by lower and middle-class HKers like myself) tell you where things have gone wrong.
I’ve been wondering a lot recently what US-China relations would be like if Clinton was president. I can’t help but think that maybe public statements from both sides would be a bit less bizarre. Trump and his administration has basically taken all face from China, pushing them to react with shrill statements and outlandish conspiracy theories.
On Q3, I'd hate to imagine what might happen were we to have a replay of the '99 embassy bombing or the '01 Hainan incident, or anything like them, in these times. It might be good to go back and re-read E.H. Carr's "Twenty Years Crisis." Many people think great powers today are not likely to go to war, that we've all learned from the past. Oh, I wish it were true. People in Carr's day and age thought that too. And then came 1939.
Regarding the attacks on Pompeo, calling him "the enemy of humanity" is a new low for recent Chinese wolf warrior diplomacy. He would be well-served to add some nuance to his words about Covid origins, given that we do not have a smoking gun (or if he does, we'd really like to know more). Experts around the world (intel and virology people) concur that the virus is not man-made, and that we can't say with certainty that it was leaked from one of the Wuhan labs. So while the US (and the world) should continue to press Beijing for answers about origins, it doesn't seem helpful to keep saying it was leaked or launched from the labs in Wuhan unless we know that is the case.
I think Pottinger's speech is very welcome in these very dark times. I haven't seen China-US relations this bad since June 4, 1989. And I think they are actually worse - the problems are much broader and deeper, more difficult to resolve. I would guess that the Chinese audience (whomever they are in the end) would appreciate the attempt of a leading US official to speak to them in Chinese, even though they can't agree with all he says. I think his speech is a win for the US and for diplomacy (though it probably won't change much in the long run - perhaps the good will expressed will help with the trade war phase one deal, and that would be important in and of itself.
冷戰思維不是單行道. 老共發言人詞語也是很毒了.
認為美國和中國不是敵人的學著簡直是自欺欺人！
I think the closest we would come to another Hai Nan incident would be a South China Sea FONOP disaster, either with official Chinese "civilians" or a legitimate PLAN-USN conflict where the former tries to push the boundary of the sphere of influence that they patrol and the latter refuses to change course citing that they are following normative procedures.
I guess its similar to how China recently spins that their patrols successfully "deterred" USN FONOP exercises from going somewhere they shouldn't, when in reality the FONOP just occurred in its usual fashion.
What concrete steps, if any, is China taking toward achieving socialism? Is it simply neoliberal state capitalism under the guise of socialist ideology? Some have made the argument that China's economic ascent is necessary in order to challenge the U.S.-led capitalist global order and establish non-capitalist spheres of governance.
Taiwan is the most thoroughly virus locked country and have had zero Domestic cases the last month. CKS airport had zero passengers a couple days ago. Zero. That is shocking. They are looking at starting flights with New Zealand, another virus safe country. By that standard US visitors may not be welcome for many months or even longer.
As to what would happen now if a Chinese craft attacks a US craft (naval or air) the outcome would be very different than in 2001. Fingers are much itchier now. So the risks are higher than ever before.
The Belgrade bombing happened 5 weeks after a US stealth bomber was shot down over Serbia. At the time in 1999 there was speculation of a “connection“. Part of that plane wreckage went to China.
I always wondered what if the Hainan plane crash incident had happened after 9/11 instead of soon before. How would Bush have reacted? The crash probably would not even have occurred. And was there a connection between the Belgrade embassy bombing in 1999 and Chinese harassment of US spy planes and naval ships in 2001?
Listen to Fresh Air interview of Dan NcNeil, 40+ year veteran of NYT on the coronavirus. It should open your mind and eyes.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847870532/what-the-u-s-might-learn-from-chinas-approach-to-covid-19
Irrelevant question: is China still run under legalist ideas coated with Confucianism 外儒内法?
Matt’s speech is as good in delivery as any foreigner speaking Chinese I have ever heard. The content was very good too. He knows every word he was speaking that is very clear. I am glad to see someone in the NSC who knows China well. Rita the reporter seems to respect him and fear the likes of Rubio and Pottinger who, unlike former and current presidents, only care about real interests vs Rubio and Pottinger who focus on principals and not just economic interest. Rita’s meaning is it is easy to have trade talks with Americans but not easy to deal on principles like human rights, the South China Sea, etc.
It would help his case if Pompeo didn't stumble over his words in the middle of a major accusation such as 'virus was manmade' or not.
I have a question. Is there a point of no return, or a breaking point if you will where it will be extremely difficult to repair sino-US relations? Have we reached that point already? Even things like accusing the virus was mfg without strong evidence is extremely damaging. Thoughts?
A real breaking point? Maybe an attack on the dollar as the lead currency. (Can't see that for the near future.)
There is no way for China to make any effective attack on the US as the lead reserve currency, certainly it will never be China's RMB.
What about the situation of the Catholic Church in China? It seems the situation of the underground Church worsend in the last few month, also because of the agreement with the Vatican.
Question: Ist the persecution still a regional/provincial problem or is it already a nation wide agenda?
Nationwide and intensifying. Suppressing organized religion outside the party's control is a fundamental goal of the CCP.
It’s gotta be nationwide with varying levels of intensity based on regionality. I’d imagine Shanghai, beijing, etc to be especially strict
China's restrictions on letting foreigners enter the country from overseas are still in place, and the government has not signaled a timeline for their relaxation. The rational is to track and curb the risk posed by imported cases, which data corroborates. To what extent are these restrictions on foreigners politically motivated as well? Given the finger pointing that continues to pervade U.S. and Chinese media exchanges, what are the chances that China will use resumed access/travel into its borders as a bargaining chip?
I may be overly optimistic but I think a blanket ban on foreigners is too blunt a tool. China is not the only country that has banned or severely restricted foreigners, and certainly it seems to be an agreed approach to reduce the chance of a second wave.
The focus in the Chinese media on 'imported' case omits the fact that these are all Chinese nationals given that it's been 6 weeks with a ban on entrant, so the continued rhetoric in both medias may continue to drive up some difficult treatment of foreigners. One thing it is still tough to get used to is how quickly public opinion changes, and has changed over the last year with US-China trade war, HK, and now Covid. In the taxi to work today I listened to the retort to the US messages (can they explain about this, can they explain this) and I was actually surprised the driver didn't ask me why 'we' were accusing China given the evidence to the contrary.
I was thinking more about the possibility of China pursuing a phased approach of allowing some foreigners to re-enter but not all at the same time - and then if so, what kind of criteria would they use? Number of COVID cases per country? Volume of trade? Travel reciprocity? Public praise? Etc. It's also worth noting, probably, that the United States still has its own travel ban in place on all foreigners from and who have been to China in the past 14 days.
I've never thought access itself was much of a bargaining chip, because once you enter, now you're the bargaining chip. If they really want to use people as leverage, it's a lot easier when those people are within its jurisdiction. Plus, stricter entry provisions only add to the ongoing chorus of reasons to take one's business elsewhere.
Perhaps these restrictions are just a flex because i agree with you
Do foreigners need to leave the country?
They are not required to leave, but since March 28 (give or take), foreigners have not been able to enter China from overseas regardless of whether they have valid visas or residence permits. Excludes diplomats.
As of the end of March it does include diplomats, at least in Beijing where the majority of them work. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3078385/coronavirus-china-advises-foreign-diplomats-stay-away-beijing
Might US 10-year visas be on the chopping block?
This has been floated at various points over the last 4 years but my read is that people are happy with how EVUS is working and outside of that trimming validity is a logistical nightmare.
The reason they got a 10 year agreement was not really political but instead due to limited resources on the US processing/interview side.
Not saying it can't be taken away but it would introduce a lot of problems. That aside, Beijing has actually kept their side of the deal and Americans get 10 year visas as well which is convenient if you do business there.
Many Americans don't get 10 year visas. Tourists? Yes. Businessmen who have letters proving they need such visas? Yes. Think tank experts? Depends if they like you and what you write/say or not.
I got a three year visa at Zhejiang U, but my visas have gotten shorter and shorter the last few years, working at a British U. I wonder what kind of visas Daniel Bell gets ;-)
I wonder the whole COVID19 situation becomes too big to be able to find the truth like in may other situations in human being history. Sort of sad.
#3 I think it is more likely that the next "incident" with the PRC will be with one of our Allies/Friends in the region - most likely Taiwan and/or Japan. And, to be accurate, yesterday was the anniversary of the accidental bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade. It is very easy to understand how our military could have made such a mistake 21 years ago.
It's hard to believe it's a mistake when a b-2 stealth bomber flew directly from its US base all the way to Belgrade to only use precision bombs on a single target. On top of that, NATO apparently has no authority to use b-2.
Definitely Pompeo is gonna look worse though I wonder if China still cares about looking nice anyway. A bad and somewhat misogynistic term 泼妇骂街 accurately sums up the state attack against Pompeo imo.
Wow, what a great topic to bring up in your first conversation on a dating app. What the hell is wrong with you
Its because we are brainwashed with so called "liberal values" by the american regime. We need to destroy the american regime and give the american people freedom from the capitalists
Lol
Your pathetic lol tells everything...