I wanted to kickoff today’s discussion with a response from Matt Sheehan to my comments yesterday about the mooted US visa ban for CCP members and their relatives. Here are some of my comments Thursday:
I think a blanket US visa ban on CCP members is misguided, incendiary, self-defeating and counterproductive, but I have little patience for the argument that being a Party member is meaningless and most are always harmless non-believers. That is not how Xi's CCP works…
My point is that behind the individual is a system that has been vastly strengthened under Xi, by design, and so we can't just dismiss it as like a normal foreign political Party.
“Your comment on how things have changed under Xi, and how members can now be called to action, got me curious on the % of members who joined under Xi and some other demographic stuff. Currently, about 16% (15 of 92m) joined under Xi, with the remaining 77m (84%) joining pre-Xi. At this point, you've got more CCP members that are retired than Xi-era recruits, and about twice as many who joined under Hu as under Xi.
I fully get that for the 16% of new members there was a lot more political screening, and also that the remaining 84% can still be pushed to do things, especially when there's a once in a century pandemic. I listened to what Zhang Wenhong said, and I believe he meant it.
But I also think the background and sheer size of CCP membership means we are a long way from a world where because Xi is in charge, those 90 million people are now at the disposal of Xi and the ccp. I think if you look across the whole group -- 16m who joined pre-1978, 61m who joined 1978-2012, and 15m who joined under Xi -- the profile of that group is still predominantly normal people who don't have much, if anything, to do w/ executing CCP orders.
In terms of public communication on this stuff, nothing I say is going to account for all the nuances (or is really going to matter much). But I do think when we're talking about the public+USG understanding of what it means to be a "member of the Chinese Communist Party," that understanding is skewed way further in the direction "these are dangerous Chinese apparatchiks" than in the direction of "these are harmless non-believers."
Nothing I (or any of us) say about what CCP membership means is going to perfectly nail it, but I do think if I'm trying to move the needle of public/USG understanding in one direction, it's towards making a mental distinction b/w CCP members and real CCP officials.
So what do you think? Is a blanket ban a good or a bad idea? If you joined the Party purely for reasons of expediency and career advancement, can you resist being a disciplined Party member when called upon in Xi’s New Era, an Era in which we have seen the reinvigoration of ideological discipline work and the coercive and fear-inducing methods the Party can bring to bear? Might such a blanket ban cause widespread discontent among Party members about the direction of the country under Xi? Or as the US is seen to be more aggressively trying to keep China down, and as the pandemic continues to rampage through the US while it looks to be under control in the PRC, how many who joined for practical reasons may move towards more wholehearted support for the Party?
And of course please feel free to discuss anything else. I will be in and out of the thread today.
When we were seeking a spousal visa from China to the US – which should have been about the simplest visa possible – we met delay and changes of venues in the US to review the application and, we think, simple refusal to process. The process took more than eighteen months. This was during the Obama administration, not that Obama was responsible for the delay but this was not a Trump thing. We never could find out what the cause or causes were, but it was certainly likely that her CCP membership was a question.
In the visa application there were questions of the “are you now or have you ever” variety. Within China, the wechat advisories to applicants warned about the question asking whether a CCP member had ever benefited from membership. One could guess that an answer considered positive would be “no” – that the applicant did not personally benefit through special treatment, or bribery, or privileges. But – it was counseled – perhaps a better answer was yes, benefits were obtained, on the assumption that a “no” answer would indicate that the CCP member was either oblivious to the received benefits or was lying.
My wife chose to tell the truth – that she did not see any benefit obtained, and she further explained in the interview. Truth seemed to work.
The point is that CCP membership is certainly not quite like joining the Rotary, but it is sometimes demanded or strongly advised during schooling. Whether one is a young Red Scarf girl or becomes a provisional member in high school or college, membership – particularly for young and smart people – does not indicate allegiance to the cause so much as it does a checking off of a box, like polishing the resume. For the millions of current CCP members who are not quite so loyal as Mr. Xi would like, their ability to travel and understand the US – of which many Chinese do each year – might be the best soft power vehicle we still have left.
For seven years, I taught CCP members who were in Chicago for a year to learn about markets and government management. In total, I probably had four or five hundred CCP members as students. Most were smart, thoughtful, and willing to learn. Many of those who came to the US already had a Master’s degree or a PhD. Many remain friends. One sent several hundred dollars worth of masks to us in April, when no one in the US could find masks anywhere.
Of course, our dear leader would want to exclude such people from visiting the US. In 2016, I said that if Trump wins, then Xi wins and Putin wins. Seems pretty evident now.
So it was after 2016 that Trump built the concentration camps, built military islands in SCS, threatened Taiwan, Huawei just became a thing, (2012 House Bi-Partisan report if your interested).. It's incredibly tiresome when Xi and the CCP are the cause and folks look for a reason to excuse China because a few friends who are Chinese.
-
I know some wonderful young Chinese kids in HKG. They are in jail. Trump didn't put them, Xi did. - And unlike all those CCP members you taught, who have only enriched themselves & kept quite on welfare of others,,, these HKG kids are trying to save their city.
I would agree that banning CCP members is a very blunt and crude tool, but I'm getting tired of "straddlers," i.e. dyed in the wool CCP members who espouse and benefit from the CCP in China, but also want to take advantage of the West by having substantial assets and sending their kids to school here. Xi sending his daughter to Harvard is a prime example. Or the son of his imprisoned rival, Bo Xilai. Or a few members of Legco. Or Meng Wanzhou. There are legions of others.
In hedge fund parlance, this a long-short hedge, with economic and political options on both hemispheres of the globe.
Agreed and 2 additional points. One is how ironic that CCP encourages the anti-US nationalism among Chinese citizens while its elite members all send kids and assets to US; the other is how effective a CCP visa ban would have been if white house is really determined to make a dent on CCP: they can simply just start with elite group (or part of them), not all its members.
Great question! And I used to ask the UK government why The City was (still is but better) so receptive to corruption money from regimes and politicians UK absolutely condemned. It s pretty easy to hurt Chicom elites if the West wants to.
What s relevant also is the spectre of chicom factions piggybacking if not influencing or even directing Western policies designed to counter PRC/Chicom, for their own purposes. If legit chicom is not to our taste, just wait till the weirder and more corrupt chicom factions take over...one thing one must learn from all the MENA failures is that one's enemy's enemies are not friends and often turn out to be far more unpalatable.
What we should find alarming is that the CCP elite finds the welcoming arms of our elite, who share common economic and power interests. This assures that the CCP elite reside in the best zip codes, go to the best schools, and get the best jobs. Nobody asks where that money comes from. I'm sure we all know quite a few.
Does the blanket ban make sense? I don't think so. One potential outcome from such a move is to strengthen the "us vs. them" ideology that I expect the CCP relies on for successful indoctrination. For younger members like the millennials Drew Kunz mentioned, I suspect joining the CCP was simply seen as a way to get ahead. However, now with some incremental evidence that there is an 'adversary' against which to struggle, there may be a tipping point in terms of what it means to be a member of the party.
So from the US perspective, this is counterproductive toward a longer-term strategy of rebalancing the US-China relationship. I think it may support the CCP's longevity at the cost of a bump in poll numbers during an election year.
I was born behind the barbed wire on the wrong side of Iron Curtain. The only people who were allowed to cross the barb wire and travel to the West in 1980s were loyal communist apparatchiks. Some of them asked for asylum, the rest were coming back from holidays in West Germany, France and especially from US very disillusioned about the state of affairs in their home country. Soviet empire was running on fumes at that time...
Despite of the fact that China is not running on fumes and advantages of the West are sadly not as apparent as during Soviet times, to stop anybody from China to travel (and especially to study) to our part of the world will breed more ignorance among Chinese and only strengthen the impact of propaganda and nationalism. If US becomes shining city on the hill again, it will serve our case in long term much better than any travel bans...
The “us vs. them” 意識 has been ingrained in Chinese thinking since ancient times. 華夷之辨。There is nothing we can do about this. We have tried to bring China into the “family of nations” and look where we are. The reason we have failed is because the CCP do not see themselves as our equals, but as our betters. 因為貪心無窮 they will always take advantage of “nice”. 老共吃硬不吃軟。It’s time to start talking to them in a language they understand.
Here is what I wrote one of the signatories yesterday about this issue:
I unfortunately and very reluctantly have come to the conclusion that:
1. Under Xi the Chinese side sees restraint as more evidence of US weakness and decline;
2. There is no one in a position of serious of influence in Beijing who could be considered "dovish" or in a position of enough influence to push changes based on a different US approach;
3. The non-adversarial approach does not have a great record over the last decade +, and if anything has emboldened the Chinese side;
4. This claim is something that is repeated so often out of Beijing that it strikes me as having elements of directed propaganda;
5. 吃硬不吃软 (open to coercion but not to persuasion" is a core operating principle of PRC society and political system, much to my frustration in my decade+ living there;
6. Xi and the Party are the ones fueling Chinese nationalism. The tension with the US has its utility in this area, but if were not the US it would be something else, like Japan (see 2012);
7. The US-China relationship going off the rails may be the one thing that could really weaken Xi and open up space for people who may "want China to play a constructive role in world affairs", so a tougher US line now may have at least as good a chance of a positive outcome;
8. There does need to be a correct balance of cooperation and competition, but the US does need to take a much tougher approach now to reset expectations and the relationship, as we have conditioned the PRC to getting away with few to no costs for what we see as bad behavior for far too long. See point 5, 吃硬不吃软.
I wish this were not where I have ended up but here we are.
我舉雙手讚成。 That’s a very polite translation of 吃硬不吃軟。I was thinking of something a little more graphic. I don’t think we need to feel any remorse/reluctance over our conclusions about the Chinese. It’s important that we speak the truth, especially in these times. I don’t see how anyone who 跟老中一起生活和親眼看到官方言行could feel any different.
I think this whole "ban the CCP" debate is fueled by a misunderstanding about how immigration law works. Currently, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the principle mechanism to decide whether a person is "qualified" for a nonimmigrant visa is section 214(b) of the INA: "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of the application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status". This means that the burden is on the visa applicant to prove they are qualified.
In addition, there are dozens of statutes that are called "ineligibilities". These are specific provisions which may permanently or temporarily disqualify a person from receiving certain types of visas (or "ban" them, if you will). Some examples include: anyone who has ever been convicted of certain crimes, anyone who has ever done drugs, anyone who has ever lied to a U.S. official to gain a benefit, etc. The U.S. government adds and removes certain types of ineligibilities periodically.
Until the Immigration Act of 1990, you could be denied a visa or deported from the United States for being a member of the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party. This was a product of legislation introduced in the Internal Security Act of 1950 and then codified in various "Red Scare" era immigration legislation subsequently. After 1990, most of the nonimmigrant visa restrictions were removed, and currently there are restrictions on communist party membership only in the green card and citizenship process. See INA 212(a)(3)(D): "An immigrant visa applicant who is or has been a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is ineligible under INA 212(a)(3)(D) unless qualifying for one of the exceptions described in 9 FAM 302.5-6(B)(5) below. *Nonimmigrants are not subject to the provisions of INA 212(a)(3)(D)."* (emphasis mine) https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030205.html
Alright, whew, getting long here so I will get to the point. The mechanism that will most likely be used to "ban" CCP members and their families will be an Executive Order which modifies 212(a)(3)(D) to once again apply to nonimmigrants (tourists, business travelers, students, etc). This will not prevent them from obtaining visas for the most part. It will require, however, that they admit they are members and request a waiver of the ineligibility. I have no insider knowledge of this process, but if we use the "Muslim ban" as a template for how this might work, you may see something like this included in the EO:
"Waivers are available to people who can show that (1) denying entry to the U.S. would cause the visa applicant undue hardship, (2) entry to the U.S. would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the U.S., and (3) entry would be in the national interest of the U.S."
This will allow the U.S. government discretion to admit the people that they prefer, allow them to gather information on party membership, and open the applicant up to criminal liabilities later on for visa fraud if they misrepresent their membership. It will use an existing process already in place to process these waiver requests, and probably extend processing time a fair bit (weeks to months). It will be a fairly large administrative undertaking, but it is not dissimilar from programs like EVUS which already specifically target Chinese travelers.
Thank you.. this is very interesting historical perspective vis a vis the Soviet Union. Are non-immigrants (i.e. students, short term visitors and H1 visa holders) entering the US currently required to declare if they are members of the Chinese Communist Party?
The arrogance that stands behind this "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of the application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status" is absolutely fascinating.
Yes, interesting that this law is only applicable to non-immigrant visa interviews conducted by the Department of State overseas. Even other US federal agencies like USCIS cannot refuse an application on this basis.
There has been some noise from congress about changing this over the years because it is a frequent cause of constituent complaints, but no serious effort to change it has been mounted to my knowledge.
I should also point that this rule change would create an easily prosecutable charge for CCP members in the US that are caught up in unrelated investigations (assuming they had lied about membership on their visa application). Similar to the way that the FBI and NIH eventually resorted to charging those who lied on grant applications with wire fraud and making false claims after having little success proving they were actual spies in previous court cases. Sort of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion.
I love this idea. Yes, it’s insane. Yes, it’s extreme. And one obvious problem is that China would react ferociously. But it’s become jarringly clear just how hostile the CCP is to the US, seeking to harm us on almost every front.
And this would hurt them: The CCP would suddenly find it much harder to recruit young people, who wouldn’t want to risk permanently foreclosing all opportunity to visit, study and/or work in the US. Current party members would face the same dilemma for themselves and—crucially—their children.
It would be a PR nightmare for Xi, as the costs of membership jump in comparison to the benefits, especially if other countries followed suit with similar bans. And it’s pretty clear that a big chunk of current members joined for expediency, not out of love for the party. So CCP leadership would have to undertake drastic measures to prevent people from leaving in droves – what a blow to the party’s image.
In short, this is a rather simple lever for the US to press – it’s relatively cheap and easy to implement (and reverse) – and it would have a potentially devastating impact on the prestige and power of the CCP. Even to raise the idea is a smart negotiating tactic. The biggest downside, and it’s a serious one, is that China will absolutely flip the F out.
This is a best case scenario. My first feeling (besides "No way, that will never happen") is that this would be very effective and long-term fuel for the fires of nationalism, which are already burning hot.
The fear of Chinese nationalism is what got the US here in the first place, going back to Kissinger. I also think that the CCP knows fighting a war against the world (India, Australia, etc) is an impossibility. In this regard Trump is right for getting allies on side on the big issues (virus, Huawei) and calling out CCP supplicants like Merkel.
I agree. It’s a risk. But the Chinese are famously pragmatic. So far, there’s been no real penalty for party membership (or for being vocally nationalistic). If we start radically adjusting those cost-benefit calculations for them and their family members – I suspect it will work. The bulk of party members are careerists and social strivers -- the exact opposite of revolutionaries.
I’d be more worried about stoking nationalism if the US imposed a blanket ban on all PRC citizens. That's clearly anti-Chinese. But since this is aimed at just the party, the impact is a bit subtler (a mere sledgehammer instead of a WMD). I think it would create a lot of conflict inside the party. Divide and conquer, baby!
> The bulk of party members are careerists and social strivers -- the exact opposite of revolutionaries.
I am afraid your only saw the tip of the iceberg. The prime majority of party members are only joining it for a fat government job. This is the reality of China outside of first tier cities.
Did anyone else read Macro Polo’s report entitled: “Members Only: Recruitment Trends in the Chinese Communist Party” (mentioned in yesterday’s newsletter, I believe)? I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn’t.
The report discusses, inter alia, how the CCP under Xi has focused on recruiting more members from particular groups, like young people and the highly educated.
Some 80% of new CCP recruits in 2019 were Millennials, according to the report.
The report indicates that this targeting has been intended, in part, to “better co-opt important sectors of Chinese society.” In other words, as is so often the case, it is at least partly—if not largely—about enhancing social control.
The CCP already seems to be doing quite well in managing other parts of society. For example, a recent Harvard survey, entitled: “Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time” (mentioned as part of the Essential Eight in 09 July newsletter), concluded that in recent years:
“Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction [with the CCP government’s performance].”
Therefore, it makes sense that Xi et co would want to reach out and co-opt individuals from other parts of society—particularly those parts that might be more likely to become discontent if there are serious economic challenges ahead. What better way to maintain social stability (and the status quo)...
The rural community almost to a man/woman will vote for Xi. Since 2012 rural villages have been connected to the State Grid, the streets in the villages are tarmaced and lit at night, each village has a medical centre and a school which is free and villages have more money in their pockets. As one villager in Hunan province told my associate in Shanghai when he recently visited his home town 'Life is much better under Xi'
Like everything else the Trump administration has done, the leaked media narrative is designed to push the Chinese off balance. Surely, any final implementation of this action would focus initially on the standing committee or some other concentric circles around it. Screening 92m people and their families seems impossible.
By threatening the CCP with travel restriction, the larger implications come immediately front and center. Think access to the US education system, property market, and ultimately business relationships (Barr speech focused on this).
As a hawk on this issue, I think the major thing Trump lacks is an ability to differentiate CCP communism from the Chinese people. Why couldn't he make the speech in the Rose Garden about Xi coming there in 2015, and lying to Obama, the USA, and the world about the SCS islands?
A bit of Reagan - tear down this firewall Chairman Xi! might go a long way right now. The US population needs to be educated and galvanized about confronting the most evil regime since the Nazis. It's a winning issue if Trump could get his act together.
He can't. Even if he thought it was a good idea, he rarely has enough self-control even to read a brilliant speech that was painstakingly researched and written for him.
I think the recruitment of highly educated people is a longer trend than just XJP's term, but perhaps accelerated under him. This goes back to the "ruling not revolutionary" party articulated in the Jiang Zemin era. A ruling party should recruit social and economic elites. There's also the general increase over time in people with college degrees thanks to the expansion of universities. Lily Tsai (MIT) and Xiaobo Lu (UT-Austin) have a recent article that shows people with political connections are more, not less likely, to complain to political authorities. So I don't think it's right to think that party membership can only be used to control. But Matt Sheehan is undoubtedly correct that membership in the CCP is *not* at all like membership in, say, the GOP, which was a comparison that I saw yesterday. That being said, I strongly disagree with the USG on this.
I haven’t read the article to which you referred (do you have a link?)...
Having said that, one general point I would make is that there's a big difference between complaining to political authorities—I presume, through the appropriate channels—and advocating substantial reform, if not the overthrow, of the system.
here's a link to the journal's page. It's probably available as a pdf for free on the authors' web pages. I agree that it isn't the same thing, but 体制内 groups haven't been that quiescent (veterans, SOE workers, teachers). People know that revolutionary claims get them thrown in prison, so most are framed around livelihood issues. It's hard to tell if that is only strategic. https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/outspoken-insiders-political-connections-and-citizen-participati/13297364
Framing this as a moral position justified by the evil of the CCP is a red herring--this is a move to break relations, because that would be the functional result. It's a thinly veiled effort to put the burden on China to retaliate for the US action, but the end result would be the unmaking of US recognition of China, and also lay the groundwork for re-recognition of Taiwan--perhaps not officially since the AIT-TECRO setup is fine, but in terms of US military cooperation and even deployments to the island. It also lays the foundation for the US to adopt a policy of regime change in China. Ignore the pseudo moral justification--this Administration favors the worst autocratic regimes and their human rights abuses, around the world. Focus on who is proposing this, and why. Where is Pottinger on this? Mnuchin? Esper?
This would mark the end of diplomatic relations, and of any Chinese restraint (and yes, they are still acting with restraint, or those US FONOPS wouldn't be happening).
Is there a chance the possible outcomes of this move have not been fully thought through? And yes, so far Beijing has been remarkably restrained. When and how might that change? Has the leadership decided to absorb the blows for now in the hopes that the November election may bring a different US approach to China by early 2021? Or are they not yet sure how to react, and perhaps will have a better plan for responding by mid-August after Beidaihe or the Fall Plenum?
I think its a near certainty that the authors of this wanted to make it seem a moral stand, and didn't want the outcomes fully thought out. If it appears likely that Trump will lose in November, that will incentivize hawks to break as much as possible before January. They might try to sell this to him as a desperate game-change election move, or a chance to "make history" before he is thrown out. On the other hand, the Trump Organization and Jarvanka have significant commercial equities in China.
I think it makes sense for the CCP leadership to be patient—who knows if there’s any realistic prospect of this really happening?
Recently, I’ve gotten the impression that the China hawks in the Trump administration have been pushing him to focus more on China in order to revive his flagging re-election campaign. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if he decided to focus more on America’s culture wars.
Clearly the Trump administration is desperately trying to pick a fight, in order to enhance Trump's campaign profile.
It is no blow at all. It plays right into the hands of the Chinese government and enforces a negative view of the US among the traveling masses in China.
The Chinese government will probably try to gain some moral highground by not dignifying such picking with a response, also because any response would not fit to the recent overture by the People's Leader to CEOs of multinationals, including US, to invest more in China.
The Chinese government may also have realised, that public exchanges on the level of pubertating teenagers on Twitter doesn't do any good to China's overall reputation.
And, last but not least, the Chinese leadership may see this as payback time, by doing to Trump what he probably considers the worst insult: Ignoring his very existence for his remaining time in office.
I suspect that anyone who thinks that a Biden presidency will be "soft on China" is making a mistake. He can't afford to be and I doubt he wants to be. Perhaps he will look for a solution to this issue that is modulated rather than black or white. It is a way to show strength or show pressure and to make clear that there is a new but not weak approach. Wonder who will be SecState and National Security Advisor.
No, I don't think that the U.S. should bar members of the CCP per se. I do think that it should consider barring specifically identified officials for specifically identifiable policies in, e.g. Xinjiang, Hong Kong. But it's important to maintain the general principle of open intercourse between peoples.
Re: CCP membership. From some limited interaction with my wife's students in Chinese universities, I'd say that the students recruited for or aspiring to CCP membership are generally among the best and brightest. They are smart, articulate, hardworking, forward-looking. Many speak good English. They are the kind of students who would be involved in student affairs at an American university. They were also likely to be appointed class monitors. Very conscientious. As such, they were likely to speak up for party positions during class discussions, but not necessarily censoriously. Any "surveillance" role in classroom teaching was, of course, unknown to my wife, but if so it was light-handed. They openly acknowledge that if they hope to advance in some professions it's almost a necessity to be in the party, and they might voice some hope to internally change the party. In short, they're young and idealistic. Especially as young professors, they are more likely to criticize censorship that inhibits their scholarly work, especially on potentially controversial subjects.
Obviously, university is a very early level of active party participation, but I'm sure most of them view it as an honor to be "tapped" for candidacy. I have no idea whether youthful idealism will dim if they rise in the party, especially in the new Era of Xi, and whether they will change the party or it will change them.
This makes me think of people I know here in California who joined the party long ago, lapsed, emigrated, settled down (sans Green Card) and just want to work hard and enjoy life. There are more of them in the pipeline who would be China’s loss and our gain. I could appreciate a ban targeting officials responsible for human rights and other abuses, but the contemplated action seems like using a shotgun to kill a roach. Apologies to actual insects.
I remember vividly the question on US-immigration forms during Reagan's times: "Are you or have you ever been member of a communist party?"
Since I have been to countries US congressmen dislike, even though most of them won't be able to locate even one of these countries on an unmarked world map, in spite of my nation's visa-waiver status, I would need visa to visit the US.
Knowing how undignified US visa process is, there is nothing that will make me undergo that procedure ever again and rather spend my hard-earned money elsewhere.
I pity those who are so desperate to go to the US, that they will endure this treatment.
My favourite question used to be: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude?". No American has ever been able to tell me what a crime of moral turpitude is.
Written opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A.) describe moral turpitude as a “nebulous concept,” and one that “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.” The person committing it should have had either an “evil intent” or been acting recklessly.
A CMT has also been called "per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong."
This collection of words seems to point to a highly subjective determination—if the immigration official or judge thinks the crime sounds morally wrong, or perhaps mean and nasty, it’s probably a crime of moral turpitude.
Sorry, little late but for the curious the actual crimes of moral turpitude are spelled out here (not a definitive list as this regulation changes from time to time):
Wow, well that really covers everything. Bribery, arson, burglary, counterfeiting, tax evasion, bigamy, incest, lewdness, and my favourite, mayhem! Thanks for this, I'll watch my step next time I come.
just as i am reading this i get a wechat from a former us corp exec from Beijing and she is asking me if she should transfer her money out of usa ... This banning CCP members, who joined when they were young, is a bad idea to bring the "fight" to the people instead of just make it a US-China government issue where it belongs. Let's not shame the people where it is not in their control.
A blanket ban seems to be rather too arbitrary, but a targeted ban at higher level members and CPPCC members begins to send a message that there is a price to be paid at policy levels.
The argument to be made here is that there is a systemic difference in the world vision of the CCP and the rest of the world's democracies. Since "convergence" seems to have been debunked, there is little reason to assist the CCP in the promotion of its world view. It seems worthwhile to recall the old line attributed to Lenin that capitalists will vie to sell the rope to be used to hang themselves.
Really un-enforceable. US immigration already asks people who apply for a visa that if they are CCP members - answering yes will attract scrutiny next to being a terrorism suspect so everybody answers 'no' - regardless of if they are really a member. Not that the Org Dept would pick up the phone.
Having said that, it is probably would be used against families of certain high profile officials so they can't enter US to study and do other things. But then they would just go elsewhere (at this rate, probably UK or HK).
We don't need to identify every single party member for this policy to work -- just enough of a proportion to create doubt. I think our intelligence agencies are up to the task
A blanket ban seems to be quite draconian. However the intention of imposing a cost on being a member of the CCP is interesting. Wouldn't the same purpose be served by requiring a declaration by all Visa applicants and existing foreign immigrants in the US, if they are serving members of the CCP? And disclosing such information to all employers and educational institutions would achieve the same goal ?
The US receives leaders and "dignitaries" with full honours, who are among the worst perpetrators when it comes to human rights violations in their respective countries; people, who are instrumental to and directly responsible for these violations.
At the same time, the US discriminates with McCarthyist zealousness against the common people of these countries when it comes to inbound travel.
Simple truth, however, is, that the political affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with the qualification of someone wishing to visit a country.
IMHO, there is no better cure for communism, than an extended visit to the free world.
A lot of folks are talking about the "innocent" party members caught up in all this, even party members who long left China. Something I don't understand - can't you let your membership lapse? If members feel conflicted about the direction things are going at the top, why not just let it go?
The only party members I've met here have either been true believers or in it for purely mercenary reasons. It seems to me those two types are exactly the ones who should be targeted by sanctions, especially since anyway it would only affect the richer end. I'm interested to know if there really is a "silent majority" who are critical of Xi and what their reasons are for not doing anything about it.
A blanket ban would be counterproductive on the educational and people-to-people exchanges end. Many undergrads in China join the CCP for career and professional reasons, then later decide to do post-grad in the US or move here for work. This is just one example, but there are countless other areas where a blanket ban would cause more problems than reap benefits.
this is a long-time rumor that never comes to reality. Most recently what i heard is the dam is doing ok and the water is not even reaching the full level yet.
I assume this is only the first step. Next a ban on CCP members owning assets in the US will follow. As I see it there is a serious mismatch of power between the CCP and the west, despite appearances to the contrary.
This mismatch in power is the main reason I think we can avoid the Thucydides trap as the CCP will realise the mismatch and not get kinetic. The model I am working with is China’s growth will fall to 2-3% then lower and become a mega version of Russia within 10 years.
I know I’m an outlier on this but demographics plus now the pandemic, preventing proper trade with China (as the rest of the west minus Australia - or not things are looking bad for us in Melbourne, have the virus) means exports are crippled and long term domestic consumption.
one additional thought - no one would give our dear leader much credit for strategic thinking, but perhaps the Trump proposal to block all CCP members from the US could be a ploy in response to Chinese government potentially demanding that all CCP members who have green cards make the existential choice – return to China and keep your hukou, or stay in the US, keep your green card and lose your Chinese hukou. This policy is already in place in Shandong and I think in Guangdong. This is a terrible position in which to put many Chinese in the US (and in other countries). Both (proposed) national policies are very bad positions in which to put hundreds of thousands of people.
Re: visa ban. Maybe it's just about envy, the CP govt having outperformed the Republican Party govt in so many ways the latter is desperate for scapegoats — China, WHO, Michigan, Fauci, CDC, hackers — to mask its many failures and their dire national and global consequences.
A ban on all CCP travel to US combined with new immigration laws that welcome all PRC immigrants with open arms would most likely serve to change calculus about joining the Party and cast serious doubts about the direction of the Party under Xi.
However, this is a fanciful policy (especially under Trump).
So, I disagree with the political logic of banning all CCP members from the US. Most CCP members can’t even travel to the US, and vast majority of Chinese can’t either. Banning them achieves no practical goal, and only serves to engender anti-American sentiment, confirming CCP rhetoric under Xi that America is a hegemonic power bent on suppressing China and the Chinese people
A blanket ban would be a bad idea, not to mention lazy. There are all sorts of people in the Party, even under Xi. Better to beef up surveillance when warranted. A spectacular “own goal” if it were to be introduced.
I think it s a good thing. It would force both sides to be consistent and logical. The sooner that prevails the sooner reasonable resolutions can be reached.
Atm, both sides want to have their cake and eat it too, and behave as sour grapes and sore losers by turn and on a variety of 'pet issues'. The exaggerated sense of victimisation and moral outrage is mostly as ridiculous as it is unfounded.
In 'tired, old defeated' Europe, history repeatedly demonstrates that such grand standing based on a delusional sense of history and missonary zeal has only one outcome. Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
From my interactions with CPC ppl, I can assume that the motivations to become a member of the communist party in China today is not so different from those in communist states in the East Europe in 1960s or 1970s (one my grandfather joined the party in 1950s, for contrast the other one was in the forest until late 1940s ;-).
It's never a clear cut opportunist vs. true believer, one can both. Usually the motivation is complex and required at least partial acceptance for the party ideology - but this one is very selective, for example a nationalistic agenda of the party can obscure a progressive one or vice-versa. It's also a dynamic process and change over time with live experience, social coercion, international situation - like the ideology of the party itself.
Definitely, to be a party member also means to gain privileges and ppl tend to defend those privileges. It also means that party have a leverage over members. Contrary to expectation of ppl who never experienced the "real socialism" you could be surprised how often a mix of the carrot and ideological call (selectively chosen) is more productive then the stick. But those privileges are also a boundary how far a regular member will go for the party. S/he will defend them, but not sacrifice completely.
So, if USG want to disturb rank-and-file of CPC, they have to make them pay the price, but I doubt if a blanket visa ban will do it. Only a fraction of regular members travel abroad. Still, it can be a factor to stop some new ppl to join, at least as long the US is an attractive place to be, though.
There is also category of members who joined because were coerced. The party look for ppl who stand out in their social or professional circle, who could become community leaders. The party aims to control all aspects of live and eliminate any alternative authority, so press them to join to control them and put under party influence and discipline. Potentially, they (plus the disillusioned ones) are future dissidents, but the blanked ban will affect and put off them as well.
First, either you are in Poland in 1950s or in PRC 2020, you can't claim any ignorance. You exactly know what the communist party is and what is capable of and it has blood on hands, a lot of blood. You can fool yourself that it's for the bigger good (yours or/and in the grand picture for humanity), buy you can't say I didn't know.
Second, a membership in the party is not something, what just can happen to you accidentally or involuntary. The joining process is long and enduring. It's not a teenage pregnancy, that happen to you in the heat of the moment at the back sit of your dad's car and definitely it's not just some bureaucratic procedure. It's required determination, time and some hard work. It's much more than just filling some application form at a collage office. It's not something you can forget and it's a big thing - even if afterwards some ppl claim otherwise.
You exactly know what you doing and what you getting yourself in. Period!
Harsh and judgmental. Instant condemnation of a few hundred million individuals past and present. Not to mention a rather dangerous definition of criminal culpability by association. Much like a party member? ;) but seriously, I like a moralistic self righteous diatribe as much as the next man. But taken seriously and made into policy? that way crime against humanity lies. And we are trying to debate matters of policy directions here.
Harsh? It just reality. Judgmental? Not really. If I was born 50 years earlier, I could have joined a communist party by myself. It’s always very complex motivation, as I said in the first post.
Yes, we debate the matters of policy direction, but to do it, first we must establish facts, don’t we? One can’t really be so naïve to believe that majority of ppl, who are intelligent, successful and very aware of China realities (or Poland’s realities in 1950s) joined the party without knowing what the communist party is.
As the matter of this policy, IMHO it’d be just counterproductive, but not necessarily unjust.
> Currently, about 16% (15 of 92m) joined under Xi, with the remaining 77m (84%) joining pre-Xi.
This doesn't change that there are a lot more people who are carbon copies of Xi in that 84%, and I'd say a very big digit. Xi is a much more ordinary CPC member than ones whom you was seeing on TV.
A man like Xi could've been easily spending his whole career running some small village, and never seen as anybody with a potential use even on a county level.
Members like him spend half of their careers studying Marxism-Jediism mantras, and another on completely nonsensical jobs, just to be given an any much significant office in their late fifties, when their brains are already a mush.
Hu, and the officials of technocrat era are 10 Himalayas above 99% of CPC members
I agree that banning all 92 million members of the Communist Party is not necessary and is unduly inflammatory. Also probably not practical. So it's a side issue that will get dropped. I'd be interested in the group's thoughts on Bill Barr's comments. Some may dismiss him as a Trump toadie, but this speech is a broadside not only against XJP but also the American business community. It's a must watch. Here's the video. https://www.justice.gov/opa/video/attorney-general-barr-s-remarks-china-policy-gerald-r-ford-presidential-museum
I have just read Barr's speech. His earlier one about technology was built on fact, a time for America to wake up else America will lose the technology race and with it the country's hegemonic status. I found this report to be weak, cobbling together a lot of known facts and accusations and suggesting that throughout this long period America has been the innocent party. China steals technology, spies on America etc - but don't tell me that America has not been doing this for years.
I'm sure many Sinocism subscribers have friends who emigrated to Canada, US, UK, etc. from China. Some of these friends are or were CPC members. It would be interesting to see if some of them could offer a different perspective on our speculations on what the CPC membership actually does in China and abroad.
I would add that I worked in an American company in China where young Chinese joined the party so they could participate in the local dragon boat race events. I don’t know that a blanket ban makes much sense. It didn’t seem like there was that much political vetting. However I’ll also admit my understanding of how the party recruits and filters their members is non existent.
My sense is that people join the CCP to pursue ambition and power. People who have strong reservations about the ethics or methods of the Party do not join. So it goes beyond "expediency" to a willingness to accept varying degrees of moral trade-offs for increased power. The ideology is less something to believe in like a religion, but rather something to participate in as a means of consolidating, maintaining, and strategically distributing power.
apologies for sending the email version of this twice, a "not enough coffee in my bloodstream" issue on my end
When we were seeking a spousal visa from China to the US – which should have been about the simplest visa possible – we met delay and changes of venues in the US to review the application and, we think, simple refusal to process. The process took more than eighteen months. This was during the Obama administration, not that Obama was responsible for the delay but this was not a Trump thing. We never could find out what the cause or causes were, but it was certainly likely that her CCP membership was a question.
In the visa application there were questions of the “are you now or have you ever” variety. Within China, the wechat advisories to applicants warned about the question asking whether a CCP member had ever benefited from membership. One could guess that an answer considered positive would be “no” – that the applicant did not personally benefit through special treatment, or bribery, or privileges. But – it was counseled – perhaps a better answer was yes, benefits were obtained, on the assumption that a “no” answer would indicate that the CCP member was either oblivious to the received benefits or was lying.
My wife chose to tell the truth – that she did not see any benefit obtained, and she further explained in the interview. Truth seemed to work.
The point is that CCP membership is certainly not quite like joining the Rotary, but it is sometimes demanded or strongly advised during schooling. Whether one is a young Red Scarf girl or becomes a provisional member in high school or college, membership – particularly for young and smart people – does not indicate allegiance to the cause so much as it does a checking off of a box, like polishing the resume. For the millions of current CCP members who are not quite so loyal as Mr. Xi would like, their ability to travel and understand the US – of which many Chinese do each year – might be the best soft power vehicle we still have left.
For seven years, I taught CCP members who were in Chicago for a year to learn about markets and government management. In total, I probably had four or five hundred CCP members as students. Most were smart, thoughtful, and willing to learn. Many of those who came to the US already had a Master’s degree or a PhD. Many remain friends. One sent several hundred dollars worth of masks to us in April, when no one in the US could find masks anywhere.
Of course, our dear leader would want to exclude such people from visiting the US. In 2016, I said that if Trump wins, then Xi wins and Putin wins. Seems pretty evident now.
So it was after 2016 that Trump built the concentration camps, built military islands in SCS, threatened Taiwan, Huawei just became a thing, (2012 House Bi-Partisan report if your interested).. It's incredibly tiresome when Xi and the CCP are the cause and folks look for a reason to excuse China because a few friends who are Chinese.
-
I know some wonderful young Chinese kids in HKG. They are in jail. Trump didn't put them, Xi did. - And unlike all those CCP members you taught, who have only enriched themselves & kept quite on welfare of others,,, these HKG kids are trying to save their city.
It's incredibly tiresome when people use synecdoche to make assumptions about entire countries, cultures, even governments. You are basically right about Hong Kong, and Xi, and if you read some of these you might have to make some adjustments in assumptions - http://chinareflections.com/index.php/104-comments-on-the-news/440-ccp-and-mr-xi-s-learning-disability or http://chinareflections.com/index.php/104-comments-on-the-news/432-remember-hong-kong or http://chinareflections.com/index.php/104-comments-on-the-news/428-ip-theft-no-more-worries Try painting your portrait with a different color - are all US federal government employees - including those working for CIS and Homeland Security - to be considered monsters?
Your point quite valid. I have met many party members, even some who resettled abroad, who certainly prove out ur point.
-
We may differ on other matters, but thank you for response.
-
I would agree that banning CCP members is a very blunt and crude tool, but I'm getting tired of "straddlers," i.e. dyed in the wool CCP members who espouse and benefit from the CCP in China, but also want to take advantage of the West by having substantial assets and sending their kids to school here. Xi sending his daughter to Harvard is a prime example. Or the son of his imprisoned rival, Bo Xilai. Or a few members of Legco. Or Meng Wanzhou. There are legions of others.
In hedge fund parlance, this a long-short hedge, with economic and political options on both hemispheres of the globe.
Agreed and 2 additional points. One is how ironic that CCP encourages the anti-US nationalism among Chinese citizens while its elite members all send kids and assets to US; the other is how effective a CCP visa ban would have been if white house is really determined to make a dent on CCP: they can simply just start with elite group (or part of them), not all its members.
Great question! And I used to ask the UK government why The City was (still is but better) so receptive to corruption money from regimes and politicians UK absolutely condemned. It s pretty easy to hurt Chicom elites if the West wants to.
What s relevant also is the spectre of chicom factions piggybacking if not influencing or even directing Western policies designed to counter PRC/Chicom, for their own purposes. If legit chicom is not to our taste, just wait till the weirder and more corrupt chicom factions take over...one thing one must learn from all the MENA failures is that one's enemy's enemies are not friends and often turn out to be far more unpalatable.
What we should find alarming is that the CCP elite finds the welcoming arms of our elite, who share common economic and power interests. This assures that the CCP elite reside in the best zip codes, go to the best schools, and get the best jobs. Nobody asks where that money comes from. I'm sure we all know quite a few.
If in doubt, look at what happened with Bo Xilai's son: https://www.theepochtimes.com/son-of-imprisoned-former-chinese-official-bo-xilai-found-to-be-working-for-canadian-company_3178115.html And yes I know Epoch Times has an axe to grind.
Selective visa and investment restrictions targeting the well-known CCP elite tier would be both ridiculously easy and ridiculously effective.
Does the blanket ban make sense? I don't think so. One potential outcome from such a move is to strengthen the "us vs. them" ideology that I expect the CCP relies on for successful indoctrination. For younger members like the millennials Drew Kunz mentioned, I suspect joining the CCP was simply seen as a way to get ahead. However, now with some incremental evidence that there is an 'adversary' against which to struggle, there may be a tipping point in terms of what it means to be a member of the party.
So from the US perspective, this is counterproductive toward a longer-term strategy of rebalancing the US-China relationship. I think it may support the CCP's longevity at the cost of a bump in poll numbers during an election year.
I was born behind the barbed wire on the wrong side of Iron Curtain. The only people who were allowed to cross the barb wire and travel to the West in 1980s were loyal communist apparatchiks. Some of them asked for asylum, the rest were coming back from holidays in West Germany, France and especially from US very disillusioned about the state of affairs in their home country. Soviet empire was running on fumes at that time...
Despite of the fact that China is not running on fumes and advantages of the West are sadly not as apparent as during Soviet times, to stop anybody from China to travel (and especially to study) to our part of the world will breed more ignorance among Chinese and only strengthen the impact of propaganda and nationalism. If US becomes shining city on the hill again, it will serve our case in long term much better than any travel bans...
Agreed—a blanket ban would play into the “us against them” rhetoric and reinforce the perception that what the US actually wants is containment.
The “us vs. them” 意識 has been ingrained in Chinese thinking since ancient times. 華夷之辨。There is nothing we can do about this. We have tried to bring China into the “family of nations” and look where we are. The reason we have failed is because the CCP do not see themselves as our equals, but as our betters. 因為貪心無窮 they will always take advantage of “nice”. 老共吃硬不吃軟。It’s time to start talking to them in a language they understand.
then you would appreciate form the newsletter a year ago, in response to the "china is not the enemy" open letter https://sinocism.com/p/hong-kong-open-letter-from-us-china :
Here is what I wrote one of the signatories yesterday about this issue:
I unfortunately and very reluctantly have come to the conclusion that:
1. Under Xi the Chinese side sees restraint as more evidence of US weakness and decline;
2. There is no one in a position of serious of influence in Beijing who could be considered "dovish" or in a position of enough influence to push changes based on a different US approach;
3. The non-adversarial approach does not have a great record over the last decade +, and if anything has emboldened the Chinese side;
4. This claim is something that is repeated so often out of Beijing that it strikes me as having elements of directed propaganda;
5. 吃硬不吃软 (open to coercion but not to persuasion" is a core operating principle of PRC society and political system, much to my frustration in my decade+ living there;
6. Xi and the Party are the ones fueling Chinese nationalism. The tension with the US has its utility in this area, but if were not the US it would be something else, like Japan (see 2012);
7. The US-China relationship going off the rails may be the one thing that could really weaken Xi and open up space for people who may "want China to play a constructive role in world affairs", so a tougher US line now may have at least as good a chance of a positive outcome;
8. There does need to be a correct balance of cooperation and competition, but the US does need to take a much tougher approach now to reset expectations and the relationship, as we have conditioned the PRC to getting away with few to no costs for what we see as bad behavior for far too long. See point 5, 吃硬不吃软.
I wish this were not where I have ended up but here we are.
我舉雙手讚成。 That’s a very polite translation of 吃硬不吃軟。I was thinking of something a little more graphic. I don’t think we need to feel any remorse/reluctance over our conclusions about the Chinese. It’s important that we speak the truth, especially in these times. I don’t see how anyone who 跟老中一起生活和親眼看到官方言行could feel any different.
I think this whole "ban the CCP" debate is fueled by a misunderstanding about how immigration law works. Currently, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the principle mechanism to decide whether a person is "qualified" for a nonimmigrant visa is section 214(b) of the INA: "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of the application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status". This means that the burden is on the visa applicant to prove they are qualified.
In addition, there are dozens of statutes that are called "ineligibilities". These are specific provisions which may permanently or temporarily disqualify a person from receiving certain types of visas (or "ban" them, if you will). Some examples include: anyone who has ever been convicted of certain crimes, anyone who has ever done drugs, anyone who has ever lied to a U.S. official to gain a benefit, etc. The U.S. government adds and removes certain types of ineligibilities periodically.
Until the Immigration Act of 1990, you could be denied a visa or deported from the United States for being a member of the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party. This was a product of legislation introduced in the Internal Security Act of 1950 and then codified in various "Red Scare" era immigration legislation subsequently. After 1990, most of the nonimmigrant visa restrictions were removed, and currently there are restrictions on communist party membership only in the green card and citizenship process. See INA 212(a)(3)(D): "An immigrant visa applicant who is or has been a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is ineligible under INA 212(a)(3)(D) unless qualifying for one of the exceptions described in 9 FAM 302.5-6(B)(5) below. *Nonimmigrants are not subject to the provisions of INA 212(a)(3)(D)."* (emphasis mine) https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030205.html
Alright, whew, getting long here so I will get to the point. The mechanism that will most likely be used to "ban" CCP members and their families will be an Executive Order which modifies 212(a)(3)(D) to once again apply to nonimmigrants (tourists, business travelers, students, etc). This will not prevent them from obtaining visas for the most part. It will require, however, that they admit they are members and request a waiver of the ineligibility. I have no insider knowledge of this process, but if we use the "Muslim ban" as a template for how this might work, you may see something like this included in the EO:
"Waivers are available to people who can show that (1) denying entry to the U.S. would cause the visa applicant undue hardship, (2) entry to the U.S. would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the U.S., and (3) entry would be in the national interest of the U.S."
This will allow the U.S. government discretion to admit the people that they prefer, allow them to gather information on party membership, and open the applicant up to criminal liabilities later on for visa fraud if they misrepresent their membership. It will use an existing process already in place to process these waiver requests, and probably extend processing time a fair bit (weeks to months). It will be a fairly large administrative undertaking, but it is not dissimilar from programs like EVUS which already specifically target Chinese travelers.
Thank you.. this is very interesting historical perspective vis a vis the Soviet Union. Are non-immigrants (i.e. students, short term visitors and H1 visa holders) entering the US currently required to declare if they are members of the Chinese Communist Party?
No, not currently. But you would be required to tell the truth if asked about it by a consular officer.
The arrogance that stands behind this "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of the application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status" is absolutely fascinating.
Guilty, until proven innocent. Ridiculous.
Yes, interesting that this law is only applicable to non-immigrant visa interviews conducted by the Department of State overseas. Even other US federal agencies like USCIS cannot refuse an application on this basis.
There has been some noise from congress about changing this over the years because it is a frequent cause of constituent complaints, but no serious effort to change it has been mounted to my knowledge.
I should also point that this rule change would create an easily prosecutable charge for CCP members in the US that are caught up in unrelated investigations (assuming they had lied about membership on their visa application). Similar to the way that the FBI and NIH eventually resorted to charging those who lied on grant applications with wire fraud and making false claims after having little success proving they were actual spies in previous court cases. Sort of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion.
I love this idea. Yes, it’s insane. Yes, it’s extreme. And one obvious problem is that China would react ferociously. But it’s become jarringly clear just how hostile the CCP is to the US, seeking to harm us on almost every front.
And this would hurt them: The CCP would suddenly find it much harder to recruit young people, who wouldn’t want to risk permanently foreclosing all opportunity to visit, study and/or work in the US. Current party members would face the same dilemma for themselves and—crucially—their children.
It would be a PR nightmare for Xi, as the costs of membership jump in comparison to the benefits, especially if other countries followed suit with similar bans. And it’s pretty clear that a big chunk of current members joined for expediency, not out of love for the party. So CCP leadership would have to undertake drastic measures to prevent people from leaving in droves – what a blow to the party’s image.
In short, this is a rather simple lever for the US to press – it’s relatively cheap and easy to implement (and reverse) – and it would have a potentially devastating impact on the prestige and power of the CCP. Even to raise the idea is a smart negotiating tactic. The biggest downside, and it’s a serious one, is that China will absolutely flip the F out.
Whenever China reacts furiously, we should know we’re on the right track.
This is a best case scenario. My first feeling (besides "No way, that will never happen") is that this would be very effective and long-term fuel for the fires of nationalism, which are already burning hot.
The fear of Chinese nationalism is what got the US here in the first place, going back to Kissinger. I also think that the CCP knows fighting a war against the world (India, Australia, etc) is an impossibility. In this regard Trump is right for getting allies on side on the big issues (virus, Huawei) and calling out CCP supplicants like Merkel.
I agree. It’s a risk. But the Chinese are famously pragmatic. So far, there’s been no real penalty for party membership (or for being vocally nationalistic). If we start radically adjusting those cost-benefit calculations for them and their family members – I suspect it will work. The bulk of party members are careerists and social strivers -- the exact opposite of revolutionaries.
I’d be more worried about stoking nationalism if the US imposed a blanket ban on all PRC citizens. That's clearly anti-Chinese. But since this is aimed at just the party, the impact is a bit subtler (a mere sledgehammer instead of a WMD). I think it would create a lot of conflict inside the party. Divide and conquer, baby!
> The bulk of party members are careerists and social strivers -- the exact opposite of revolutionaries.
I am afraid your only saw the tip of the iceberg. The prime majority of party members are only joining it for a fat government job. This is the reality of China outside of first tier cities.
Yes, exactly. I include them in the "careerist" camp.
Speaking of CCP membership...
Did anyone else read Macro Polo’s report entitled: “Members Only: Recruitment Trends in the Chinese Communist Party” (mentioned in yesterday’s newsletter, I believe)? I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn’t.
The report discusses, inter alia, how the CCP under Xi has focused on recruiting more members from particular groups, like young people and the highly educated.
Some 80% of new CCP recruits in 2019 were Millennials, according to the report.
The report indicates that this targeting has been intended, in part, to “better co-opt important sectors of Chinese society.” In other words, as is so often the case, it is at least partly—if not largely—about enhancing social control.
The CCP already seems to be doing quite well in managing other parts of society. For example, a recent Harvard survey, entitled: “Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time” (mentioned as part of the Essential Eight in 09 July newsletter), concluded that in recent years:
“Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction [with the CCP government’s performance].”
Therefore, it makes sense that Xi et co would want to reach out and co-opt individuals from other parts of society—particularly those parts that might be more likely to become discontent if there are serious economic challenges ahead. What better way to maintain social stability (and the status quo)...
What does everyone else think?
The rural community almost to a man/woman will vote for Xi. Since 2012 rural villages have been connected to the State Grid, the streets in the villages are tarmaced and lit at night, each village has a medical centre and a school which is free and villages have more money in their pockets. As one villager in Hunan province told my associate in Shanghai when he recently visited his home town 'Life is much better under Xi'
Thank you - here is the link for others!
https://macropolo.org/analysis/members-only-recruitment-trends-in-the-chinese-communist-party/
Like everything else the Trump administration has done, the leaked media narrative is designed to push the Chinese off balance. Surely, any final implementation of this action would focus initially on the standing committee or some other concentric circles around it. Screening 92m people and their families seems impossible.
By threatening the CCP with travel restriction, the larger implications come immediately front and center. Think access to the US education system, property market, and ultimately business relationships (Barr speech focused on this).
As a hawk on this issue, I think the major thing Trump lacks is an ability to differentiate CCP communism from the Chinese people. Why couldn't he make the speech in the Rose Garden about Xi coming there in 2015, and lying to Obama, the USA, and the world about the SCS islands?
A bit of Reagan - tear down this firewall Chairman Xi! might go a long way right now. The US population needs to be educated and galvanized about confronting the most evil regime since the Nazis. It's a winning issue if Trump could get his act together.
He can't. Even if he thought it was a good idea, he rarely has enough self-control even to read a brilliant speech that was painstakingly researched and written for him.
that feeling when you pass a gun to him to shoot the foe and he plays with it a bit, got distracted, and goes away to play golf instead
loser
I think the recruitment of highly educated people is a longer trend than just XJP's term, but perhaps accelerated under him. This goes back to the "ruling not revolutionary" party articulated in the Jiang Zemin era. A ruling party should recruit social and economic elites. There's also the general increase over time in people with college degrees thanks to the expansion of universities. Lily Tsai (MIT) and Xiaobo Lu (UT-Austin) have a recent article that shows people with political connections are more, not less likely, to complain to political authorities. So I don't think it's right to think that party membership can only be used to control. But Matt Sheehan is undoubtedly correct that membership in the CCP is *not* at all like membership in, say, the GOP, which was a comparison that I saw yesterday. That being said, I strongly disagree with the USG on this.
I haven’t read the article to which you referred (do you have a link?)...
Having said that, one general point I would make is that there's a big difference between complaining to political authorities—I presume, through the appropriate channels—and advocating substantial reform, if not the overthrow, of the system.
here's a link to the journal's page. It's probably available as a pdf for free on the authors' web pages. I agree that it isn't the same thing, but 体制内 groups haven't been that quiescent (veterans, SOE workers, teachers). People know that revolutionary claims get them thrown in prison, so most are framed around livelihood issues. It's hard to tell if that is only strategic. https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/outspoken-insiders-political-connections-and-citizen-participati/13297364
The article sounds interesting - thanks for passing that on!
Framing this as a moral position justified by the evil of the CCP is a red herring--this is a move to break relations, because that would be the functional result. It's a thinly veiled effort to put the burden on China to retaliate for the US action, but the end result would be the unmaking of US recognition of China, and also lay the groundwork for re-recognition of Taiwan--perhaps not officially since the AIT-TECRO setup is fine, but in terms of US military cooperation and even deployments to the island. It also lays the foundation for the US to adopt a policy of regime change in China. Ignore the pseudo moral justification--this Administration favors the worst autocratic regimes and their human rights abuses, around the world. Focus on who is proposing this, and why. Where is Pottinger on this? Mnuchin? Esper?
This would mark the end of diplomatic relations, and of any Chinese restraint (and yes, they are still acting with restraint, or those US FONOPS wouldn't be happening).
Is there a chance the possible outcomes of this move have not been fully thought through? And yes, so far Beijing has been remarkably restrained. When and how might that change? Has the leadership decided to absorb the blows for now in the hopes that the November election may bring a different US approach to China by early 2021? Or are they not yet sure how to react, and perhaps will have a better plan for responding by mid-August after Beidaihe or the Fall Plenum?
I think its a near certainty that the authors of this wanted to make it seem a moral stand, and didn't want the outcomes fully thought out. If it appears likely that Trump will lose in November, that will incentivize hawks to break as much as possible before January. They might try to sell this to him as a desperate game-change election move, or a chance to "make history" before he is thrown out. On the other hand, the Trump Organization and Jarvanka have significant commercial equities in China.
Trump's primary exposure is hotels. The hotel industry is ground zero for the virus along with a few other sectors.
I think it makes sense for the CCP leadership to be patient—who knows if there’s any realistic prospect of this really happening?
Recently, I’ve gotten the impression that the China hawks in the Trump administration have been pushing him to focus more on China in order to revive his flagging re-election campaign. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if he decided to focus more on America’s culture wars.
Clearly the Trump administration is desperately trying to pick a fight, in order to enhance Trump's campaign profile.
It is no blow at all. It plays right into the hands of the Chinese government and enforces a negative view of the US among the traveling masses in China.
The Chinese government will probably try to gain some moral highground by not dignifying such picking with a response, also because any response would not fit to the recent overture by the People's Leader to CEOs of multinationals, including US, to invest more in China.
The Chinese government may also have realised, that public exchanges on the level of pubertating teenagers on Twitter doesn't do any good to China's overall reputation.
And, last but not least, the Chinese leadership may see this as payback time, by doing to Trump what he probably considers the worst insult: Ignoring his very existence for his remaining time in office.
I suspect that anyone who thinks that a Biden presidency will be "soft on China" is making a mistake. He can't afford to be and I doubt he wants to be. Perhaps he will look for a solution to this issue that is modulated rather than black or white. It is a way to show strength or show pressure and to make clear that there is a new but not weak approach. Wonder who will be SecState and National Security Advisor.
No, I don't think that the U.S. should bar members of the CCP per se. I do think that it should consider barring specifically identified officials for specifically identifiable policies in, e.g. Xinjiang, Hong Kong. But it's important to maintain the general principle of open intercourse between peoples.
Re: CCP membership. From some limited interaction with my wife's students in Chinese universities, I'd say that the students recruited for or aspiring to CCP membership are generally among the best and brightest. They are smart, articulate, hardworking, forward-looking. Many speak good English. They are the kind of students who would be involved in student affairs at an American university. They were also likely to be appointed class monitors. Very conscientious. As such, they were likely to speak up for party positions during class discussions, but not necessarily censoriously. Any "surveillance" role in classroom teaching was, of course, unknown to my wife, but if so it was light-handed. They openly acknowledge that if they hope to advance in some professions it's almost a necessity to be in the party, and they might voice some hope to internally change the party. In short, they're young and idealistic. Especially as young professors, they are more likely to criticize censorship that inhibits their scholarly work, especially on potentially controversial subjects.
Obviously, university is a very early level of active party participation, but I'm sure most of them view it as an honor to be "tapped" for candidacy. I have no idea whether youthful idealism will dim if they rise in the party, especially in the new Era of Xi, and whether they will change the party or it will change them.
This makes me think of people I know here in California who joined the party long ago, lapsed, emigrated, settled down (sans Green Card) and just want to work hard and enjoy life. There are more of them in the pipeline who would be China’s loss and our gain. I could appreciate a ban targeting officials responsible for human rights and other abuses, but the contemplated action seems like using a shotgun to kill a roach. Apologies to actual insects.
I remember vividly the question on US-immigration forms during Reagan's times: "Are you or have you ever been member of a communist party?"
Since I have been to countries US congressmen dislike, even though most of them won't be able to locate even one of these countries on an unmarked world map, in spite of my nation's visa-waiver status, I would need visa to visit the US.
Knowing how undignified US visa process is, there is nothing that will make me undergo that procedure ever again and rather spend my hard-earned money elsewhere.
I pity those who are so desperate to go to the US, that they will endure this treatment.
My favourite question used to be: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude?". No American has ever been able to tell me what a crime of moral turpitude is.
one explanation:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-crime-moral-turpitude-according-us-immigration-law.html
Written opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A.) describe moral turpitude as a “nebulous concept,” and one that “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.” The person committing it should have had either an “evil intent” or been acting recklessly.
A CMT has also been called "per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong."
This collection of words seems to point to a highly subjective determination—if the immigration official or judge thinks the crime sounds morally wrong, or perhaps mean and nasty, it’s probably a crime of moral turpitude.
Thanks. I always answered No in any case. Never joke with customs or immigration is a rule I’ve always abided by.
Sorry, little late but for the curious the actual crimes of moral turpitude are spelled out here (not a definitive list as this regulation changes from time to time):
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030203.html
DHS uses a similar list for benefits they adjudicate domestically.
Wow, well that really covers everything. Bribery, arson, burglary, counterfeiting, tax evasion, bigamy, incest, lewdness, and my favourite, mayhem! Thanks for this, I'll watch my step next time I come.
just as i am reading this i get a wechat from a former us corp exec from Beijing and she is asking me if she should transfer her money out of usa ... This banning CCP members, who joined when they were young, is a bad idea to bring the "fight" to the people instead of just make it a US-China government issue where it belongs. Let's not shame the people where it is not in their control.
A blanket ban seems to be rather too arbitrary, but a targeted ban at higher level members and CPPCC members begins to send a message that there is a price to be paid at policy levels.
The argument to be made here is that there is a systemic difference in the world vision of the CCP and the rest of the world's democracies. Since "convergence" seems to have been debunked, there is little reason to assist the CCP in the promotion of its world view. It seems worthwhile to recall the old line attributed to Lenin that capitalists will vie to sell the rope to be used to hang themselves.
Really un-enforceable. US immigration already asks people who apply for a visa that if they are CCP members - answering yes will attract scrutiny next to being a terrorism suspect so everybody answers 'no' - regardless of if they are really a member. Not that the Org Dept would pick up the phone.
Having said that, it is probably would be used against families of certain high profile officials so they can't enter US to study and do other things. But then they would just go elsewhere (at this rate, probably UK or HK).
We don't need to identify every single party member for this policy to work -- just enough of a proportion to create doubt. I think our intelligence agencies are up to the task
A blanket ban seems to be quite draconian. However the intention of imposing a cost on being a member of the CCP is interesting. Wouldn't the same purpose be served by requiring a declaration by all Visa applicants and existing foreign immigrants in the US, if they are serving members of the CCP? And disclosing such information to all employers and educational institutions would achieve the same goal ?
The whole approach is flawed.
The US receives leaders and "dignitaries" with full honours, who are among the worst perpetrators when it comes to human rights violations in their respective countries; people, who are instrumental to and directly responsible for these violations.
At the same time, the US discriminates with McCarthyist zealousness against the common people of these countries when it comes to inbound travel.
Simple truth, however, is, that the political affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with the qualification of someone wishing to visit a country.
IMHO, there is no better cure for communism, than an extended visit to the free world.
And that cure is being denied by the US.
A lot of folks are talking about the "innocent" party members caught up in all this, even party members who long left China. Something I don't understand - can't you let your membership lapse? If members feel conflicted about the direction things are going at the top, why not just let it go?
The only party members I've met here have either been true believers or in it for purely mercenary reasons. It seems to me those two types are exactly the ones who should be targeted by sanctions, especially since anyway it would only affect the richer end. I'm interested to know if there really is a "silent majority" who are critical of Xi and what their reasons are for not doing anything about it.
A blanket ban would be counterproductive on the educational and people-to-people exchanges end. Many undergrads in China join the CCP for career and professional reasons, then later decide to do post-grad in the US or move here for work. This is just one example, but there are countless other areas where a blanket ban would cause more problems than reap benefits.
Is there a credible chance for 3 Gorges to fail?
Bueller? Serious question.
this is a long-time rumor that never comes to reality. Most recently what i heard is the dam is doing ok and the water is not even reaching the full level yet.
It was never anchored to the bedrock
I assume this is only the first step. Next a ban on CCP members owning assets in the US will follow. As I see it there is a serious mismatch of power between the CCP and the west, despite appearances to the contrary.
This mismatch in power is the main reason I think we can avoid the Thucydides trap as the CCP will realise the mismatch and not get kinetic. The model I am working with is China’s growth will fall to 2-3% then lower and become a mega version of Russia within 10 years.
I know I’m an outlier on this but demographics plus now the pandemic, preventing proper trade with China (as the rest of the west minus Australia - or not things are looking bad for us in Melbourne, have the virus) means exports are crippled and long term domestic consumption.
one additional thought - no one would give our dear leader much credit for strategic thinking, but perhaps the Trump proposal to block all CCP members from the US could be a ploy in response to Chinese government potentially demanding that all CCP members who have green cards make the existential choice – return to China and keep your hukou, or stay in the US, keep your green card and lose your Chinese hukou. This policy is already in place in Shandong and I think in Guangdong. This is a terrible position in which to put many Chinese in the US (and in other countries). Both (proposed) national policies are very bad positions in which to put hundreds of thousands of people.
Re: visa ban. Maybe it's just about envy, the CP govt having outperformed the Republican Party govt in so many ways the latter is desperate for scapegoats — China, WHO, Michigan, Fauci, CDC, hackers — to mask its many failures and their dire national and global consequences.
A ban on all CCP travel to US combined with new immigration laws that welcome all PRC immigrants with open arms would most likely serve to change calculus about joining the Party and cast serious doubts about the direction of the Party under Xi.
However, this is a fanciful policy (especially under Trump).
So, I disagree with the political logic of banning all CCP members from the US. Most CCP members can’t even travel to the US, and vast majority of Chinese can’t either. Banning them achieves no practical goal, and only serves to engender anti-American sentiment, confirming CCP rhetoric under Xi that America is a hegemonic power bent on suppressing China and the Chinese people
A blanket ban would be a bad idea, not to mention lazy. There are all sorts of people in the Party, even under Xi. Better to beef up surveillance when warranted. A spectacular “own goal” if it were to be introduced.
Wait why doesn't Trump like parties?
I think it s a good thing. It would force both sides to be consistent and logical. The sooner that prevails the sooner reasonable resolutions can be reached.
Atm, both sides want to have their cake and eat it too, and behave as sour grapes and sore losers by turn and on a variety of 'pet issues'. The exaggerated sense of victimisation and moral outrage is mostly as ridiculous as it is unfounded.
In 'tired, old defeated' Europe, history repeatedly demonstrates that such grand standing based on a delusional sense of history and missonary zeal has only one outcome. Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
From my interactions with CPC ppl, I can assume that the motivations to become a member of the communist party in China today is not so different from those in communist states in the East Europe in 1960s or 1970s (one my grandfather joined the party in 1950s, for contrast the other one was in the forest until late 1940s ;-).
It's never a clear cut opportunist vs. true believer, one can both. Usually the motivation is complex and required at least partial acceptance for the party ideology - but this one is very selective, for example a nationalistic agenda of the party can obscure a progressive one or vice-versa. It's also a dynamic process and change over time with live experience, social coercion, international situation - like the ideology of the party itself.
Definitely, to be a party member also means to gain privileges and ppl tend to defend those privileges. It also means that party have a leverage over members. Contrary to expectation of ppl who never experienced the "real socialism" you could be surprised how often a mix of the carrot and ideological call (selectively chosen) is more productive then the stick. But those privileges are also a boundary how far a regular member will go for the party. S/he will defend them, but not sacrifice completely.
So, if USG want to disturb rank-and-file of CPC, they have to make them pay the price, but I doubt if a blanket visa ban will do it. Only a fraction of regular members travel abroad. Still, it can be a factor to stop some new ppl to join, at least as long the US is an attractive place to be, though.
There is also category of members who joined because were coerced. The party look for ppl who stand out in their social or professional circle, who could become community leaders. The party aims to control all aspects of live and eliminate any alternative authority, so press them to join to control them and put under party influence and discipline. Potentially, they (plus the disillusioned ones) are future dissidents, but the blanked ban will affect and put off them as well.
In other words, no different from what motivate individuals to join any organisation or cause...
No, not really.
First, either you are in Poland in 1950s or in PRC 2020, you can't claim any ignorance. You exactly know what the communist party is and what is capable of and it has blood on hands, a lot of blood. You can fool yourself that it's for the bigger good (yours or/and in the grand picture for humanity), buy you can't say I didn't know.
Second, a membership in the party is not something, what just can happen to you accidentally or involuntary. The joining process is long and enduring. It's not a teenage pregnancy, that happen to you in the heat of the moment at the back sit of your dad's car and definitely it's not just some bureaucratic procedure. It's required determination, time and some hard work. It's much more than just filling some application form at a collage office. It's not something you can forget and it's a big thing - even if afterwards some ppl claim otherwise.
You exactly know what you doing and what you getting yourself in. Period!
Harsh and judgmental. Instant condemnation of a few hundred million individuals past and present. Not to mention a rather dangerous definition of criminal culpability by association. Much like a party member? ;) but seriously, I like a moralistic self righteous diatribe as much as the next man. But taken seriously and made into policy? that way crime against humanity lies. And we are trying to debate matters of policy directions here.
Harsh? It just reality. Judgmental? Not really. If I was born 50 years earlier, I could have joined a communist party by myself. It’s always very complex motivation, as I said in the first post.
Yes, we debate the matters of policy direction, but to do it, first we must establish facts, don’t we? One can’t really be so naïve to believe that majority of ppl, who are intelligent, successful and very aware of China realities (or Poland’s realities in 1950s) joined the party without knowing what the communist party is.
As the matter of this policy, IMHO it’d be just counterproductive, but not necessarily unjust.
> Currently, about 16% (15 of 92m) joined under Xi, with the remaining 77m (84%) joining pre-Xi.
This doesn't change that there are a lot more people who are carbon copies of Xi in that 84%, and I'd say a very big digit. Xi is a much more ordinary CPC member than ones whom you was seeing on TV.
A man like Xi could've been easily spending his whole career running some small village, and never seen as anybody with a potential use even on a county level.
Members like him spend half of their careers studying Marxism-Jediism mantras, and another on completely nonsensical jobs, just to be given an any much significant office in their late fifties, when their brains are already a mush.
Hu, and the officials of technocrat era are 10 Himalayas above 99% of CPC members
I agree that banning all 92 million members of the Communist Party is not necessary and is unduly inflammatory. Also probably not practical. So it's a side issue that will get dropped. I'd be interested in the group's thoughts on Bill Barr's comments. Some may dismiss him as a Trump toadie, but this speech is a broadside not only against XJP but also the American business community. It's a must watch. Here's the video. https://www.justice.gov/opa/video/attorney-general-barr-s-remarks-china-policy-gerald-r-ford-presidential-museum
I have just read Barr's speech. His earlier one about technology was built on fact, a time for America to wake up else America will lose the technology race and with it the country's hegemonic status. I found this report to be weak, cobbling together a lot of known facts and accusations and suggesting that throughout this long period America has been the innocent party. China steals technology, spies on America etc - but don't tell me that America has not been doing this for years.
I'm sure many Sinocism subscribers have friends who emigrated to Canada, US, UK, etc. from China. Some of these friends are or were CPC members. It would be interesting to see if some of them could offer a different perspective on our speculations on what the CPC membership actually does in China and abroad.
I would add that I worked in an American company in China where young Chinese joined the party so they could participate in the local dragon boat race events. I don’t know that a blanket ban makes much sense. It didn’t seem like there was that much political vetting. However I’ll also admit my understanding of how the party recruits and filters their members is non existent.
My sense is that people join the CCP to pursue ambition and power. People who have strong reservations about the ethics or methods of the Party do not join. So it goes beyond "expediency" to a willingness to accept varying degrees of moral trade-offs for increased power. The ideology is less something to believe in like a religion, but rather something to participate in as a means of consolidating, maintaining, and strategically distributing power.