Bill: Why are you deeply skeptical of this claim? “Washington's adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists. With the right balance of competition and cooperation, American actions can strengthen those Chinese leaders who want China to play a constructive role in world affairs." Do you think Washington's approach is not fueling Chinese nationalism, that there is no such receptive constituency in the Chinese leadership, or that there is no "right balance of competition and cooperation" that could yield a more constructive and productive US-China relationship?
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 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
Irony of the humanities professor gushing over the 'achievements' of his forebearers during the ROC era....does He not know that pinko starry eyed humanity academics and students (singing the same democracy and human rights slogans that their equivalents do these days) a decisive factor behind Chicom's success and takeover of ROC? There s a lesson there somewhere...
Bill: Why are you deeply skeptical of this claim? “Washington's adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists. With the right balance of competition and cooperation, American actions can strengthen those Chinese leaders who want China to play a constructive role in world affairs." Do you think Washington's approach is not fueling Chinese nationalism, that there is no such receptive constituency in the Chinese leadership, or that there is no "right balance of competition and cooperation" that could yield a more constructive and productive US-China relationship?
Hi Paul,
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 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
Irony of the humanities professor gushing over the 'achievements' of his forebearers during the ROC era....does He not know that pinko starry eyed humanity academics and students (singing the same democracy and human rights slogans that their equivalents do these days) a decisive factor behind Chicom's success and takeover of ROC? There s a lesson there somewhere...