I'm amazed at #7 "Not Nationalist Enough", with reference to the online battle of words between supporters of Hu Xijin and Shen Yi regarding the tasteless meme about India's cremation grounds during this second wave. My amazement has less to do with Shen Yi's anti-India comments, and more to do with his brazen anti-feminism. Which century is this guy from? How did he get away with saying "whores" and "bitches" in a public forum, and in what way did it enhance his show of patriotism? Did Hu Xijin or anybody else call him out on the sexism and violence built into his comments? Do you suppose his bosses at Fudan care? And... did he actually say that? Wow. I should be grateful if someone who is familiar with Chinese netizen etiquette could shed light on this.
Indira, my guess is that the term has taken on a more abstract meaning that has been partially separated from the gendered aspect of the characters 母 and 婊. I'm not sure about the origins of that term, but it may be somehow linked to a crude Chinese phrase about hypocrisy that goes "既要做婊子，又要立牌坊". Chinese are also generally less sensitive to sexual equality issues (because the CCP suppresses these sort of protests) and in any case all of these things are considered more acceptable when you're patriotically roasting the enemies of the Chinese people.
This is so interesting, as I see it entirely differently, that this posturing is just that, a clear indication of Xi's weak and weakening grip on things, at home and abroad. It's as though he and others stomping about Zhongnanhai constantly need to puff out their cheeks in order to fill an ever more quickly leaking balloon. They present themselves increasingly as ridiculous individuals, to be taken seriously only because of $$ signs, otherwise the CCP has nothing to offer the world. China, on the other hand, which is not the CCP, still does. I think this is a fundamental divide as to how many regard the government there.
If anything, I see the opposite; Xi is strengthening his grip. Everything I hear is that he has widespread support in China, and those who are against him, fear that he is becoming too cocky, and will make mistakes. But many see advantages in the alliance with Russia, and see DCEP as a way to hit the US-led financial system when it is introduced. And many other countries are hostile to the US, and see Xi taking the US down multiple pegs as a good thing.
The whole alliance is interesting; I have heard some say that China decided to come down hard on Australia after making sure that it could secure Russian sources as replacements for the natural commodities China needs to fuel its factories. This means that the China-Russian trade will be settled in yuan instead of the US$, and then in DCEP later.
I don't know if you have read the Global Times editorial about the G7 meeting; it was long and detailed, and it described the US as an "arrow nearing the end of its long flight".
I think the rest of the world is enjoying good entertainment as they watch these two giants fighting it out, and of course they will cheer the winner as the new savior of humanity.
Can't it be both a bluff and sign of increasing power at home? I think most will agree that the international situation is turning against Beijing, especially given China's continued reliance on external supply chains for many things (food, tech, jobs, etc).
On the other hand, using nationalism and anger at US actions, Xi has effectively tightened control in China and has made his internal position almost unassailable.
Xi will use this increased grip on power domestically to try and ride out the rough seas ahead as the US coordinates the rest of the world to put pressure on China. Unfortunately for Xi, the countries that are sympathetic to China (Pakistan, Iran, Russia, NK, developing nations, etc) are the ones least able to help.
I don't agree that things are turning against Beijing; I see things as turning in Beijing's favor dramatically. US imports of Chinese goods are UP dramatically, and ships going to the port of Long Beach are having to wait longer to get berths.
The perspective from most US journalists is that things are turning against Beijing, but journalists in Europe, Asia and Africa are telling a very different story. Since most of China's actions are directed at the non-US world, I give them more credence.
Example: One out of every 3 autos from German factories goes to China, which is why Germany has not confronted Beijing, even though many of the former East European states take a pro-American stance against China. The East European states are, of course, formerly Communist, and want US protection against Russia. Germany underwrites the EU, and therefore can largely set EU policy. Merkel is trying to steer a cautious neutral course between the US and China, and avoid taking sides.
Another example: South Korea and Japan are key US allies in NE Asia. Aside from a lot of history, they are divided in policy to China: Japan is a member of the Quad (US, Japan, Australia, India), but South Korea does not want to antagonize Beijing because it needs help to manage North Korea. ROK President Moon has asked the Biden administration to engage with North Korea to discuss the de-nuclearization issue. China is also an important trade partner for South Korea.
Another example: Beijing just publicly called on the US not to withdraw hastily from Afghanistan because it would result in chaos and the Afghan people would suffer. I have never heard Beijing tell the US how to manage its troop deployments before.
These are just a few examples, there are many more.
Another upcoming issue will be that the major US government spending programs will lead to inflation, which will mean that the yuan will appreciate against the dollar, and giving Chinese more leverage. And there is the introduction of DCEP next year, which will have a dramatic effect on trade.
The most important source of Beijing's power now is Chinese spending and the Chinese middle class. So far, Beijing has been very successful at shielding them from the effects of the pandemic.
The question now is whether the Chinese Ministry of Education will permit or encourage Chinese students to study in American universities on the undergraduate level. I imagine that they will discourage parents from sending their children to US universities first, then UK, Australia and Canada for study, which will put a financial pinch on many universities since Chinese students pay full tuition. Then, I believe that the MOE will start vetting graduate studies, encouraging post-grad science degrees, but discouraging post-grad arts degrees.
I have always seen students and people-to-people relations as the simplest, easiest point of agreement in US-China relations. I'm optimistic. From a practical perspective, despite all the noise from the Chinese media about the bad and chaotic and dangerous things happening outside of China, all of the reasons why an education overseas, ESPECIALLY in the U.S., remain unchanged. At the risk of sounding overly utilitarian, I would say that if people want something, then people will find a way to get what they want. From a more idealistic perspective, in what world is having more people with greater US-China cultural fluency a bad thing?
I wonder about this - China is easily in a position to drastically cut down the number of Chinese students studying abroad if they wanted to, but they haven't. Is it because it's in their national interest to allow Chinese students to study overseas, or is it because too many of the Chinese elite (including Xi himself in the past) send their children overseas?
I think its more of the former; China also seems very keen on increasing "people to people" exchange on the assumption that the more personal contact there is between ordinary Chinse and Americans, the more understanding/sympathy there will be towards China (makes sense to be honest).
This might not be a bad thing all the way around. Certainly, it would require the CCP to do something about the overall abysmal quality of post-secondary education in the MK, which appears only to be worsening. Here in the States, it would require colleges and universities to rethink their so-called business models. I say this sadly, as earlier today I formed a WeChat group, introducing former students of mine who are in different PhD programs at the U of Maryland. Of the hundreds of students I worked with in China from 2011 - 2017, and who came to the States for their college education, most all of them have gone on to do very interesting things; at last count 17 are in PhD programs. I remain wonderfully grateful to have worked with them. But, with the academic climate in China being what it is, I am not at all sure what recent students going abroad will have to offer. I still see going abroad as something of an Underground Railroad, as do the parents of many students, but this may gradually go away, as you point out.
Quoting “anonymous European think tank director” as the source is ridiculous. He sign a letter of protest but comments to you on anonymity base??! That’s bad joke.
I'm amazed at #7 "Not Nationalist Enough", with reference to the online battle of words between supporters of Hu Xijin and Shen Yi regarding the tasteless meme about India's cremation grounds during this second wave. My amazement has less to do with Shen Yi's anti-India comments, and more to do with his brazen anti-feminism. Which century is this guy from? How did he get away with saying "whores" and "bitches" in a public forum, and in what way did it enhance his show of patriotism? Did Hu Xijin or anybody else call him out on the sexism and violence built into his comments? Do you suppose his bosses at Fudan care? And... did he actually say that? Wow. I should be grateful if someone who is familiar with Chinese netizen etiquette could shed light on this.
Indira, my guess is that the term has taken on a more abstract meaning that has been partially separated from the gendered aspect of the characters 母 and 婊. I'm not sure about the origins of that term, but it may be somehow linked to a crude Chinese phrase about hypocrisy that goes "既要做婊子，又要立牌坊". Chinese are also generally less sensitive to sexual equality issues (because the CCP suppresses these sort of protests) and in any case all of these things are considered more acceptable when you're patriotically roasting the enemies of the Chinese people.
That's just my non-expert opinion.
I think Xi is very confident that China has the US by the throat, and he can now start squeezing.
My fear is that Xi is becoming progressively disconnected from reality, a particular propensity and danger for totalitarian rulers.
This is so interesting, as I see it entirely differently, that this posturing is just that, a clear indication of Xi's weak and weakening grip on things, at home and abroad. It's as though he and others stomping about Zhongnanhai constantly need to puff out their cheeks in order to fill an ever more quickly leaking balloon. They present themselves increasingly as ridiculous individuals, to be taken seriously only because of $$ signs, otherwise the CCP has nothing to offer the world. China, on the other hand, which is not the CCP, still does. I think this is a fundamental divide as to how many regard the government there.
If anything, I see the opposite; Xi is strengthening his grip. Everything I hear is that he has widespread support in China, and those who are against him, fear that he is becoming too cocky, and will make mistakes. But many see advantages in the alliance with Russia, and see DCEP as a way to hit the US-led financial system when it is introduced. And many other countries are hostile to the US, and see Xi taking the US down multiple pegs as a good thing.
The whole alliance is interesting; I have heard some say that China decided to come down hard on Australia after making sure that it could secure Russian sources as replacements for the natural commodities China needs to fuel its factories. This means that the China-Russian trade will be settled in yuan instead of the US$, and then in DCEP later.
I don't know if you have read the Global Times editorial about the G7 meeting; it was long and detailed, and it described the US as an "arrow nearing the end of its long flight".
I think the rest of the world is enjoying good entertainment as they watch these two giants fighting it out, and of course they will cheer the winner as the new savior of humanity.
Can't it be both a bluff and sign of increasing power at home? I think most will agree that the international situation is turning against Beijing, especially given China's continued reliance on external supply chains for many things (food, tech, jobs, etc).
On the other hand, using nationalism and anger at US actions, Xi has effectively tightened control in China and has made his internal position almost unassailable.
Xi will use this increased grip on power domestically to try and ride out the rough seas ahead as the US coordinates the rest of the world to put pressure on China. Unfortunately for Xi, the countries that are sympathetic to China (Pakistan, Iran, Russia, NK, developing nations, etc) are the ones least able to help.
I don't agree that things are turning against Beijing; I see things as turning in Beijing's favor dramatically. US imports of Chinese goods are UP dramatically, and ships going to the port of Long Beach are having to wait longer to get berths.
The perspective from most US journalists is that things are turning against Beijing, but journalists in Europe, Asia and Africa are telling a very different story. Since most of China's actions are directed at the non-US world, I give them more credence.
Example: One out of every 3 autos from German factories goes to China, which is why Germany has not confronted Beijing, even though many of the former East European states take a pro-American stance against China. The East European states are, of course, formerly Communist, and want US protection against Russia. Germany underwrites the EU, and therefore can largely set EU policy. Merkel is trying to steer a cautious neutral course between the US and China, and avoid taking sides.
Another example: South Korea and Japan are key US allies in NE Asia. Aside from a lot of history, they are divided in policy to China: Japan is a member of the Quad (US, Japan, Australia, India), but South Korea does not want to antagonize Beijing because it needs help to manage North Korea. ROK President Moon has asked the Biden administration to engage with North Korea to discuss the de-nuclearization issue. China is also an important trade partner for South Korea.
Another example: Beijing just publicly called on the US not to withdraw hastily from Afghanistan because it would result in chaos and the Afghan people would suffer. I have never heard Beijing tell the US how to manage its troop deployments before.
These are just a few examples, there are many more.
Another upcoming issue will be that the major US government spending programs will lead to inflation, which will mean that the yuan will appreciate against the dollar, and giving Chinese more leverage. And there is the introduction of DCEP next year, which will have a dramatic effect on trade.
The most important source of Beijing's power now is Chinese spending and the Chinese middle class. So far, Beijing has been very successful at shielding them from the effects of the pandemic.
The question now is whether the Chinese Ministry of Education will permit or encourage Chinese students to study in American universities on the undergraduate level. I imagine that they will discourage parents from sending their children to US universities first, then UK, Australia and Canada for study, which will put a financial pinch on many universities since Chinese students pay full tuition. Then, I believe that the MOE will start vetting graduate studies, encouraging post-grad science degrees, but discouraging post-grad arts degrees.
I have always seen students and people-to-people relations as the simplest, easiest point of agreement in US-China relations. I'm optimistic. From a practical perspective, despite all the noise from the Chinese media about the bad and chaotic and dangerous things happening outside of China, all of the reasons why an education overseas, ESPECIALLY in the U.S., remain unchanged. At the risk of sounding overly utilitarian, I would say that if people want something, then people will find a way to get what they want. From a more idealistic perspective, in what world is having more people with greater US-China cultural fluency a bad thing?
I wonder about this - China is easily in a position to drastically cut down the number of Chinese students studying abroad if they wanted to, but they haven't. Is it because it's in their national interest to allow Chinese students to study overseas, or is it because too many of the Chinese elite (including Xi himself in the past) send their children overseas?
I think its more of the former; China also seems very keen on increasing "people to people" exchange on the assumption that the more personal contact there is between ordinary Chinse and Americans, the more understanding/sympathy there will be towards China (makes sense to be honest).
This might not be a bad thing all the way around. Certainly, it would require the CCP to do something about the overall abysmal quality of post-secondary education in the MK, which appears only to be worsening. Here in the States, it would require colleges and universities to rethink their so-called business models. I say this sadly, as earlier today I formed a WeChat group, introducing former students of mine who are in different PhD programs at the U of Maryland. Of the hundreds of students I worked with in China from 2011 - 2017, and who came to the States for their college education, most all of them have gone on to do very interesting things; at last count 17 are in PhD programs. I remain wonderfully grateful to have worked with them. But, with the academic climate in China being what it is, I am not at all sure what recent students going abroad will have to offer. I still see going abroad as something of an Underground Railroad, as do the parents of many students, but this may gradually go away, as you point out.
Quoting “anonymous European think tank director” as the source is ridiculous. He sign a letter of protest but comments to you on anonymity base??! That’s bad joke.