Session #5 - March 2

[stubing]

REQUIRED

Readings

• These four articles offer very different assessments of the US-China relationship. It's noteworthy that Jeff Bader, Kent Campbell, and Eli Ratner all worked together in the Obama administration. Read two of these:
• Bader, How Xi Jinping Sees the World and Why, Brookings, 2016.
• Campbell and Ratner, "The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American Expectations," Foreign Affairs, v97n2 (March/April 2018).
• Wang Jisi, Stapleton Roy et al, "Did America Get China Wrong?," Foreign Affairs, v97n4 (July/August 2018).
• Shambaugh, "The Coming Chinese Crack-up," Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2015.
• Global Times on America, 2018
• Cai, China's leaders get filtered advice, South China Morning Post, 2018
• Look at this simple collection of views (from the time of Michelle Obama's trip to China in 2014): http://graphics.wsj.com/lists/camerica0320
• Read one of these three:
  • Brown, Kerry, "The Belt and Road: Security Dimensions," Asia Europe Journal, v16: 213-222, April 6, 2018.
  • "China's Belt and Road Plans are to be Welcomed and Worried About," July 26, 2018.
  • Kynge, James and others, Financial Times special report on the Belt and Road Initiative, September 25, 2018
• Read one article at https://qz.com/on/china-in-africa/
• Read one of the following policy briefs from the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins SAIS.
  • Brautigam, 2018 - Chinese geese in Africa
  • Eom, 2017 - Data comparing the US and China in Africa
  • Chen, 2018 - African ambitions for China's Belt and Road Initiative
  • Lu, 2017 - Chinese immigrants to Zambia

Videos

5a. U.S.-China Relations

 

 

5b. Global China 

 

 

OPTIONAL

• Brautigam, Will Africa Feed China?, 2016 (26 minutes) 
• French, How Chinese Migrants are Building a New Empire in Africa, 2014 (83 minutes)  
• Shambaugh, China Goes Global, 2013 (52 minutes)  
• Financial Times, China and Japan Compete in Africa, 2016 (6 minutes) 
• Financial Times, China Booming Trade Tests Africa's Ports, 2012 (5 minutes) 
• CNBC Africa, Closing the Gap: Understanding China-South Africa Ties, 2018 (13 minutes) 
• CGTN Africa, Chinese Infrastructure Links African Countries, 2017 (4 minutes) 
• CGTN Africa, Shared Dreams, 2018 (31 minutes) 
• Channel News Asia, What are China's Plans for the Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN, (48 minutes) 
• Channel News Asia, How is China's New Silk Road Transforming Vietnam and Laos?, (48 minutes) 
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation, China Rising: The Challenges for Australia as China and the US Struggle for Supremacy in Asia, 2016 (42 minutes) 
• Check out the China in Africa podcast and the Weekly Briefing from the Centre for Chinese Studies at Stellenbosch University 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Mossy Kennedy]

One of my questions coming into the class is how relevant is Marxist ideology in contemporary China? To what degree does Marxist ideology guide state decision making? The material this week provided information around this question, without resolving the issue for me.  This tension between Marxism and the current philosophy of the state continues to draw my interest.  It is a tension between the idealistic ideology of the revolution tempered by the current pragmatic philosophy. Jeffery Bader’s article dwelt on this juxtaposition.  He points out that at the moment the Communist Party mechanism is being used to support capitalist enterprise.  ”To deal with the massive disruptions that the economic reform program will bring, on top of the array of existing problems, Xi has strengthened the role of the Communist Party as a tool of governance in an authoritarian but market-dominated system.”  This sort of paradox displays the complexity of contemporary China.

 

The Global Times article articulated a sophisticated understanding of the United States that has evolved from study and shared interactions.  I admired the long-term vision of seeing recent US policy as being an abheration rather than a reversal. There is a deliberate attempt to avoid over-reaction. The Cambell and Ratner essay discussed, “Tao guang yang hui,” the notion of keeping a low profile while making progress. This too illuminates sophisticated vision in foriegn policy.

 

While policies like the Belt and Road  initiative show links to the internationalism of Marxist thought, authoritarian domestic policies do not. It is difficult to reconcile these different directions of thinking.  Like many world powers through time, China too has its contradictions.

 

[Kimberly Robinson]

After listening to the lectures and watching optional videos I am curious about the Belt and Road Initiative and China's motivation for the program.  Although China is using the program to promote trade around the world which ultimately help it's bottom line, I wonder if China has any real concerns regarding losses due to political instability in Africa.  How much money is China willing to invest in regions like the Horn of Africa and at what point do they feel they have to do something to protect their investment?  I believe the CNBC video said that it took over a port in Sri Lanka but it did so reluctantly.  This also leads to the question of soft power projection.  Is China willing to take continued economic losses in exchange for good will in areas that it could establish significant influence?   As the US has recently limited it's soft power projection around this may be an opportunity for China to extend influence.   America used to use soft diplomacy quite effectively (for both political and humanitarian reasons) so I wonder if we will be able to recover that role on the world stage.

[Johnny Walker]

We have explored contemporary China through different lenses, eras and challenges, yet as Mossy articulated, I also remain curious about the interplay of China's Marxist ideological values with its domestic and foreign policies. I also really enjoyed reading Bader's "How Xi Jinping Sees the World" and appreciated viewing recent Chinese history through the leadership styles of its Presidents as well as their economic inheritances and opportunities. I'm curious how personality-driven these policy initiatives have been. Clearly, Mao's influence was domineering. Yet, Deng Xioping, Jiang Zemin and now Xi have seemed to steer China with an equally strong arm. I'm curious about the mechanations and rise of these leaders as well as the considerations that these leaders have prioritized during their rule. China clearly has an identity contradiction when defining itself as both a victim of imperialism as well as a global superpower with imperialist ambitions. It's fascinating to see China's evoloution from resistance leader of Non-Alligned nations to American and European power from the revolution through the seventies, to greater cooperation in the global order in the 80s and 90s, and more recently, offering alternatives to international organizations whether it be financial institutions like the Chinese Development Bank or leadership on international trade routes such as the Belt and Road. It's a fascinating contradiction to explore an authoritarian but market-dominated system. Likewise, recent controls on media are tightened, yet Chinese have never been more exposed to western and international ideas through travel and trade. 

I really enjoyed the video lectures as well, and laughed upon hearing the phrase that America and China "are in the same bed but with different dreams". I appreciate the two slides that demonstrate the differences in the US and Chinese economies where Chinese manufacturing dwarfs American trade goods, yet the US service economy outweighs China's contribution. This is another economic concept that would benefit my students as it demonstrates the changing economic dynamics of the last century where nations have moved from industrial to service economies. And, as China develops to a more services-driven economy, will it therefore compete more with the United States than it has in the past? Is there another economic arrangement for the US and China to balance its manufacturing and service sectors in the fight to mitigate the industrial and shipping costs of climate change?

I'm amazed about the graph that demonstrates the enormous rising numbers of Chinese students who study abroad. I would love for my students to build an awareness about study-abroad programs as they are usually only taken advantage of by students with greater economic advantages. Such opportunities pay off dividends throughout an individual's professional and personal life, and I'm curious how the current generation of Chinese students' exposure to life outside of China will shape Chinese culture and policy in the decades to come when these students come of age to take leadership roles in Chinese politics. Imagining a Chinese President and an American President both fluent in each other's language and culture would be such a step toward global peace and progress. It doesn't seem like such a far-fetched idea. 

Finally, in terms of military demonstrations of power in the region and threat perception from citizens of other nations, China has not universally increased or decreased in other nations' perceptions of its malevalent intentions. I was surprised to see such a high percentage (80%) of Vietnamese viewed China as a threat. Given past military conflicts and proximity, that makes sense. However, I had incorrectly believed that China served more as a buffer and a restraint on North Korean aggression, and was surprised that S Korea viewed it in such increasingly alarmist views. I wonder what the percentage of Indian people who view China as a threat are. Given that just last week, the Chinese were reported to have infiltrated India's electric grid and caused a blackout in Mumbai as a warning, how severe is that relationship? As China's achilles heel has been (as we analyzed in our first meeting) the many bordering states that pose potential threats, is China stretching itself too thin as it flexes its military might from its coasts to its far western borders? And, as its revenues decline and economic might seems to be suffering (at least in terms of foreign investment) will that also curtail its military spending? Is Xi the type of leader whose larger economic and military aspirations are tempered by market forces, or is he looking to take greater risk? Ultimately, is China creating a network of economic interdependency in Afroeurasia that does not require the United States' presence? I really appreciate the greater complexity with which this class has increased my awareness and piqued my curiosity in current global affairs.

 

[Jeanine Alexander]

I was struck by the comments from Chinese people about America in the 2014 WSJ article. I felt they were very knowledgeable and had great insight. Then watching the portion of The Office is honestly terrifying because I feel it is close to what American’s actually think and feel: simple and uneducated…

Economically, the United States and China are dependent upon one another. There is no way of changing that. However, the change in who is the leading economic power is startling but NOT surprising. The Bader article discusses the goals and changing policies of China to becoming one of the largest economies in the world. I wonder when or even if it will come crashing down. This seemingly unlimited growth has led to this mass materialism, but how long will it really last? Even American materialism is vastly different then it was just 30 years ago. Xi’s commitment to making China an international power must be troubling to the ‘old’ world order. Not sure if it can be stopped, and should anyone attempt to? This interconnected economic system is not going to end, it seems as if it will continue to get more complicated with time. This point was emphasized in the China Reckoning Article which emphasized how the United States has underestimated its own influence over China.

We previously learned that China has been making more quality technological products than 30+ years ago. This is good news. However, we need to push China and other economic leaders to clean up their acts. Our consumption is so much and mother earth is struggling. If China can clean up their smog during the Olympics, they can do so daily. Think of Los Angeles and the smog of 30+ years ago compared to today. I feel like it is almost a parent-child relationship. The US knows its environmental problems it has created and somewhat tried to fix -depending upon who is in the White House, of course.

State media in China is smart to use social media to advertise the country. Propaganda tools that appear benign or fun encourage the strong belief in China by its population. However, the ‘re-education’ of people for religious reasons is troubling. Even more worrisome is the support for this by a large portion of the Chinese people. But then again, social media has been used by various outlets throughout the world to ‘re-educate’ in its own way. How long will misinformation reign in the world?

[Ray Clark]

I was initially a bit confused when I listed to the first video, because I always associate Nixon with normalizing relations with China, and it seems that the actual "normalization happened under Carter. Perhaps, because years later , I recall a Chinese official telling my father what high regard he had for Nixon which made an impression on me.

[Jonathan Alami]

• As China has grown to be the second largest economy in the world after the United States, it’s place in international order has changed as well. Prior to 1978, China saw itself as a revolutionary alternative to the established world order of western imperialism. Since policies favoring economic openness have been put in place however, China has steered away from this position and has become more interconnected with the rest of the world, especially the United States. 
• I wonder about what the real motives of both the US and China are as the two countries have become more interconnected. In my opinion, it seems that on the surface, the relationship is amicable but the reality is far more complex. I think the voices of ordinary Chinese in the WSJ article “The Chinese View of America”  provide valuable insight to the relationship between the US and China. One man said the relationship, “isn’t positive. The two countries are using each other based on their own interests.” Another woman said that, “America can’t stand China because it wants to maintain its world dominance.” I agree with these statements based on the readings. The article “The China Reckoning” explains how the United States was hoping that China would conform to the liberal world order through economic openness. The motive behind the US effort to open China in the 1970s seems to have been to mold China to US expectations so that it could be subdued as a global power and its Commuinst ideology could be weakened. However, as the article states, “diplomatic and commercial engagement have not brought political and economic openness.” I think that China’s continued political authorianism and censorship are clear indicators that interconnectedness in the global economy will not bring about political reforms in China. So, I think the US was hoping to overturn Communism through economic engagement with China but that has not happened. 
• China I think wants to assert itself as a global superpower. I think that the Belt and Road Initiative is a prime example of this geopolitical ambition. The economic gains from the project seem to be slim, the costs of projects in various countries (such as the Vietnam railway) are going over budget, and there are critics within China itself that the project is sending Chinese money to other countries when it could be spent in China. If the motive is clearly not economic, then I would argue that it is political. I think that China is trying to increase its international influence with the Belt and Road Initiative, by bringing state of the art engineering projects to other countries such as Pakistan and Laos. This project is intended, in my opinion, to spread Chinese soft power across the globe. 
• However, despite the US having somewhat self-serving motives for its policy in China, and China’s recent geopolitical power plays, the two are deeply intertwined. The US is China’s biggest customer and China has a significant investment that it will lose should relations falter. So, I think the saying, “Same bed, different dreams” sums up the relations between the US and China best. 

 

[Ryan Carothers]

I was only able to watch part of the videos. The links seem to have frozen (perhaps it is my connectivity). In any case, I will add to these comments later. I am not sure why there is so much angst over the idea that we might become number two. It is always hard to go from being the world leader --- to losing one's splendor. I think the British accepted this change. The French? Maybe not as much. In my own opinion, we can retain leadership in the world. However, this will require making investments here at home (tax-payers are loathe to do this), and maintaining alliances abroad (isolationists think we can go-it alone). The course we choose, will cause an unstoppable force to meet an immovable object. or simply have us fade into the background --- while the luminosity of China fill the scene. Given recent US policies, my guess is it will be a mix of both --- which is most unstabalizing. China was in a position of weakness under Mao. Now, they have much more strength. I think this means the future is less predictable.

[Gisela Gaona]

These two lectures and readings were particularly interesting as they helped place China as a global political, sociological, and economic machine. Focusing on the political first- China's SAR's immediately come to mind. The political restlessness continues in SAR's such as Hong Kong as they begin to forge their own individual identity outside of the Chinese communist party. 
The Umbrella Movement that took place a few years back perfectly exemplifies the growing manifestations that Hong Kong's people have taken in order to show China that they are a force to be reckened with. Skip forward to the political unrest of the late 2019 and early 2020 pre-covid where daily manifestations were a thing on the main streets of HK. It is more than crystal clear that HK wants independence from China and I am excited but scared for the people of HK to see those events unravel in the future. 

Taiwain is another SAR, in which much contention exists. The people of Taiwan identify themselves as Taiwanese, while also clarifying that they do indeed have Chinese heritage and connections back to the PRC. The case of Taiwain is of particular interest to me, because they seem to enjoy many more freedoms than other SAR's enjoy such as HK. It appears from an outsider perspective that there seems more interest in reigning in control over HK than over Taiwan. 

Overall, I am interested in seeing what direction/s PRC takes when it comes to either reliquinshing control over their SAR's or completely putting a stop to any and all insurrection movements across their territories. 

[Carlos Fernandez]

As an Economics teacher I really enjoyed this week's video lectures.  I am all about statistics and numbers and I really enjoyed the statistics  presented in the lecture.  I really would like to get more in depth information on the economic prowess of China and more numbers on their influence.  One particular area I would like to get more data on would be the debt owed to China from around the world.  I liked hearing about the Sri Lanka port turned over to China due to the inabilty of repayment.  Venezuela's $5 billion debt was of interest to me and as a North American, I would like to learn more about the heavy investments in North America, with particular interest in Mexico where my parents were born.  I am assuming most investment is occurring in the huge metropolis of Mexico City.  I would love to see some insight on the trillion dollar debt of the United States to China and how that has changed over time.  In connection to this, the global community's perception of China as a threat and how it's changed over time was also interesting to me.  I recall the newly-elected president prompted to confirm China as a threat to the competition.  As all politicians, he did a good job of dancing around the question.  Speaking of politics, I also enjoyed the breakdown of popular opinion on China, by political party and also by nation.  Lastly I found humor in the banking system and how it said it was clean, green, and not mean.  I know I'm missing one, but found it interesting how they promoted the idea they would not take advantage of consumer deposits as much as our banks of America do.  Lastly, getting into the dynamic relationship of African-Chinese relations seems interesting to me.  I like to learn the most of developing nations in this global economy we live in today.  I also like learning about our backyard, so the constructions accross Staples Center is something I would like more information on, especially the pause in construcion.  Once again these polls are interesting to me and seeing political corruption as a primay concern grabbed my attention.  It will be interesting to see if we touch on this concern through the lens of the pandemic.

[Hector Alejandro]

I found it interesting that Shambaugh said in 2015 that the Communist Party and Xi were in dire straits but since then Xi's presidency seems without a finite end.  In other words, his leadership is supported by the party and they perceive that China is anything but cracking up.  Yes, there are numerous domestic and overseas challenges but the power of the government and the country seems ever more consolidated. One main accomplishment seems to be that China's influence in many parts of the world has increased relative to America's influence.  Investments in the Third World, cutting edge technological development and its key role in global supply chains have been impressive and it appears that the U.S. needs to up its game in many areas if it is to maintain a somewhat dominant position in the world order.

[Jonathan Alami]

Kimberly, I agree that the Belt and Road Initiative leads to the question of soft power. As the project will not result in any real economic gains for China, it seems that the motive behind is to establish political influence in neighboring countries. I wonder if the timing of China's projection of soft power as US soft power is in decline is deliberate, and how the US will respond as this soft power continues to increase. 

[Jonathan Alami]

Johnny, I liked how you stated that China has an identity problem with its conflicting ideologies. I also think it is a really interesting contradiction that China has an authoritarian political system with open economic policies. I wonder as well how this contradiction will play out as China's economy continues to grow and China takes a greater role on the world stage. Will it continue in the direction of greater authoritarianism or will it adopt more liberal policies as it because intertwined with the rest of the world?

[Jonathan Alami]

Jeanine, I agree that the US China interrelationship is exceedingly complex. China's recent attempts to increase its influence around the world through soft power and through involvement in global organizations has definitely made it a rival of the United States. But the two nations are also deeply interdependent, so it will be really interesting to see how both nations navigate their relations with one another in the coming years. 

[Jonathan Alami]

Ryan, I agree with you, I don't understand the angst over being number two either. I always imagined that it is inevitable that China will overtake the United States as the world's largest economy (given that they have 4 times as many people). As far as going from being the world leader, I think that the US may still have a significant cultural influence around the globe for a long time (similar to how the British have retained a significant cultural influence around the globe despite not being the global super power). For example, the growth of Hollywood movies in China in recent years may be one way the US still retains an influential role. 

[Author]

Posts