Western Policy Makers and Academics Repeatedly Misunderstand China
Frank Sept. 28, 2014 in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Sep. 28, 2014, I read article Misunderstanding China - How did Western policy makers and academics repeatedly get China so wrong? The writer is Michael Pillsbury who is the Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute, and a distinguished defense policy adviser, former high-ranking government official, and author of numerous books and reports on China.
I agree with his point of view, and also, as my view, for Misunderstanding China, it is that some of Western policy makers and academics are dogmatists that lack of ability to think independently without a developing perspective to view the developing world and thereby failed in looking at the problems that are in changing constantly.
The practice of China is not as same as that of Western democratic countries. In China, the policies have been in constant adjustments according to the specific analysis for specific circumstances, to solve new problems with targeted new ways.
The process of China's economic reform is the process of constantly adjusting the policies, and it is a process of progressively promotion of successful experience with step by step.
However, the American politics, those dogmatic politicians and scholars have been taking as proud of demoncracy, just plays as a game of childish prank.
For my disrespectful comments, they certainly will be angry as that of enraged kids in loss of a gentleman's demeanor, then, please take a look at how the non-dogmatic truly wise man said?
Oct 16 2013, in article It is high time to end the partisan politics, I cited the comments on American politics of the Winner of 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, and the professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University - Paul Krugman.
Oct. 4, 2009, he published The Politics of Spite on New York Times to have pointed out the ugly picture of American politics:
"An essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.”
"The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration."
Such irrational political struggle in U.S., it is difficult to develop a flexible policy for dealing with practical social and economical problems. With the political experience of the United States to judge the politics of China will obviously lead to erroneous conclusions.
--- Frank Sept. 28, 2014 in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
About Michael Pillsbury
From the Hudson Institute - An independent research organization promoting new ideas for the advancement of global security, prosperity and freedom.
http://www.hudson.org/experts/724-michael-pillsbury
Senior Fellow Michael Pillsbury is a distinguished defense policy adviser, former high-ranking government official, and author of numerous books and reports on China. During the Reagan administration, Pillsbury was Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning and responsible for implementation of the program of covert aid known as the Reagan Doctrine. In 1975-76, while an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Pillsbury published articles in Foreign Policy and International Security recommending that the United States establish intelligence and military ties with China. The proposal, publicly commended by Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, and James Schlesinger, later became U.S. policy during the Carter and Reagan administrations.
Pillsbury served on the staff of four U.S. Senate Committees from 1978-1984 and 1986-1991. As a staff member, Pillsbury drafted the Senate Labor Committee version of the legislation that enacted the US Institute of Peace in 1984. He also assisted in drafting the legislation to create the National Endowment for Democracy and the annual requirement for a DOD report on Chinese military power.
In 1992, under President George H. W. Bush, Pillsbury was Special Assistant for Asian Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, reporting to Andrew W. Marshall, Director of Net Assessment. Pillsbury is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Pillsbury is the author of China Debates the Future Security Environment (NDU Press, 2000) and editor of Chinese Views of Future Warfare (NDU Press, 1998).
Pillsbury was educated at Stanford University (B.A. in History with Honors in Social Thought) and Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.).
Misunderstanding China
How did Western policy makers and academics repeatedly get China so wrong?
On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China while standing atop Beijing's Gate of Heavenly Peace. In the decades that followed, many China watchers in the West confidently predicted the fall of his regime. Others hoped that a cadre of moderates in the Beijing government would lead to a kinder, gentler, more democratic China.
As China turns 65 in a couple weeks, its ruling Party appears nowhere close to planning its retirement party. It is stronger, more nationalistic and more committed to maintaining one-party rule than at any time since Mao's death.
Nor has President Xi Jinping been the moderate reformer some hoped for. Under the cover of anti-corruption, Mr. Xi has consolidated his power over the party and squelched talk of democracy. In a speech to the National Congress earlier this month, he said that preventing the government from becoming "leaderless [and] fragmented" with "political fighting and wrangling between political parties" was among his top priorities. Even in Hong Kong, the last bastion of political freedom in China, Mr. Xi has ruled out free elections for 2017.
What happened? How did Western policy makers and academics repeatedly get China so wrong? To this day there is no expert consensus on China's economic growth and GDP, the size of its military and intelligence budgets, or even its intentions toward the West. Much less is there consensus on what direction China will take, even though most evidence points to political retrenchment, surging nationalism and opposition to the postwar international system.
Western governments failed to understand Mao's China from the beginning. The experts in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations believed it would not enter the Korean War. Kennedy and Johnson believed that China would stay out of Vietnam. Every American administration up to that point also believed that China would be permanently aligned with the Soviet Union as something of a junior partner. Then a Sino-Soviet border war broke out in 1969, shocking the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Chairman Mao Tse Tung announces the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.UIG via Getty Images
When Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took office, the American view was that relations between China and Russia were permanently broken, thus leading to the surprising "opening" in 1972. By the time Ronald Reagan took office, the prevailing view was that "so-called Communist China," as Reagan himself liked to put it, was on the path to free market democracy.
That arrival is now three decades overdue. No one in the George H. W. Bush administration foresaw the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. A year later, American policy makers were shocked again when China reversed its diplomatic course and began buying Russian fighters and submarines to threaten Taiwan.
The forecast that the CCP would wither away in the face of political reforms and yield to a multi-party, democratic system has proven alarmingly wrong. Instead, the party has reinvented itself by recruiting the middle class and millionaires to its cause. Most estimates suggest China's GDP is still half state-controlled (though we don't know that for sure, either).
Similarly, continuing forecasts of democracy—such as Bruce Gilley's "China's Democratic Future, How It Will Happen"—continue to prove embarrassing for professors and journalists who write them. As for books on China's economic future, there remains no consensus. One well-known book on the shelves of many China scholars—"The Coming Collapse of China"—competes with another called "When China Rules the World."
False predictions have also been made about the strength of the People's Liberation Army—that it would remain a short-legged, land-based force. Instead, in August 2014, President Xi met with generals to discuss innovative plans to catch up with America's military force. Which generals were there? The same ones we are reassured are mere "fringe" elements in the Chinese government—including General Liu Yazhou, the host of a venomous anti-U.S. video called "Silent Contest."
These generals are now attacking President Obama for a routine U.S. military exercise near Guam involving two aircraft carriers that is scheduled to run this week. They claim that the act is an American provocation designed to threaten China's birthday party.
In other words, the Middle Kingdom—potentially the most formidable opponent we have ever faced—remains as much of a mystery as ever.
What accounts for this? Why does doubt and conjecture still shroud a nation that for six decades we have studied, worked against, then allied with, then clashed with again?
The answer that I've come to after studying the Chinese for 40 years is that the problem is not China, but us. For six decades we Westerners have looked at China through our own self-interest—as a potential check against the Soviets, or a source of American trade and business investment.
We have projected on the Chinese a pleasing image—a democracy in waiting, or a docile Confucian civilization seeking global harmony. We have been reassured by China's leaders seeking our economic, scientific and military assistance, and have ignored writings, actions and declarations that warn of growing nationalism. After 65 years, we don't know what China wants because we haven't truly listened to some of the powerful voices that undermine our wishful thinking.
As China continues its rise, our first step should be to dismantle comfortable assumptions and false realities. We must study China anew and recognize that its Communist rulers are determined not to fade into history.
Mr. Pillsbury is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a consultant to the U.S. Defense Department.
5 comments
Patrick Meegan 10 days ago
China barely assisted North Vietnam.
Americans do see China and much of the world through postwar eyes, and not always clearly.
I submit that President Nixon (while corrupt in serious ways) was an exception, and understood China very well.
Angus Fung 10 days ago
Mao Zedong is a devil.
He used Chinese blood to paint over the wall of Tiānānmén (
The Gate of Heavenly Peace), hung his ugly portrait and forced people to worship him. The nightmare of China has begun since 1949.
Geoff Aronson 11 days ago
What is the difference between a Chinese person and a Chinese communist? Everything. Chinese people are like anyone else. They have their traditions and culture and desires for their families.
Communists are the apex of the the mentality that a select, self-anointed few knows better than the rest of humanity how lives should be lived and societies organized. Taken to its extreme, it requires a punishing government and encouraging whatever is now deemed necessary to generate support. In present day China, fanning the nationalism flames is the flavor of the month.
The only way the USA can out compete is drop the state welfare mentality and thus creativity and entrepreneurship flourishes. We will never succeed until a smaller government, focused on the few things it must do, such as defense, gets out of the business of controlling, regulating and taxing everything.
Douglas Levene 10 days ago
@Geoff Aronson I concur that China and the Communist Party are not the same thing. The Party has spent decades trying to convince the world that they are one and the same but in fact the Party is a small minority clinging to power. The author here is quite correct that the US would be well advised to look at the Party without preconceptions.
James French 11 days ago
The author is absolutely correct, the West needs to take the 'blinders' off. One way to start is to recognize that this is an illegitimate government, even within the long history of China!
Beijing today is the 21st century incarnation of the Mongolian governments that invaded, conquered and terrorized the Chinese people for almost two hundred years in the 12th century. 65-years have passed since the usurper Mao and his gang of warlords came down from the hills after doing nothing during the Japanese occupation. They deposed the real, legitimate government of China (the Republic of China) which moved to Taiwan and has evolved peaceably.
In short, in addition to everything else the author mentioned, we are dealing with some illegitimate 'bandits' who hid behind the 'fig leaf' of international communism for legitimacy and who are pretending to be Chinese! What a Mess!! Let us hope that the people of China throw these gangsters out a lot faster this time!
1949年10月1日,毛泽东站在北京天安门城楼上,向全世界宣告了中华人民共和国的诞生。
中国日报网9月28日报道,美国《华尔街日报》近日刊登哈德逊研究所(Hudson Institute)的资深研究员MICHAEL PILLSBURY的文章,文章认为经过40年对中国人的研究之后,西方政策制定者和学术界人士一直误读中国,问题不在于中国,而在于美国自己。
文章摘录:
1949年10月1日,毛泽东站在北京天安门城楼上,向全世界宣告了中华人民共和国的诞生。在之后的数十年里,西方的许多中国观察专家曾自信地断言毛泽东领导的政府将会垮台。而另一些观察人士人则希望,中国政府里的温和派干部能带领中国成长为一个更加友善、温和及民主的国家。
如今,在中国即将迎来65岁诞辰之际,中国共产党似乎毫无退出历史舞台的打算。与毛泽东逝世以来的任何时期相比,目前的中共正处于实力最强、决心最坚定的时期。
到底发生了什么?西方政策制定者和学术界人士怎么总是如此误读中国呢?直到今天,对于中国的经济增长和GDP、军队规模和情报预算、甚至是中国对西方的意图,专家之间都不曾达成共识。在中国将往何处去这个问题上,共识就更少,虽然大多数证据指向政治开支减少、民族主义情绪高涨以及反对战后国际体系。
西方政府从一开始就没有理解毛泽东领导下的中国。杜鲁门和艾森豪威尔政府中的专家认为,中国不会卷入朝鲜战争。肯尼迪和约翰逊认为,中国会对越南战争作壁上观。在那之前的每一届美国政府都认为,中国会永远与苏联保持一致,甘心做苏联的小弟。然后中苏边境战争于1969年爆发,美国外交界大为震惊。
当尼克松和基辛格上任之后,美国人的观点是,中俄之间的关系已经永久性破裂,因而才有了1972年让人吃惊的“开放”。到了里根上台时,流行的观点已经变成“所谓的共产主义中国”已经走上了自由市场民主的道路(里根自己就喜欢这么讲)。
而现在几十年过去了,这一幕还是没有到来。
事实证明,对于中国共产党将在政治改革面前萎缩的预测错得可怕。相反,这个政党通过招募中产阶层人士和百万富翁参与,改造了自己。多数估测表明,中国的国内生产总值(GDP)仍是半官方控制的(不过我们也不能完全确定)。
同样的,事实也只让那些继续作出中国实行民主预测的教授和记者感到尴尬,例如吉利(Bruce Gilley)的着作《中国的民主未来,将怎样产生》(China's Democratic Future, How It Will Happen)。至于预测中国经济未来的书,则仍未达成共识。一本摆上了许多中国学者书架的名书《中国即将崩溃》(The Coming Collapse of China)和另一本名为《当中国统治世界》(When China Rules the World)的书针锋相对。
西方人还错误地预测了中国人民解放军的实力,认为其将依然是一支“短腿”的陆基部队。然而中国国家主席习近平在2014年8月与解放军将领讨论了追赶美国军力的创新计划。与会将领都有谁?有一些是原先被我们认为不代表中国政府主流想法的人,其中包括刘亚洲,也就是带有强烈反美色彩的电视宣传片《较量无声》(Silent Contest)的策划人。
目前,这些解放军将领都在抨击美国总统奥巴马(Obama),因为美国定于本周在关岛附近举行有两艘航母参加的常规军演。他们称,此举是美国的挑衅行为,旨在威胁中国的国庆活动。
换而言之,中国依旧充满着神秘色彩,而这个国家可能成为美国面临的最强大对手。
原因何在?为什么在我们花了60年时间对一个国家进行了研究、对抗、与之联合并再度发生冲突之后,我们仍对这个国家充满怀疑和猜测?
经过40年对中国人的研究之后,我得出的答案是,问题不在于中国,而在于我们自己。60年来,我们西方人一直通过我们自己的利益来看待中国,比如把中国当成潜在的制衡苏联的力量,或是美国贸易和商业投资的来源地。
65年之后,我们并不知道中国想要什么,因为我们没有真正倾听部分与我们一厢情愿的想法相反的强有力的声音。
随着中国继续崛起,我们的第一步应该是放弃那些让我们感到舒服的假设和虚假现实。我们必须重新研究中国,并且承认,中国共产党已经下定决心,不会隐退到历史当中。
(作者:MICHAEL PILLSBURY是的哈德逊研究所(Hudson Institute)的资深研究员,也是美国国防部的一名顾问。)