Having spent 20 years living in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, I’ll say that this perception gap is becoming the biggest issue for both sides.
Unfortunately internet firewall restrictions and restrictions on western reporters in China make it especially difficult for people in the west to get accurate information.
This isn’t a language issue, 1990-2010 was a time of better understanding.
Now that we live in a digital world, this divided internet is an especially big issue.
Until access to information improves, people like Noah will continue to be wrong and gain influence.
I agree. As I say it takes two to tango. But I think it's not hopeless. More people one both sides should help explain things for both sides. Likewise I am also trying to explain the world to my fellow countrymen.
Where I do see a huge challenge; in terms of communication, is Xi's (mind I don't say China) quest to drown all things Western in every layer of the education and media. It is turnip ugly inwards nationalistic and that cancer starts with TV/Media and school. The communicators of tomorrow are fed nationalistic/ideologist tripe. It is not just in China by no stretch of imagination, though it is most comprehensive/thorough and vulgar
Yeah the pro-nationalist-USA-is-the-source-of-every-single-problem has been pushed for a long time. That’s partly where the anti China sentiment in the US and many other countries comes from.
I’m enjoying your writing and agree it’s not hopeless! It does take two to tango.
From the US perspective (I’m Canadian and have a different one) the issues in the relationship started from 2006-2009 so I think there’s now also a decade+ of frustration where they don’t feel like both countries have been on the same level.
I would recommend this book even if some parts of it sound harsh. It describes well how many in western politics think.
The cleavage started with Xi in 2012 doing a big push against corruption - something the Chinese are very familiar with. The flow of money from China to Wall Street was curtailed and the wailing started. Same thing that happened in Russia when Putin put a stop to the depredations brought by the "oligarchs" with the support of Wall Street (it is estimated that about $20 Trillion dollars in wealth were siphoned out of Russia between 1992 and early 2000s).
The normative intonations and the self portrait the West is putting up is what Dorian Gray sees in the mirror. The reality, the real face of the West is in the attic. Prime example, the "plausibe" (ICJ) genocide executed by Israel (with the support of the West) in Gaza and slower in the West Bank.
WIth people like these, you need your nukes, your missiles, your drones, your lawyers, as well as your historians and politicians very well prepared.
If the understanding were greater, the Chinese would be feeling preeeety insecure, given the long term objectives of the Western elite. A good example is the treatment of all things Russian in Europe/US...
Biggest distinction are those who view China as a regular country, or those who have those fanciful priors like Noah. Unfortunately, the latter is the more engaging worldview for clicks and us vs them.
Reposting my comment from Linkedin! Subscribing here too. Thanks again!
Hey Robert Wu! I appreciate your post. You said that we need to check out assumptions, which I admire. Therefore, I'd just like, as an American with an appreciation for China , who comes from the country that once was the last great empire to make a lot of mistakes, to point out some potential errors in your assumptions.
But let me first show where we agree:
1) The view that war will happen will lead to war. Yes. That is why we should always attempt to be polite and keep peace (or as the Chinese say, harmony) as our central aim. That and understanding. Which is why I am commenting to try to speak on behalf of Americans.
2) The view that influence can be bad. Agreed. America likes to talk a lot about the problem of one party states and lack of free speech, but they also often miss that our own society has errors in its system. Deep down everyone, regardless of political party, thinks this: Republicans worry about Tik Tok influencers spreading fake news and Democrats worry that people are beholden to Fox News. Actually, last election, Republicans too realized Fox News was biased.
Chinese will understand this too since the Cultural Revolution can be read as both a leader having too much sway as well as people sharing their opinions too much. The answer as always, is personal accountability, which all of us, regardless of country need to have.
Now for my issues with your assumptions. You seem a super smart dude, so I hope this can be the beginning of a great back and forth where we, as well as anyone reading this, can learn from one another. Debate can appear like arguing, but to me, I’ve always benefitted from debating with people with opposing positions. If I have made errors in my assumptions, I’d love for you to point them out.
Assumption 1: “It’s impossible to change one’s beliefs. A Muslim cannot become a Christian.” I was a Catholic growing up. I understand what groupthink can feel like. People can change, however. They must realize that emotion is as important as rationality. I was given rational reasons for why God didn’t exist but I’d only absorb them and use them to defend Christianity. However, once some Christian friends began excluding me for questioning the faith did I begin rationally listening to the atheist arguments. I am now an atheist. I know many Catholics who were once other Christians or Jews. This is why cross-relations between China and the US are crucial.
Assumption 2: “China is not expansionist. Expansionist empires use “us v.s them” phrases.” What are titles like this then: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1195495.shtml? I am not saying this shows China is expansionist. I am just saying us v.s them language exists, as it does in the US. Again, this is why dialogue between people is important. I do worry that Chinese companies going abroad sometimes do not recruit local talent. This can be bad for everyone, as are European and American companies going to China who do not listen to their Chinese colleagues for advice on the market.
Assumption 3: “China’s leaders said it will have a peaceful rise.” Just because someone says something, especially politicians, doesn’t mean they will keep that promise. Plus, what is the Art of War? Should we ignore all the language in there about deception? Actually, a good example of saying one thing and doing another is the fact that we find Marxist icons in China but the CCP cracked down on Marxist college groups the other year. Lastly, if the CCP is still communist (even by name only), should we ignore Lenin’s writings that spoke about letting foreign capital in to basically gain the means for production? Perhaps linking Lenin to the modern day is over the top, but it should be addressed.
Assumption 4: “China is not insecure.” What then is the 100 years of humiliation taught in schools and spoken about in the media?
Assumption 5: “Tianxia was peaceful.” What were the wars between Tang and Guguryeo and then with Silla after they broke their alliance?
Assumption 6: “There is no great war on the horizon. Leaders won’t do the same as Stalin.” I am not sure, but many in the US fear there will be. Some in China worry too. There have always been worries concerning this. Granted, again, this is why we must continue talking!
Yeah this whole article was filled with historical revisionism and seems to ignore explicit actions by China. The US was pretty accommodating to China post soviet collapse; it facilitated its economic rise by supporting it getting into the WTO and designating it as “most favored nation” in trade. It wasn’t until the China began building islands in the South China Sea against the wishes of all the parties that border it (expansionary action) and its bullying its neighbors in the early 2010s and stealing US trade secrets that the US changed course
Never mind the fact that China did expand into Tibet and wants to to Taiwan, or thinking that China’ tributary system of the past wasn’t was always voluntary or makes sense at all in modern times
Hi Robert. I don't think you're "brainwashed," and I myself am no fan of Noah's China takes, but I don't think you see the full picture. A few thoughts:
1) Expansionism: I agree that the PRC generally doesn't resolve int'l disputes with force (in this way it's distinct from Putin's Russia). The PRC definitely doesn't want a war with the US. However, Yang Jiechi wanted us to know that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” He deserves praise for his honesty.
One of my grad school classmates was a Chinese diplomat, and once he explicitly told us that it's better to be feared than loved. He certainly does not speak for all Chinese, but I hope you'll forgive me for believing that his views are closer to the mindset in Beijing than yours are.
I agree with you that the Tianxia system as *currently* practiced demonstrates overconfidence, not insecurity. However, I don't see it in benevolent terms. In return for access to Chinese markets, technology, investments etc, supplicants have to give up part of their sovereignty. This is the model in place from Myanmar to Indonesia.
2) Insecurity: Beijing might be overconfident in dealing with the small countries, but that doesn't mean it feels secure. Why is the CCP so secretive? How come Beijing gave zero transparency when conducting its recent purges (contrasted with the current public fiasco in the US Defense Department)?
This question of CCP secrecy is far more important than whatever corruption in the military.
Thanks for that! Very thoughtful comments. There are definitely many schools of thought going on. And what I am trying to describe is the mainstream that I have observed through my work and life (I do also have many friends like your diplomat classmate).
That Yang Jiechi's comment is also quite bad, that's precisely the patronizing attitude I find to be harmful.
I have something to add on for your second point though: the reason for secrecy is very simple, because the rulers are very insecure about maintaining internal peace and fending off insecurity. And by saying this I don't mean a cynical point of view which thinks CCP's sole purpose is to stay in power. It's just the idea of peace and stability is so crucial in Chinese society, that there is a strong mainstream support for law and order. I do think more transparency is much better for good governance, but it takes skills and experience to manage well that, and a lot of problems about China is we don't have sufficient talents in our bureaucracy. At this newsletter, I talk and critique a lot of these mishandlings in this regard. So a quicker (and lazier) fix is to be secretive. Again I am not speaking for secrecy, I am only trying to describe the mindset.
I recently read an interesting book on YongZheng Emperor by Jonathan Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_by_the_Book Spencer described an emperor who wanted to be very transparent to his people, and likes to explain many of his ideas and motives. But in the end the whole effort was very counter-productive. People just assume foul play. China is, a "low-trust" society after all. I think the ideas captured in the book is still to some extent relevant today.
Normally I'm not that interested in how countries do their internal affairs. After all, nobody is talking about Vietnam's Communist Party right?
The difference with the CCP is that China is a great power, and its decisions can have global effect. That is why everyone all over the world wants to know Beijing's intentions.
When a system is not transparent, then it's easy to say things about it that might not be true, like the water in the missiles story. This is why people like Noah Smith can get away with saying anything.
Given that the vast majority of even Chinese people don't know how the CCP operates, I generally try to avoid making conclusions about the CCP based on my impressions of Chinese people. I believe most Chinese people genuinely want other countries to like and not fear China. I cannot say the same about the CCP because it doesn't really represent the people.
I respectfully disagree with your points about China's lack of bureaucratic talent and its low-trust society. Although China has distinct cultures and history, I personally don't see Chinese people as very different from others. If I were in charge of any country, I would also tell everyone that they need me because they don't trust each other and there isn't bureaucratic talent for open governance.
This imagined (but not necessarily true) difference between the Party and the People will be something I will address one day. Also, the parts about bureaucratic talents and about "low-trust" society are also quite interesting, it starts from me doing businesses on both sides of the border. I hope I can elaborate on it one day.
So I don't fully agree with Noah Smith on China, and I would definitely agree that his tweet shows some troubling ignorance. I agree with your and Bill Bishop's analysis on PLA personnel changes.
However I think you overstate the case on China's national psychology and I was wondering how you would respond:
1) I agree that China has a lot to be proud of in it's 3000-year history and it's contemporary period of rapid modernization. However, Chinese media and leaders frequently make reference to the "century of humiliation" and keep the memory of that humiliation alive. Pursuit of "fuguo qiangbing" to overcome humiliation at the hands of foreign powers, is a core idea for the founding of the modern Chinese nation. How will China wipe away the stain of humiliation and know that it's subjugation is finally ended? Only through flexing military and economic power against the West. Personally I think that an obsessive focus on past humiliations is unhealthy for a nation, and I hope more see that China the way you and I do - that it does not have to prove anything to anyone in order to feel pride.
2) As part of the century of humiliation, I can see how the loss of Taiwan is considered illegitimate. By that same token, I can see how a Chinese nationalist perspective would how the reclamation of Taiwan through military means to be considered appropriate restoration of justice. I agree that Chinese leaders mean it when they say they want to reclaim Taiwan through peaceful means, but the fact that Taiwan is not obtainable by peaceful means creates a clear conflict between unshakeable territorial objective and peaceful hopes.
3) If not insecurity, modern China has a lot of paranoia. Mao built steel mills in Chongqing for fear of a Western invasion. Xi wants domestic farmers to provide all of China's foods. Access to Western ideas and culture are censored, and increasingly so. These are not the actions of a state that believes it's economic power is impossible to defy, these are the actions of a state the believes it is constantly under siege. Maybe its a state that would simply be pleasantly surprised to find itself not at war with the West, but historically many dangerously paranoid states can fool themselves into aggression.
4) You say China has no interest in "foreign loot" and no territorial ambitions, it merely desires to return the tributary system. But the tributary system is not voluntary mutual trade, its "paying for peace" - someone only pays for peace under the direct military threat or political subversion. To me a modern recreation of the tributary system is not BRI, it would be convincing Asian governments to pay taxes, tributes or sweetheart deals to China.
Regarding 1) I think I did give an answer in my Q&A post. As I argued there, China is much more inward-looking (than the West realizes) when looking at that humiliating period. There is way to redeem that bad part of our history other than "revenge". The society as whole is not operating in a revenge mode. I hope you could spend more time here talking to more people, but that's my general assessment of the social and political atmosphere.
2) Yes, the loss of Taiwan is tied to this "humiliation". Regarding peaceful means, I think there is way more room for creativity here. I am not sure you know but back in the 80s, Deng even suggested Taiwan could keep its own army as long as that army was not used to fight China. An EU model is also not off the table.
3) I don't have much disagreement here. Still, I think it will surprising you much less of the "paranoia" people living and working here actually feel. The day-to-day affairs is very mundane actually.
4) Yes I want to highlight the difference between a "loot-based" history and a "defense-based" and "tribute-based" history, which does have a meaningful impact on a nation's psyche. But I am not saying China desires to return to the tributary system, or at least I don't desire my country to go to that system. I also believe that's our collective thinking. After all, the world of 21 century is so much different than the world of 1500 AD, or 700 AD.
Actually we are in a lot of agreement. I fell into the old trap of saying "China" when I meant CCP or Xi.
Actually I know many immigrants from China and always interested to hear their perspective. There is a political variety of course - some are darkly critical of Xi, some are sensitive to anything negative about China - but the overall mood is broadly what you say. China has made major progress in the last few generations and a has a rich history to be proud of. It's a good outlook for China for things merely to progress as they have been.
But it is Xi whose vision of China worries me. He seems to reject the principles of pragmatism, non-interventionism, and openness that made China strong under previous leaders. He is anxious about the culture, the economy, and the military. He has deteriorated the relationship with the West and surrounding countries. I am trying to understand his perspective and the elites who support him. As long as it's up to him he may do something "out of character" for China - or rather, do some that will become the story and character of China.
Taiwan may be the one area where it goes beyond Xi. Still trying to understand, but I think the average mainland Chinese person may not understand how independent the island already is and how unthreatening that status quo is.
The peaceful resolution with Taiwan is quite clear and is articulately well by the DPP - accept the status quo and renounce any intention to reunify. We don't have to call that independence but that is in fact what it is. Why is independence so scary? - only if China is deeply insecure.
"China is like this entitled brat in the school, born as a fifth-generation scion of an old-money family, taking many things for granted, who is also socially awkward and likes to show off his book genius. He wants everyone to like him but doesn’t yet know how. He fumbles through his way. At times he can even look like a joke. Many people look down on him because of it, which can irritate him, and he can act foolishly angry."
I like this--if only because it complements my (west coast white American) understanding of the US as the angry son of a wealthy, abusive father. We are torn between our mothers' suffering and our father's inheritance. We want both; we want to redeem one with the other. And everywhere we see sons threatened by fathers. It's not avarice alone that would bring us to nothingburger war over Taiwan. It's Holden Caulfield's fear and loathing powered by avarice that would do it.
Thanks for the shoutout and for making me care! I enjoyed the history lesson and would say I am on the general spectrum of agreement, with some quibbles here and there.
I always thought "purge" was a strong word for the developments this past summer. I thought it was more comparable to a sports team picking the wrong players and being forced to cut them. The two big ones were hand-picked Xi Jinping cadres and, in this case, I tend to believe the official narrative/rumors about procurement corruption and adultery (especially putting Qing in a vulnerable position to spying). In more simple words, both Qing and Li messed up and got caught.
As for the dozen or so people that were fired alongside those two, I would say that is typical of "cleaning house" when any regime is replaced.
The whole thing is embarrassing to Xi because it calls into question his ability to identify talent, which is his most important job as CEO of China. I would imagine this was the last thing he wanted to do, but Qing and Li's errors were egregious enough to force his hand.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on the whole saga, not necessarily your post haha.
This piece is great. I definitely needed this context. You should also go after Peter Zeihan as well haha.
However, don't you think China facing an existential threat from America? You said "No!" to the question. "Is China facing an existential threat?"
Were you not threatened by Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy and America's further actions in the region?
Like America giving Australia a nuclear powered submarine and America "defending freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea (aka arming Taiwan and increasing military and navy presence in the region).
It's a threat, but not existential. When Americans moved almost to Yalu River in 1950, at the time when PRC was just founded, that was an existential threat. When China and Soviet Union skirmished on border in 1969, and when SU amassed over 1 million troops at the border, with war plans to drop nuclear bombs on China, that's maybe the biggest existential threat. I recommend this reading for you to understand this interesting period: https://www.gingerriver.com/p/how-china-prepared-for-potential . But "Pivot to Asia"? sounds just like part of a heathy competition. People on the streets do not feel threatened. We don't live like we have an existential threat going on.
Even After Garland Nixon pulled his stunt, a US Senator and two Congressmen at different times have called for the violent destruction of TSMC's plant. I could see the USA under Biden or Nicky Hailey nuking Taiwan to keep it out of China's hands, but hopefully rational players will constrain that risk to a low level,
However I am quite worried of the USA's insistence to put nuclear tipped missiles all over the pacific island chains. I can't forget that the launch code in USA nuclear missile silos up until the 1990s was "11111111". It's the stupid accidents that will probably get us all killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents
Thanks for correcting him. I read it also in LI and responded there as it's so ignorant and twisting if the reality or better said projecting American war thinking on another nation. I was wondering why you didn't mention America in your story as an empire that expanded (since wwII) by placing > 800 camps all over the world. Also I miss America is putting oil in the fire talking about Taiwan. It's an internal that that will be solved in a Chinese way.. Anyhow keep on going with the good work. Thanks.
He listed four theories and missed an important one on a TWEET, and you spent a whole blog post on it. This is not the takedown you think it is, I saw plenty of straw and very little to actually show the implausibilities of the theories. I look forward to Pt. 2.
I feel like you didn't touch on the thing that is core to Noah's thinking about China-US conflict: Taiwan. As fair as I can tell he thinks that China has gotten much more powerful, and has a somewhat bellicose attitude about the island and this could lead to a broader war.
The answer is pretty straight forward re: Taiwan. Chinese power is ascending and won't peak for decades. Whether that is true or not may be up for debate but it is unquestionable the decision makers believe China is on the ascendant. If the military balance of power is only going to trend your way, why invade (now)?
And that's not even taking into account the cost side of the equation. War is gambling, and yes, sometimes leaders roll the dice, but holding all else constant, rational actors prefer certain over more risky outcomes. In China's case they have many levers (economic and political power that is only growing) that they can use in combination with the threat of (but not use of) force that may achieve the same outcome without the costs.
This is pretty basic stuff but to reinforce Robert's article, commentators like Noah Smith can't help but seem to have this caricature and simplistic 'evil, out for world domination' model of Chinese thinking.
Thanks for this, subscribed and now reading through your backlog.
Having heard the perspective of Taiwanese-American friends I worry that your view, especially towards Taiwan, is a bit rose-tinted but I share Noah’s cluelessness so very happy to have learned about your newsletter.
I may well be! One thing that keeps me enthralled about China and make me stay in China is that this place is so very complex. Any attempt to simplify runs the risk of leaving important details. I am only trying to stay to truth as best as I can, and will keep on learning. To this I will stay true.
Thank you for this article. I am looking forward to part 2. You might want to read Grover Furr's research on the Soviet Union. From what you have said here about Stalin I think you will be surprised and challenged.
The Chinese side is unfortunately equally clueless about the western world.
https://cms.apln.network/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CN-tong-zhao-the-perception-gap-and-the-china-us-relationship.pdf
Having spent 20 years living in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, I’ll say that this perception gap is becoming the biggest issue for both sides.
Unfortunately internet firewall restrictions and restrictions on western reporters in China make it especially difficult for people in the west to get accurate information.
This isn’t a language issue, 1990-2010 was a time of better understanding.
Now that we live in a digital world, this divided internet is an especially big issue.
Until access to information improves, people like Noah will continue to be wrong and gain influence.
I agree. As I say it takes two to tango. But I think it's not hopeless. More people one both sides should help explain things for both sides. Likewise I am also trying to explain the world to my fellow countrymen.
Where I do see a huge challenge; in terms of communication, is Xi's (mind I don't say China) quest to drown all things Western in every layer of the education and media. It is turnip ugly inwards nationalistic and that cancer starts with TV/Media and school. The communicators of tomorrow are fed nationalistic/ideologist tripe. It is not just in China by no stretch of imagination, though it is most comprehensive/thorough and vulgar
Yeah the pro-nationalist-USA-is-the-source-of-every-single-problem has been pushed for a long time. That’s partly where the anti China sentiment in the US and many other countries comes from.
I’m enjoying your writing and agree it’s not hopeless! It does take two to tango.
From the US perspective (I’m Canadian and have a different one) the issues in the relationship started from 2006-2009 so I think there’s now also a decade+ of frustration where they don’t feel like both countries have been on the same level.
I would recommend this book even if some parts of it sound harsh. It describes well how many in western politics think.
https://www.amazon.com/Overreach-China-Derailed-Peaceful-Rise/dp/0190068515
Thanks for the recommendation, I have the book in my reading list. will do.
My pleasure. Thanks for your comments.
The cleavage started with Xi in 2012 doing a big push against corruption - something the Chinese are very familiar with. The flow of money from China to Wall Street was curtailed and the wailing started. Same thing that happened in Russia when Putin put a stop to the depredations brought by the "oligarchs" with the support of Wall Street (it is estimated that about $20 Trillion dollars in wealth were siphoned out of Russia between 1992 and early 2000s).
The normative intonations and the self portrait the West is putting up is what Dorian Gray sees in the mirror. The reality, the real face of the West is in the attic. Prime example, the "plausibe" (ICJ) genocide executed by Israel (with the support of the West) in Gaza and slower in the West Bank.
WIth people like these, you need your nukes, your missiles, your drones, your lawyers, as well as your historians and politicians very well prepared.
If the understanding were greater, the Chinese would be feeling preeeety insecure, given the long term objectives of the Western elite. A good example is the treatment of all things Russian in Europe/US...
Biggest distinction are those who view China as a regular country, or those who have those fanciful priors like Noah. Unfortunately, the latter is the more engaging worldview for clicks and us vs them.
Exactly
Reposting my comment from Linkedin! Subscribing here too. Thanks again!
Hey Robert Wu! I appreciate your post. You said that we need to check out assumptions, which I admire. Therefore, I'd just like, as an American with an appreciation for China , who comes from the country that once was the last great empire to make a lot of mistakes, to point out some potential errors in your assumptions.
But let me first show where we agree:
1) The view that war will happen will lead to war. Yes. That is why we should always attempt to be polite and keep peace (or as the Chinese say, harmony) as our central aim. That and understanding. Which is why I am commenting to try to speak on behalf of Americans.
2) The view that influence can be bad. Agreed. America likes to talk a lot about the problem of one party states and lack of free speech, but they also often miss that our own society has errors in its system. Deep down everyone, regardless of political party, thinks this: Republicans worry about Tik Tok influencers spreading fake news and Democrats worry that people are beholden to Fox News. Actually, last election, Republicans too realized Fox News was biased.
Chinese will understand this too since the Cultural Revolution can be read as both a leader having too much sway as well as people sharing their opinions too much. The answer as always, is personal accountability, which all of us, regardless of country need to have.
Now for my issues with your assumptions. You seem a super smart dude, so I hope this can be the beginning of a great back and forth where we, as well as anyone reading this, can learn from one another. Debate can appear like arguing, but to me, I’ve always benefitted from debating with people with opposing positions. If I have made errors in my assumptions, I’d love for you to point them out.
Assumption 1: “It’s impossible to change one’s beliefs. A Muslim cannot become a Christian.” I was a Catholic growing up. I understand what groupthink can feel like. People can change, however. They must realize that emotion is as important as rationality. I was given rational reasons for why God didn’t exist but I’d only absorb them and use them to defend Christianity. However, once some Christian friends began excluding me for questioning the faith did I begin rationally listening to the atheist arguments. I am now an atheist. I know many Catholics who were once other Christians or Jews. This is why cross-relations between China and the US are crucial.
Assumption 2: “China is not expansionist. Expansionist empires use “us v.s them” phrases.” What are titles like this then: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1195495.shtml? I am not saying this shows China is expansionist. I am just saying us v.s them language exists, as it does in the US. Again, this is why dialogue between people is important. I do worry that Chinese companies going abroad sometimes do not recruit local talent. This can be bad for everyone, as are European and American companies going to China who do not listen to their Chinese colleagues for advice on the market.
Assumption 3: “China’s leaders said it will have a peaceful rise.” Just because someone says something, especially politicians, doesn’t mean they will keep that promise. Plus, what is the Art of War? Should we ignore all the language in there about deception? Actually, a good example of saying one thing and doing another is the fact that we find Marxist icons in China but the CCP cracked down on Marxist college groups the other year. Lastly, if the CCP is still communist (even by name only), should we ignore Lenin’s writings that spoke about letting foreign capital in to basically gain the means for production? Perhaps linking Lenin to the modern day is over the top, but it should be addressed.
Assumption 4: “China is not insecure.” What then is the 100 years of humiliation taught in schools and spoken about in the media?
Assumption 5: “Tianxia was peaceful.” What were the wars between Tang and Guguryeo and then with Silla after they broke their alliance?
Assumption 6: “There is no great war on the horizon. Leaders won’t do the same as Stalin.” I am not sure, but many in the US fear there will be. Some in China worry too. There have always been worries concerning this. Granted, again, this is why we must continue talking!
Yeah this whole article was filled with historical revisionism and seems to ignore explicit actions by China. The US was pretty accommodating to China post soviet collapse; it facilitated its economic rise by supporting it getting into the WTO and designating it as “most favored nation” in trade. It wasn’t until the China began building islands in the South China Sea against the wishes of all the parties that border it (expansionary action) and its bullying its neighbors in the early 2010s and stealing US trade secrets that the US changed course
Never mind the fact that China did expand into Tibet and wants to to Taiwan, or thinking that China’ tributary system of the past wasn’t was always voluntary or makes sense at all in modern times
Hi Robert. I don't think you're "brainwashed," and I myself am no fan of Noah's China takes, but I don't think you see the full picture. A few thoughts:
1) Expansionism: I agree that the PRC generally doesn't resolve int'l disputes with force (in this way it's distinct from Putin's Russia). The PRC definitely doesn't want a war with the US. However, Yang Jiechi wanted us to know that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” He deserves praise for his honesty.
One of my grad school classmates was a Chinese diplomat, and once he explicitly told us that it's better to be feared than loved. He certainly does not speak for all Chinese, but I hope you'll forgive me for believing that his views are closer to the mindset in Beijing than yours are.
I agree with you that the Tianxia system as *currently* practiced demonstrates overconfidence, not insecurity. However, I don't see it in benevolent terms. In return for access to Chinese markets, technology, investments etc, supplicants have to give up part of their sovereignty. This is the model in place from Myanmar to Indonesia.
2) Insecurity: Beijing might be overconfident in dealing with the small countries, but that doesn't mean it feels secure. Why is the CCP so secretive? How come Beijing gave zero transparency when conducting its recent purges (contrasted with the current public fiasco in the US Defense Department)?
This question of CCP secrecy is far more important than whatever corruption in the military.
Thanks for that! Very thoughtful comments. There are definitely many schools of thought going on. And what I am trying to describe is the mainstream that I have observed through my work and life (I do also have many friends like your diplomat classmate).
That Yang Jiechi's comment is also quite bad, that's precisely the patronizing attitude I find to be harmful.
I have something to add on for your second point though: the reason for secrecy is very simple, because the rulers are very insecure about maintaining internal peace and fending off insecurity. And by saying this I don't mean a cynical point of view which thinks CCP's sole purpose is to stay in power. It's just the idea of peace and stability is so crucial in Chinese society, that there is a strong mainstream support for law and order. I do think more transparency is much better for good governance, but it takes skills and experience to manage well that, and a lot of problems about China is we don't have sufficient talents in our bureaucracy. At this newsletter, I talk and critique a lot of these mishandlings in this regard. So a quicker (and lazier) fix is to be secretive. Again I am not speaking for secrecy, I am only trying to describe the mindset.
I recently read an interesting book on YongZheng Emperor by Jonathan Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_by_the_Book Spencer described an emperor who wanted to be very transparent to his people, and likes to explain many of his ideas and motives. But in the end the whole effort was very counter-productive. People just assume foul play. China is, a "low-trust" society after all. I think the ideas captured in the book is still to some extent relevant today.
Normally I'm not that interested in how countries do their internal affairs. After all, nobody is talking about Vietnam's Communist Party right?
The difference with the CCP is that China is a great power, and its decisions can have global effect. That is why everyone all over the world wants to know Beijing's intentions.
When a system is not transparent, then it's easy to say things about it that might not be true, like the water in the missiles story. This is why people like Noah Smith can get away with saying anything.
Given that the vast majority of even Chinese people don't know how the CCP operates, I generally try to avoid making conclusions about the CCP based on my impressions of Chinese people. I believe most Chinese people genuinely want other countries to like and not fear China. I cannot say the same about the CCP because it doesn't really represent the people.
I respectfully disagree with your points about China's lack of bureaucratic talent and its low-trust society. Although China has distinct cultures and history, I personally don't see Chinese people as very different from others. If I were in charge of any country, I would also tell everyone that they need me because they don't trust each other and there isn't bureaucratic talent for open governance.
This imagined (but not necessarily true) difference between the Party and the People will be something I will address one day. Also, the parts about bureaucratic talents and about "low-trust" society are also quite interesting, it starts from me doing businesses on both sides of the border. I hope I can elaborate on it one day.
So I don't fully agree with Noah Smith on China, and I would definitely agree that his tweet shows some troubling ignorance. I agree with your and Bill Bishop's analysis on PLA personnel changes.
However I think you overstate the case on China's national psychology and I was wondering how you would respond:
1) I agree that China has a lot to be proud of in it's 3000-year history and it's contemporary period of rapid modernization. However, Chinese media and leaders frequently make reference to the "century of humiliation" and keep the memory of that humiliation alive. Pursuit of "fuguo qiangbing" to overcome humiliation at the hands of foreign powers, is a core idea for the founding of the modern Chinese nation. How will China wipe away the stain of humiliation and know that it's subjugation is finally ended? Only through flexing military and economic power against the West. Personally I think that an obsessive focus on past humiliations is unhealthy for a nation, and I hope more see that China the way you and I do - that it does not have to prove anything to anyone in order to feel pride.
2) As part of the century of humiliation, I can see how the loss of Taiwan is considered illegitimate. By that same token, I can see how a Chinese nationalist perspective would how the reclamation of Taiwan through military means to be considered appropriate restoration of justice. I agree that Chinese leaders mean it when they say they want to reclaim Taiwan through peaceful means, but the fact that Taiwan is not obtainable by peaceful means creates a clear conflict between unshakeable territorial objective and peaceful hopes.
3) If not insecurity, modern China has a lot of paranoia. Mao built steel mills in Chongqing for fear of a Western invasion. Xi wants domestic farmers to provide all of China's foods. Access to Western ideas and culture are censored, and increasingly so. These are not the actions of a state that believes it's economic power is impossible to defy, these are the actions of a state the believes it is constantly under siege. Maybe its a state that would simply be pleasantly surprised to find itself not at war with the West, but historically many dangerously paranoid states can fool themselves into aggression.
4) You say China has no interest in "foreign loot" and no territorial ambitions, it merely desires to return the tributary system. But the tributary system is not voluntary mutual trade, its "paying for peace" - someone only pays for peace under the direct military threat or political subversion. To me a modern recreation of the tributary system is not BRI, it would be convincing Asian governments to pay taxes, tributes or sweetheart deals to China.
Regarding 1) I think I did give an answer in my Q&A post. As I argued there, China is much more inward-looking (than the West realizes) when looking at that humiliating period. There is way to redeem that bad part of our history other than "revenge". The society as whole is not operating in a revenge mode. I hope you could spend more time here talking to more people, but that's my general assessment of the social and political atmosphere.
2) Yes, the loss of Taiwan is tied to this "humiliation". Regarding peaceful means, I think there is way more room for creativity here. I am not sure you know but back in the 80s, Deng even suggested Taiwan could keep its own army as long as that army was not used to fight China. An EU model is also not off the table.
3) I don't have much disagreement here. Still, I think it will surprising you much less of the "paranoia" people living and working here actually feel. The day-to-day affairs is very mundane actually.
4) Yes I want to highlight the difference between a "loot-based" history and a "defense-based" and "tribute-based" history, which does have a meaningful impact on a nation's psyche. But I am not saying China desires to return to the tributary system, or at least I don't desire my country to go to that system. I also believe that's our collective thinking. After all, the world of 21 century is so much different than the world of 1500 AD, or 700 AD.
Thanks for the response, I will keep reading.
Actually we are in a lot of agreement. I fell into the old trap of saying "China" when I meant CCP or Xi.
Actually I know many immigrants from China and always interested to hear their perspective. There is a political variety of course - some are darkly critical of Xi, some are sensitive to anything negative about China - but the overall mood is broadly what you say. China has made major progress in the last few generations and a has a rich history to be proud of. It's a good outlook for China for things merely to progress as they have been.
But it is Xi whose vision of China worries me. He seems to reject the principles of pragmatism, non-interventionism, and openness that made China strong under previous leaders. He is anxious about the culture, the economy, and the military. He has deteriorated the relationship with the West and surrounding countries. I am trying to understand his perspective and the elites who support him. As long as it's up to him he may do something "out of character" for China - or rather, do some that will become the story and character of China.
Taiwan may be the one area where it goes beyond Xi. Still trying to understand, but I think the average mainland Chinese person may not understand how independent the island already is and how unthreatening that status quo is.
The peaceful resolution with Taiwan is quite clear and is articulately well by the DPP - accept the status quo and renounce any intention to reunify. We don't have to call that independence but that is in fact what it is. Why is independence so scary? - only if China is deeply insecure.
I am now seeing you made a separate post addressing reader questions. So I will read that. I welcome any other thoughts you have of course.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments! I will try to respond during my daytime.
"China is like this entitled brat in the school, born as a fifth-generation scion of an old-money family, taking many things for granted, who is also socially awkward and likes to show off his book genius. He wants everyone to like him but doesn’t yet know how. He fumbles through his way. At times he can even look like a joke. Many people look down on him because of it, which can irritate him, and he can act foolishly angry."
I like this--if only because it complements my (west coast white American) understanding of the US as the angry son of a wealthy, abusive father. We are torn between our mothers' suffering and our father's inheritance. We want both; we want to redeem one with the other. And everywhere we see sons threatened by fathers. It's not avarice alone that would bring us to nothingburger war over Taiwan. It's Holden Caulfield's fear and loathing powered by avarice that would do it.
Thanks for the shoutout and for making me care! I enjoyed the history lesson and would say I am on the general spectrum of agreement, with some quibbles here and there.
I always thought "purge" was a strong word for the developments this past summer. I thought it was more comparable to a sports team picking the wrong players and being forced to cut them. The two big ones were hand-picked Xi Jinping cadres and, in this case, I tend to believe the official narrative/rumors about procurement corruption and adultery (especially putting Qing in a vulnerable position to spying). In more simple words, both Qing and Li messed up and got caught.
As for the dozen or so people that were fired alongside those two, I would say that is typical of "cleaning house" when any regime is replaced.
The whole thing is embarrassing to Xi because it calls into question his ability to identify talent, which is his most important job as CEO of China. I would imagine this was the last thing he wanted to do, but Qing and Li's errors were egregious enough to force his hand.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on the whole saga, not necessarily your post haha.
Your assessment makes a lot of sense. It looks super bad, and so very likely he has some very good reasons and likely his hands are tied in this case.
The surname of the former Foreign Minister is Qin, not Qing.
Yup. Didn't fact check an online comment.
This piece is great. I definitely needed this context. You should also go after Peter Zeihan as well haha.
However, don't you think China facing an existential threat from America? You said "No!" to the question. "Is China facing an existential threat?"
Were you not threatened by Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy and America's further actions in the region?
Like America giving Australia a nuclear powered submarine and America "defending freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea (aka arming Taiwan and increasing military and navy presence in the region).
It's a threat, but not existential. When Americans moved almost to Yalu River in 1950, at the time when PRC was just founded, that was an existential threat. When China and Soviet Union skirmished on border in 1969, and when SU amassed over 1 million troops at the border, with war plans to drop nuclear bombs on China, that's maybe the biggest existential threat. I recommend this reading for you to understand this interesting period: https://www.gingerriver.com/p/how-china-prepared-for-potential . But "Pivot to Asia"? sounds just like part of a heathy competition. People on the streets do not feel threatened. We don't live like we have an existential threat going on.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2023/02/23/2003794893
Even After Garland Nixon pulled his stunt, a US Senator and two Congressmen at different times have called for the violent destruction of TSMC's plant. I could see the USA under Biden or Nicky Hailey nuking Taiwan to keep it out of China's hands, but hopefully rational players will constrain that risk to a low level,
However I am quite worried of the USA's insistence to put nuclear tipped missiles all over the pacific island chains. I can't forget that the launch code in USA nuclear missile silos up until the 1990s was "11111111". It's the stupid accidents that will probably get us all killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents
Thanks for correcting him. I read it also in LI and responded there as it's so ignorant and twisting if the reality or better said projecting American war thinking on another nation. I was wondering why you didn't mention America in your story as an empire that expanded (since wwII) by placing > 800 camps all over the world. Also I miss America is putting oil in the fire talking about Taiwan. It's an internal that that will be solved in a Chinese way.. Anyhow keep on going with the good work. Thanks.
Some of this work could be upcycled if you ever get around to writing on John Mearsheimer, or even a text book or popular book so it's useful.
I'm starting to get the feeling that you could have stopped at "Noah Smith is clueless".
Thank you Robert. Your broad and deep insights - and your historical knowledge are greatly appreciated.
Zionist Noah has strong opinions based on scant experience.
He listed four theories and missed an important one on a TWEET, and you spent a whole blog post on it. This is not the takedown you think it is, I saw plenty of straw and very little to actually show the implausibilities of the theories. I look forward to Pt. 2.
Interesting article, thank you!
I feel like you didn't touch on the thing that is core to Noah's thinking about China-US conflict: Taiwan. As fair as I can tell he thinks that China has gotten much more powerful, and has a somewhat bellicose attitude about the island and this could lead to a broader war.
Do you think this is fundamentally wrong?
The answer is pretty straight forward re: Taiwan. Chinese power is ascending and won't peak for decades. Whether that is true or not may be up for debate but it is unquestionable the decision makers believe China is on the ascendant. If the military balance of power is only going to trend your way, why invade (now)?
And that's not even taking into account the cost side of the equation. War is gambling, and yes, sometimes leaders roll the dice, but holding all else constant, rational actors prefer certain over more risky outcomes. In China's case they have many levers (economic and political power that is only growing) that they can use in combination with the threat of (but not use of) force that may achieve the same outcome without the costs.
This is pretty basic stuff but to reinforce Robert's article, commentators like Noah Smith can't help but seem to have this caricature and simplistic 'evil, out for world domination' model of Chinese thinking.
Thanks for this, subscribed and now reading through your backlog.
Having heard the perspective of Taiwanese-American friends I worry that your view, especially towards Taiwan, is a bit rose-tinted but I share Noah’s cluelessness so very happy to have learned about your newsletter.
I may well be! One thing that keeps me enthralled about China and make me stay in China is that this place is so very complex. Any attempt to simplify runs the risk of leaving important details. I am only trying to stay to truth as best as I can, and will keep on learning. To this I will stay true.
Thank you for this article. I am looking forward to part 2. You might want to read Grover Furr's research on the Soviet Union. From what you have said here about Stalin I think you will be surprised and challenged.
Thanks for that! I will look into it.