Dameisha Forum/Forum Opinions/Superficial and Profound Views on China’s Reform by US Political, Business and Academic Communities
Superficial and Profound Views on China’s Reform by US Political, Business and Academic Communities
Author： Source： Date：2017-09-01
Editor’s note: There have been enormous discussions on China among U.S. political, business and academic communities. Mr. Li offered an in-depth overview of competing currents and traced the logics behind their attitudes.
Thank you, President Zhang, and thank you for your invitation for the meeting today. It is my honor to exchange my ideas with distinguished scholars in China and deliver a speech alongside with Zheng Yongnian, a good friend from Princeton. I was told to share the view of US’s political, business and academic community on China’s reform, and this is an important yet complicated issue to tackle. As Director Gao said, US holds quite diverse opinions towards China - both superficial and profound ones, which is why I added “superficial” and “profound” in my presentation title. At the same time, people often believe that it is inappropriate and indecorous for overseas scholars to comment on China’s Reform. Nonetheless I would like to thank the organizers to give me this opportunity, for how I could help my peers in China to understand the diversity and dynamics of the analyses made by different stakeholders in US, whilst putting ourselves in others’ shoes.
Before I begin my presentation, I shall point out that what I deliver today represents my personal views, not those of the Brookings Institution. As we usually say in Brookings, 100 senior researchers have 100 different views or 101 if one of them comes from Harvard (as we enjoy making fun of the Harvard University)
In addition, we cannot analyze or evaluate one country without comparing it with others. In particular, it is natural for us to compare the development and changes taking place in China today with the U.S. at the crossroad. The presidential election this year exposed some severe issues in American political, economic and social realm. The soft power of the US has been challenged – unprecedentedly - in the US and around the world. The election process was long, with an expenditure of 6 billion USD. Some candidates employed uncivilized terms while the voices of populism, anti-globalization, and anti-civil rights were on a rise. The potential turmoil after the election is concerning, as the results are unpredictable as of now. The candidates are expected to receive similar number of votes, and the winning candidate is unlikely to win by double-digits, thus we might be expecting a long-lasting domestic instability after the election. Interest groups and public organizations shall not be satisfied with the president elected; while the legitimacy of presidency would be doubted, all of which are critical. Likewise, the domestic and foreign policies rolled out by new president will have a prominent impact on the world. Therefore these are not just the concerns of Americans but beyond,
The dilemma faced by the US does not mean that the country will not recover. Just like the rise of an emerging power, the fall of a superpower is not linear, nor is it fated. The path could be alternated with a mistake or right decision of the administration. Similarly, the doubts and criticisms made by the American people and the rest of the world regarding US’s development direction or its leadership do not mean the support of other countries and their other political systems, and this is a very important point. Especially when Chinese scholars or officials try to interpret what has happened or what will happen in the United States, we need a relatively stable and balanced perspective, and this is the general background in which we learn the views of US political, business and academic community on China’s reform.
Two radical views are affecting US political community
Let me start with the US political community, and proceed with the business and academic ones later; and in every aspect it involves the superficial as well as profound thoughts. Superficially, we can see that there are two radical views that are affecting the US political community in the last few years, especially in the Congress and some administrative entities, though not all of them. Fortunately the stances of the White House and the State Department were consistent with the mainstream reality, and not affected by radical sentiments. On the other hand, media as a key attribute to politics has been increasingly critical of China. The two radical views are both related to the evaluation on President Xi Jinping and the future direction of China’s politics. The first view holds that President Xi is a “strong man”. The idea of the “Core leader” was highlighted by some western media including the US media after the 6th Plenary Session. It stated that autocracy has returned to China. Regarding China’s military reform, the view holds that such reform will only accelerate China’s military modernization. There were tensions in the East China Sea and South China Sea in recent years which some people claimed were related to the leadership of President Xi. Many reporters have already got hold of such prejudices. In my opinions, they were not related at all, though some western reporters hold that way. The view also states that China has been or will become a regional hegemon and will eventually challenge the US and drive the US out of the South China Sea, and that the conflicts between the two powers are inevitable. Those who hold this view believe that the US should contain China or it will be too late. This is one of the radical views.
The second radical view is the complete opposite of the first one, which believes that President Xi and the CPC are weak, and the economic reform has been staggering. Some- a typical view among western scholars claimed that many reform agendas released during the 3rd Plenary Session have made no progress. They hold that China’s social conflicts are escalating. The administration has made too many enemies by running anti-corruption campaigns and military reforms. The ruling of the CPC will result in domestic unrest in China due to opposition forces from either private, or academic or political communities. Therefore, an increasing number of people in universities and think tanks believe that the ruling of CCP is difficult to sustain. What is interesting is that their solution is the same as that of the ones who hold the first radical view: to contain China. The former believes that it will be too late if no containing policy is taken; while the latter holds that containing has no cost, since the fall of the CPC is something doomed to happen.
These two views have significant influences on the US political community in the recent two years. Luckily there are still some considerate individuals, like President Obama, and Hilary Clinton, the former Secretary of State. We know that Hilary spoke highly of President Xi lately, saying that he is a capable statesman and his proposed military reform will be fully under control. Given the current situations, what he is doing is not only helping the country to move to a modern state, but also consistent with the interests of the US. Hilary’s stance is based on the premise of a stable China, a powerful China is much beneficial to the US than a China in chaos. That is why Obama stood to engaging China in all ways over the past 8 years. Of course, the US administration was reserved in the cooperation with China. It did not approve of everything China did and often it raised criticisms in many areas. But it holds that the US needs to work with China especially in global affairs, with which they can keep conflicts in certain areas under control. As Zheng said, a stable and rising China is consistent with the US’s interests. In addition, the U.S. believes that President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign was based on the condition that China was in very dangerous circumstances in 2012: corruption was rampant, departmentalization, fragmentation, and oligarchy had driven the CPC to a highly dangerous stage. In this regards, a strong statesman was required. It is like what Deng Xiaoping did years ago, a strong figure could lead the country back to the right track. It does not necessarily mean that China will from now on move to the path of power concentration, as too much intervention from government is not a good idea in any country. Yet a weak and incompetent government is not what we expect either: while an autocratic president is definitely problematic, a weak one is harmful to the country as well. The key is balance, a dynamic balance.
China proved to turn the corner and overcome difficulties over the past years, showing that the CPC or the Chinese government does have some vigorous mechanisms. They are unlikely to be as rigid or conservative as what we imagined.
US business community holds a pessimistic attitude towards China
The US business community was generally pessimistic about China over past years. In terms of economy, as some scholars mentioned in the morning, China’s growth is slowing down, notably in Northeastern provinces, Shanxi, and Inner Mongolia. Enterprises there are having a hard time in transition. There is increasing danger of real estate bubbles in Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Protectionism, especially on the stagnating SOE reforms, are concerning Chinese scholars as well as their U.S. counterparts and business community.
.
Second, the profit model of the US enterprise in China now is radically different from that in the 1990s when the business environment was favorable to foreign companies. Such favor has gone now due to rapidly changing Chinese enterprises and China’s economic structure. Under this circumstance, US enterprise entities, like commercial chambers and US-China trading associations, are persuading the Congress to contain and sanction China and protect the interests of US enterprises, a shift from their previously long-held attitude toward China after 1989– they have strongly advocated in the Congress to maintain healthy relationship with China, rather than suspension. In their opinions, Chinese legislations including the National Security Law and the Network Security Law are viewed as the signal of protectionism in China, and a restriction on foreign companies.
Another phenomenon is the rapid expansion of middle-class in China. The US has seen the frequent overseas travels of Chinese middle-class as well as other developments. In the US, on the other hand, the middle class is shrinking. Maybe you have learned the data from a key research in the US that 45% of US families have deposit less than USD 400. I believe the research is accurate, as the report received no debate in the US, though Chinese may find it hard to believe. If Americans travel to vibrant economic areas in China, they may be astonished by what they see. The contrast and changes in position in terms of economic power between China and US shall play an important role in the potential conflicts between the two economies.
Although there are doubts, confusions, or criticism in the business community, insightful individuals believe that China remains the most vibrant market in the world. It has a lot of advantages in terms of infrastructure, entrepreneurship, business model, technology innovation and market potential. As Professor Zheng said, the middle class in China takes up only 25%, showing a great potential. China’s urbanization is still at its early stage, and can be explored further comparing to other countries. China’s economy has been slowing down due to the environmental protection, yet it is still a huge market. People may ask which market is good except for China. The answer is probably the US, yet the US is going to face another huge political crisis and social unrest. No market is perfect, and China in our view, is a large one with great potential.
Some Chinese may have criticisms regarding the One Belt and One Road Initiative or the AIIB, as these ideas are still at their early stage, However, I found out recently that the think tanks in Washington and the American universities are rigorously studying this initiative. They in general believe that China is planning something big, which is definitely beneficial to the country.
Views of US academic community on China
Finally I would like to talk about is the academic community in the US. Recent comments from the community seem to be predominantly criticisms, some are reasonable but not others. There are three reasons: the first one mostly concerns the US, not China. Academia in the US is changing over the past few years. Studies on politics over the past two to three decades have been obsessed with quantitative researches, at the expense of researches in humanities, history and linguistics. This led to too much attention on models and formulae, with limited focus on humanities. Economics became mathematics, and politics turned into statistics. Researches on history and humanities have greatly influenced the first or the second generation of sinologists in the US. Scholars like John King Fairbank seldom appear again.
Secondly, laws issued by the Chinese government regarding foreign NGOs also sparkled criticism in the western world. We know that the law targeted some of the anti-China forces, yet it involved too many stakeholders and thus resulted in opposition. Many optimistic scholars who have been studying sinology, history, or social science found that the country is increasingly conservative, exclusive, and even trying to restrain the foreign educational institutions. Though the policy does not exhibit the entire picture, it still leads to fear and concern among many western scholars.
Thirdly, China’s intellectual community is becoming more and more active and diversified. Intellectuals are usually critical, and probably you know more than I do when it comes to the comments of Chinese intellectuals on Chinese politics. These comments have already affected their peers in the US, who believe that the Chinese scholars hold generally the same views as they do. Perhaps it reflects the maturity of the Chinese academic community, but the negative comments may sometimes be misleading to their peers overseas.
There are other voices in the US’s academic community, including that of my colleague, Jeffrey A. Bader. He is the chief counselor for Asian affairs in the first three years of the Presidency of Obama. He recently wrote an article about President Xi, pointing out that President Xi – as he strikes a balance in domestic politics - shall be a key factor in US policy towards China, and it is an opportunity that the US cannot lose. If the US continues to hold its antagonistic view against China, or even believes that the conflict between the two is inevitable, the US may lose a lot of opportunities, or even run into a dangerous situation. Bruce Dickson, a professor in The George Washington University, pointed out in his recently published book that the CPC is highly popular in China, much more popular than the parties in the US or other western countries. This book has exerted great influence in the US. Jamie P. Horsley, Professor from Yale Law School, marked in her recent research on China’s civil society that it is thriving despite the obstacles it has met, and occasionally its vigorousness remains disregarded among western scholars.
As a conclusion, I would like to share my new book about China’s political institution. I will share the core arguments as the time limits. The research examines different issues with data. First, the newly appointed members account for as much as 62% of the five years- termed central committee members and candidates since the 13th National Congress of the CPC in 1982. That means over the past 30 years, the replacement of political elites in China hovered at a high level. I asked the US Congress and their replacement rate is less than 20%, while in China the replacement rate in every five years reaches 62%. In fact there were two peaceful power handover in China. One was in 2002, and the other was in 2012. It is not only the handover of a generation but also a change in job nature: from revolutionist to technocrats, and then to elites who know well of the economy, law and social science. Recently President Xi brought up that China shall expand the recruitment of elites, especially the role of the “revolving door” of think tanks: retired government officials can work in think tanks and younger researchers in think tanks can be motivated to work in the government. It is expected that the replacement of elites in the leadership will bring positive effects on China’s political institution.
Allow me to express my gratitude to the organizers for holding this meeting, and inviting foreign scholars to offer their views. I believe that we will overcome superficiality and misunderstandings once the conversation starts. We hope that China and United States - as the most important countries in the 21st century - and their critical bilateral relations would see a stable and forward-looking development.
Cheng Li, Chairman of John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
Speech delivered at the Global Views and China’s Economy session during the 3rd Dameisha Forum. Opinions expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily represent the position of SZIDI.
Thank you, President Zhang, and thank you for your invitation for the meeting today. It is my honor to exchange my ideas with distinguished scholars in China and deliver a speech alongside with Zheng Yongnian, a good friend from Princeton. I was told to share the view of US’s political, business and academic community on China’s reform, and this is an important yet complicated issue to tackle. As Director Gao said, US holds quite diverse opinions towards China - both superficial and profound ones, which is why I added “superficial” and “profound” in my presentation title. At the same time, people often believe that it is inappropriate and indecorous for overseas scholars to comment on China’s Reform. Nonetheless I would like to thank the organizers to give me this opportunity, for how I could help my peers in China to understand the diversity and dynamics of the analyses made by different stakeholders in US, whilst putting ourselves in others’ shoes.
Before I begin my presentation, I shall point out that what I deliver today represents my personal views, not those of the Brookings Institution. As we usually say in Brookings, 100 senior researchers have 100 different views or 101 if one of them comes from Harvard (as we enjoy making fun of the Harvard University)
In addition, we cannot analyze or evaluate one country without comparing it with others. In particular, it is natural for us to compare the development and changes taking place in China today with the U.S. at the crossroad. The presidential election this year exposed some severe issues in American political, economic and social realm. The soft power of the US has been challenged – unprecedentedly - in the US and around the world. The election process was long, with an expenditure of 6 billion USD. Some candidates employed uncivilized terms while the voices of populism, anti-globalization, and anti-civil rights were on a rise. The potential turmoil after the election is concerning, as the results are unpredictable as of now. The candidates are expected to receive similar number of votes, and the winning candidate is unlikely to win by double-digits, thus we might be expecting a long-lasting domestic instability after the election. Interest groups and public organizations shall not be satisfied with the president elected; while the legitimacy of presidency would be doubted, all of which are critical. Likewise, the domestic and foreign policies rolled out by new president will have a prominent impact on the world. Therefore these are not just the concerns of Americans but beyond,
The dilemma faced by the US does not mean that the country will not recover. Just like the rise of an emerging power, the fall of a superpower is not linear, nor is it fated. The path could be alternated with a mistake or right decision of the administration. Similarly, the doubts and criticisms made by the American people and the rest of the world regarding US’s development direction or its leadership do not mean the support of other countries and their other political systems, and this is a very important point. Especially when Chinese scholars or officials try to interpret what has happened or what will happen in the United States, we need a relatively stable and balanced perspective, and this is the general background in which we learn the views of US political, business and academic community on China’s reform.
Two radical views are affecting US political community
Let me start with the US political community, and proceed with the business and academic ones later; and in every aspect it involves the superficial as well as profound thoughts. Superficially, we can see that there are two radical views that are affecting the US political community in the last few years, especially in the Congress and some administrative entities, though not all of them. Fortunately the stances of the White House and the State Department were consistent with the mainstream reality, and not affected by radical sentiments. On the other hand, media as a key attribute to politics has been increasingly critical of China. The two radical views are both related to the evaluation on President Xi Jinping and the future direction of China’s politics. The first view holds that President Xi is a “strong man”. The idea of the “Core leader” was highlighted by some western media including the US media after the 6th Plenary Session. It stated that autocracy has returned to China. Regarding China’s military reform, the view holds that such reform will only accelerate China’s military modernization. There were tensions in the East China Sea and South China Sea in recent years which some people claimed were related to the leadership of President Xi. Many reporters have already got hold of such prejudices. In my opinions, they were not related at all, though some western reporters hold that way. The view also states that China has been or will become a regional hegemon and will eventually challenge the US and drive the US out of the South China Sea, and that the conflicts between the two powers are inevitable. Those who hold this view believe that the US should contain China or it will be too late. This is one of the radical views.
The second radical view is the complete opposite of the first one, which believes that President Xi and the CPC are weak, and the economic reform has been staggering. Some- a typical view among western scholars claimed that many reform agendas released during the 3rd Plenary Session have made no progress. They hold that China’s social conflicts are escalating. The administration has made too many enemies by running anti-corruption campaigns and military reforms. The ruling of the CPC will result in domestic unrest in China due to opposition forces from either private, or academic or political communities. Therefore, an increasing number of people in universities and think tanks believe that the ruling of CCP is difficult to sustain. What is interesting is that their solution is the same as that of the ones who hold the first radical view: to contain China. The former believes that it will be too late if no containing policy is taken; while the latter holds that containing has no cost, since the fall of the CPC is something doomed to happen.
These two views have significant influences on the US political community in the recent two years. Luckily there are still some considerate individuals, like President Obama, and Hilary Clinton, the former Secretary of State. We know that Hilary spoke highly of President Xi lately, saying that he is a capable statesman and his proposed military reform will be fully under control. Given the current situations, what he is doing is not only helping the country to move to a modern state, but also consistent with the interests of the US. Hilary’s stance is based on the premise of a stable China, a powerful China is much beneficial to the US than a China in chaos. That is why Obama stood to engaging China in all ways over the past 8 years. Of course, the US administration was reserved in the cooperation with China. It did not approve of everything China did and often it raised criticisms in many areas. But it holds that the US needs to work with China especially in global affairs, with which they can keep conflicts in certain areas under control. As Zheng said, a stable and rising China is consistent with the US’s interests. In addition, the U.S. believes that President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign was based on the condition that China was in very dangerous circumstances in 2012: corruption was rampant, departmentalization, fragmentation, and oligarchy had driven the CPC to a highly dangerous stage. In this regards, a strong statesman was required. It is like what Deng Xiaoping did years ago, a strong figure could lead the country back to the right track. It does not necessarily mean that China will from now on move to the path of power concentration, as too much intervention from government is not a good idea in any country. Yet a weak and incompetent government is not what we expect either: while an autocratic president is definitely problematic, a weak one is harmful to the country as well. The key is balance, a dynamic balance.
China proved to turn the corner and overcome difficulties over the past years, showing that the CPC or the Chinese government does have some vigorous mechanisms. They are unlikely to be as rigid or conservative as what we imagined.
US business community holds a pessimistic attitude towards China
The US business community was generally pessimistic about China over past years. In terms of economy, as some scholars mentioned in the morning, China’s growth is slowing down, notably in Northeastern provinces, Shanxi, and Inner Mongolia. Enterprises there are having a hard time in transition. There is increasing danger of real estate bubbles in Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Protectionism, especially on the stagnating SOE reforms, are concerning Chinese scholars as well as their U.S. counterparts and business community.
.
Second, the profit model of the US enterprise in China now is radically different from that in the 1990s when the business environment was favorable to foreign companies. Such favor has gone now due to rapidly changing Chinese enterprises and China’s economic structure. Under this circumstance, US enterprise entities, like commercial chambers and US-China trading associations, are persuading the Congress to contain and sanction China and protect the interests of US enterprises, a shift from their previously long-held attitude toward China after 1989– they have strongly advocated in the Congress to maintain healthy relationship with China, rather than suspension. In their opinions, Chinese legislations including the National Security Law and the Network Security Law are viewed as the signal of protectionism in China, and a restriction on foreign companies.
Another phenomenon is the rapid expansion of middle-class in China. The US has seen the frequent overseas travels of Chinese middle-class as well as other developments. In the US, on the other hand, the middle class is shrinking. Maybe you have learned the data from a key research in the US that 45% of US families have deposit less than USD 400. I believe the research is accurate, as the report received no debate in the US, though Chinese may find it hard to believe. If Americans travel to vibrant economic areas in China, they may be astonished by what they see. The contrast and changes in position in terms of economic power between China and US shall play an important role in the potential conflicts between the two economies.
Although there are doubts, confusions, or criticism in the business community, insightful individuals believe that China remains the most vibrant market in the world. It has a lot of advantages in terms of infrastructure, entrepreneurship, business model, technology innovation and market potential. As Professor Zheng said, the middle class in China takes up only 25%, showing a great potential. China’s urbanization is still at its early stage, and can be explored further comparing to other countries. China’s economy has been slowing down due to the environmental protection, yet it is still a huge market. People may ask which market is good except for China. The answer is probably the US, yet the US is going to face another huge political crisis and social unrest. No market is perfect, and China in our view, is a large one with great potential.
Some Chinese may have criticisms regarding the One Belt and One Road Initiative or the AIIB, as these ideas are still at their early stage, However, I found out recently that the think tanks in Washington and the American universities are rigorously studying this initiative. They in general believe that China is planning something big, which is definitely beneficial to the country.
Views of US academic community on China
Finally I would like to talk about is the academic community in the US. Recent comments from the community seem to be predominantly criticisms, some are reasonable but not others. There are three reasons: the first one mostly concerns the US, not China. Academia in the US is changing over the past few years. Studies on politics over the past two to three decades have been obsessed with quantitative researches, at the expense of researches in humanities, history and linguistics. This led to too much attention on models and formulae, with limited focus on humanities. Economics became mathematics, and politics turned into statistics. Researches on history and humanities have greatly influenced the first or the second generation of sinologists in the US. Scholars like John King Fairbank seldom appear again.
Secondly, laws issued by the Chinese government regarding foreign NGOs also sparkled criticism in the western world. We know that the law targeted some of the anti-China forces, yet it involved too many stakeholders and thus resulted in opposition. Many optimistic scholars who have been studying sinology, history, or social science found that the country is increasingly conservative, exclusive, and even trying to restrain the foreign educational institutions. Though the policy does not exhibit the entire picture, it still leads to fear and concern among many western scholars.
Thirdly, China’s intellectual community is becoming more and more active and diversified. Intellectuals are usually critical, and probably you know more than I do when it comes to the comments of Chinese intellectuals on Chinese politics. These comments have already affected their peers in the US, who believe that the Chinese scholars hold generally the same views as they do. Perhaps it reflects the maturity of the Chinese academic community, but the negative comments may sometimes be misleading to their peers overseas.
There are other voices in the US’s academic community, including that of my colleague, Jeffrey A. Bader. He is the chief counselor for Asian affairs in the first three years of the Presidency of Obama. He recently wrote an article about President Xi, pointing out that President Xi – as he strikes a balance in domestic politics - shall be a key factor in US policy towards China, and it is an opportunity that the US cannot lose. If the US continues to hold its antagonistic view against China, or even believes that the conflict between the two is inevitable, the US may lose a lot of opportunities, or even run into a dangerous situation. Bruce Dickson, a professor in The George Washington University, pointed out in his recently published book that the CPC is highly popular in China, much more popular than the parties in the US or other western countries. This book has exerted great influence in the US. Jamie P. Horsley, Professor from Yale Law School, marked in her recent research on China’s civil society that it is thriving despite the obstacles it has met, and occasionally its vigorousness remains disregarded among western scholars.
As a conclusion, I would like to share my new book about China’s political institution. I will share the core arguments as the time limits. The research examines different issues with data. First, the newly appointed members account for as much as 62% of the five years- termed central committee members and candidates since the 13th National Congress of the CPC in 1982. That means over the past 30 years, the replacement of political elites in China hovered at a high level. I asked the US Congress and their replacement rate is less than 20%, while in China the replacement rate in every five years reaches 62%. In fact there were two peaceful power handover in China. One was in 2002, and the other was in 2012. It is not only the handover of a generation but also a change in job nature: from revolutionist to technocrats, and then to elites who know well of the economy, law and social science. Recently President Xi brought up that China shall expand the recruitment of elites, especially the role of the “revolving door” of think tanks: retired government officials can work in think tanks and younger researchers in think tanks can be motivated to work in the government. It is expected that the replacement of elites in the leadership will bring positive effects on China’s political institution.
Allow me to express my gratitude to the organizers for holding this meeting, and inviting foreign scholars to offer their views. I believe that we will overcome superficiality and misunderstandings once the conversation starts. We hope that China and United States - as the most important countries in the 21st century - and their critical bilateral relations would see a stable and forward-looking development.
Cheng Li, Chairman of John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
Speech delivered at the Global Views and China’s Economy session during the 3rd Dameisha Forum. Opinions expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily represent the position of SZIDI.
