I once again reject the idea there are “false narratives” on the Chinese side. The reason “false narratives” exists in the West has to do with how political power is won and maintained in the West, which is through rivalry. In this case, telling false narratives about one’s opponent is common. Just think about the narratives that the Republicans, Democrats, Maga etc tell about each other. Whereas in China, rivalry between competing political parties is absent, and narratives that are objectively correct are important in China. Of course there is a wide range of perspectives in China, some of which are objectively wrong. But the Chinese leadership and people on the whole have a fairly objective understanding of the West.
As long as you and others in the US persist in this “false equivalence”, and fail to look at the West objectively, I am afraid it will be difficult to for the West to get along with other countries. The US cannot even get along with Canada and Mexico.
I would urge you to read my latest book, “Accidental Conflict” which devotes 4 chapters to America’s false narratives of China (for many of the reasons you note) and 4 chapters on China’s false narratives of the US. I view this as a relationship problem with both sides — two party US and one party China — equally guilty of spinning false narratives about the other. Thanks for your feedback
The key stumbling block, not mentioned in the article, is that China is governed by a communist, Marxist dictatorship. Of course engagement remains imperative, can’t just ignore 1.4 billion people, and even during the cold war we had engaged with the Soviet empire. But the mentality of a communist, Marxist dictatorship must be recognized.
You raise an important question as to the possibility of a sustainable relationship between two very different systems. Challenging, to say the least, but not inconceivable.
Mr. Roach, I appreciate your thoughtful comments about how to maintain the Sino-US relationship on a more rational basis and I tend to agree with the broad tenets of your suggestions. Yet, I hasten to point out one critical issue that could possibly throw everything out of the window- what if the Chinese ruling party and its leaders are driven by 1) an ideological dogma of eliminating capitalism (or market economy as we know it; 2) the obsession of self interest in perpetuating their authoritarian rule?
I read with a somewhat disheartening amusement the first point you made about HK’s transition into just another major Chinese city in your Substack post a day or two earlier. Beijing reneging on its commitment to allow direct election in HK, as set out in the Basic Law, clearly reflects the ruling party’s view that any independent or autonomous
…. governance should be resolutely suppressed. Any possibility that its subject can grow and operate beyond boundaries it specified is considered subversive and to their absolute authority.
There are strong arguments for the appropriateness of the five point approach you suggest. However, in the currently fraught political environment in the US I see little likelihood of any serious political candidate picking up that approach. In the meantime, I think there is merit to a ‘people-to-people’ approach that promotes at least some level of continuing interaction between the two countries. We must continue to carry forward conversations with those in China with whom we have met during less troubled times for the relationship. We must continue to make Chinese nationals who are in the United States feel welcome and appreciated, even if our government will not. We must be willing to travel to China if the opportunity presents itself. None of this will address the bigger issue, but it may lay a small foundation for a long-term improvement. It is foolish to ignore the reality that neither China nor the US are going to fade into obscurity or that their economies and cultures going to stop being highly interdependent. Politics will eventually come around, unless something really stupid happens.
The first problem is a pattern which has repeated again and again. Presidents or foreign ministers meet face to face, and then as soon as the plane with the US delegation lands at home, some branch of government announces a "totally unrelated" hostile policy attempting to stop third countries from trading with China, or deploying US military assets in hostile ways - eg in the context of China, talking about Taiwan. This destroys trust.
The second problem is how the US negotiates with other parties. Examples abound where the US is a bad faith actor, murdered its negotiating partners in perfidy more than once, even more often breaks promises shortly after making them, and has supported violence to undermines third party diplomacy too. This buries trust.
There was a popular saying in "alt media" that the US is not "agreement capable". This has proven true beyond reasonable doubt.
D-E-A-D is a very impolite and exaggerated way to say it, one could certainly argue that there is rationale to politeness even to those who are themselves pathologically impolite. One could argue there is always limited scope for engagement even among bitter enemies on isolated matters here and there.
But the US continues to approach the world with the attitude that it can dictate rules to others, that it is better than others, that it has the right to claim a leadership position - in spite of unbroken record of unfitness for leadership of any kind, and that it is justified in breaking every rule and norm in the history of rules and norms to cling to that arrogant vision.
The unfortunate reality check: there is little to salvage. The entire self-conception of US foreign policy has to be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up before "honest engagement" can even be discussed.
I hope you are correct on politics. I know you are right on the merits of people-to-people exchange.
Agree on your characterization of the arrogant hegemon. But would not hold China blameless either.
I once again reject the idea there are “false narratives” on the Chinese side. The reason “false narratives” exists in the West has to do with how political power is won and maintained in the West, which is through rivalry. In this case, telling false narratives about one’s opponent is common. Just think about the narratives that the Republicans, Democrats, Maga etc tell about each other. Whereas in China, rivalry between competing political parties is absent, and narratives that are objectively correct are important in China. Of course there is a wide range of perspectives in China, some of which are objectively wrong. But the Chinese leadership and people on the whole have a fairly objective understanding of the West.
As long as you and others in the US persist in this “false equivalence”, and fail to look at the West objectively, I am afraid it will be difficult to for the West to get along with other countries. The US cannot even get along with Canada and Mexico.
I would urge you to read my latest book, “Accidental Conflict” which devotes 4 chapters to America’s false narratives of China (for many of the reasons you note) and 4 chapters on China’s false narratives of the US. I view this as a relationship problem with both sides — two party US and one party China — equally guilty of spinning false narratives about the other. Thanks for your feedback
The key stumbling block, not mentioned in the article, is that China is governed by a communist, Marxist dictatorship. Of course engagement remains imperative, can’t just ignore 1.4 billion people, and even during the cold war we had engaged with the Soviet empire. But the mentality of a communist, Marxist dictatorship must be recognized.
You raise an important question as to the possibility of a sustainable relationship between two very different systems. Challenging, to say the least, but not inconceivable.
…. and a threat to their absolute authority and hence to be quashed. (Apologies for the fat finger)
Mr. Roach, I appreciate your thoughtful comments about how to maintain the Sino-US relationship on a more rational basis and I tend to agree with the broad tenets of your suggestions. Yet, I hasten to point out one critical issue that could possibly throw everything out of the window- what if the Chinese ruling party and its leaders are driven by 1) an ideological dogma of eliminating capitalism (or market economy as we know it; 2) the obsession of self interest in perpetuating their authoritarian rule?
I read with a somewhat disheartening amusement the first point you made about HK’s transition into just another major Chinese city in your Substack post a day or two earlier. Beijing reneging on its commitment to allow direct election in HK, as set out in the Basic Law, clearly reflects the ruling party’s view that any independent or autonomous
…. governance should be resolutely suppressed. Any possibility that its subject can grow and operate beyond boundaries it specified is considered subversive and to their absolute authority.
There are strong arguments for the appropriateness of the five point approach you suggest. However, in the currently fraught political environment in the US I see little likelihood of any serious political candidate picking up that approach. In the meantime, I think there is merit to a ‘people-to-people’ approach that promotes at least some level of continuing interaction between the two countries. We must continue to carry forward conversations with those in China with whom we have met during less troubled times for the relationship. We must continue to make Chinese nationals who are in the United States feel welcome and appreciated, even if our government will not. We must be willing to travel to China if the opportunity presents itself. None of this will address the bigger issue, but it may lay a small foundation for a long-term improvement. It is foolish to ignore the reality that neither China nor the US are going to fade into obscurity or that their economies and cultures going to stop being highly interdependent. Politics will eventually come around, unless something really stupid happens.
The first problem is a pattern which has repeated again and again. Presidents or foreign ministers meet face to face, and then as soon as the plane with the US delegation lands at home, some branch of government announces a "totally unrelated" hostile policy attempting to stop third countries from trading with China, or deploying US military assets in hostile ways - eg in the context of China, talking about Taiwan. This destroys trust.
The second problem is how the US negotiates with other parties. Examples abound where the US is a bad faith actor, murdered its negotiating partners in perfidy more than once, even more often breaks promises shortly after making them, and has supported violence to undermines third party diplomacy too. This buries trust.
There was a popular saying in "alt media" that the US is not "agreement capable". This has proven true beyond reasonable doubt.
D-E-A-D is a very impolite and exaggerated way to say it, one could certainly argue that there is rationale to politeness even to those who are themselves pathologically impolite. One could argue there is always limited scope for engagement even among bitter enemies on isolated matters here and there.
But the US continues to approach the world with the attitude that it can dictate rules to others, that it is better than others, that it has the right to claim a leadership position - in spite of unbroken record of unfitness for leadership of any kind, and that it is justified in breaking every rule and norm in the history of rules and norms to cling to that arrogant vision.
The unfortunate reality check: there is little to salvage. The entire self-conception of US foreign policy has to be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up before "honest engagement" can even be discussed.
Agree on your characterization o the arrogant hegemon. But would not hold China blameless.