4 ms·

We in the west are also extremely good at projection - seeing our own aggression in whatever the Chinese are doing. The interpretation of made in China 2025, th

We in the west are also extremely good at projection - seeing our own aggression in whatever the Chinese are doing. The interpretation of made in China 2025, that being used as key justification for the tech war, is a good example of this. Also just in simple things like “lack of mutual understanding”. I don’t think that is true. I think the Chinese understand the mechanics of western government and politics quite well, whereas we in the west have very little understanding of the Chinese ditto - simply because we don’t bother as we are the top dog.

alephnerd 2y ago
> I think the Chinese understand the mechanics of western government and politics quite well The same issues in the US with regards to Chinese policy exist in the Chinese view of the US as well. Most policymakers and staffers on either side of the Pacific haven't actually spent extended time or intercultural experience with the other, and those who have the experience with both Asia and the US remained in the private sector due to better prospects and (in the Chinese case) inability to join the civil service due to age and examination restrictions and (in the US case) due to clearance restrictions. On top of that, those in the policymaking level are those who had around 20-30 YoE within their country's civil service, meaning most policymakers and senior staffers today started their careers in the late 80s/early 90s. This is a major reason why Chinese policymakers have been fairly hawkish compared to a decade ago, as the early 1990s was an existential decade for China - the Tiannamen Square Massacre and subsequent sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade all solidified an anti-American viewpoint among Chinese policymakers who started their careers in that era, unlike the policymakers from 1973 to early 90s who had experience working closely with the US (eg. there was even a US Army listening post in Turpan staffed by both US and PLA soldiers during the 70s and 80s [0]). [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/18/world/us-and-peking-join-in-tracking-missiles-in-soviet.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/18/world/us-and-peking-join-...
- throwaway4good 2y ago
  Far more Chinese leaders have spent time in the US than vice versa. Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities. I don't think you can find a single US politician or top civil servant with a degree from a Chinese university. I am not saying that US politicians should go and study in China but the claim of equivalence in counter party understanding is just not true at all. The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans, they were (naively) hoping for the better all the way up to the Biden admin; the experiences of 90es/early 2000es drove China closer to the west regardless of the events you mentioned.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities Most leaders with a US educational background were primarily part of the Hu Jintao administration. No one in the current Standing Committee of the Politburo spent an extended (as in multi-year) stay within the US or the West [0] (attending Bowling Green or UI for a couple weeks to months is not enough time to truly understand the US) nor are they technocrats (Hu's administration was unique in the amount of practitioner Engineers it had in its standing committee). > The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans It very much did start in the 1990s [1] at the policymaking level and remained an active part of Chinese planning [2] for decades [3][4]. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Politburo_Standing_Committee_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party#Composition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Politburo_Standing_Comm... [1] - https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-histories/brent-scowcroft-oral-history-part-i https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-hi... [2] - https://www.jis.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-07/20180703142847819805.pdf https://www.jis.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-07/20180703142847819805... [3] - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323960205.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323960205.pdf [4] - http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0504/c384616-24971840.html http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0504/c384616-24971840.ht...
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    That is the newer generation who are a generation or two from power yet, this generation is even being delayed since leadership changes come during presidential changes, and Xi, the last leader to come of age during the cultural revolution, is holding power beyond ten years. Xi literally came in after Hu and said he wanted to make things more like they were under Mao, and not to make Mao a dirty word like it was under Hu. Also, Xi was the first monolingual president who never practiced as anything other than a politician (Hu, Jiang were foreign educated and practiced as engineers before going into politics, they could also speak English and/or Russian, Deng was famously intellectual). I don’t think people can appreciate just how much of a step back Xi was in terms of technocratic leadership for China. China started its hawkish transition as soon as Xi became president, not during the Biden or Trump administration. Where we are right now was a result of gradual aggression increasing since 2012. Top that off, Xi is the first (hopefully last) princeling president who brought in a lot of other princelings as well into senior leadership positions. I’m surprised this didn’t implode, and maybe either the technocrat approach had problems (not enough red family support?) or they are somehow coasting and building on achievements during Hu (probably a combination, Hu was really weak because he didn’t have red family support).
dragontamer 2y ago
China has made the most nukes in the past decade than any other nation in the world. China has also dramatically increased the size of its military fleet, released movies (Wolf Warrior) to build nationalistic zeal and it's Diplomats have taken a liking to that nationalistic / aggressive stance. There is no 'projection' here. It's simply acknowledging that China's war investments have grown dramatically and it's own diplomacy has shifted as a result.

alephnerd 2y ago

> I think the Chinese understand the mechanics of western government and politics quite well The same issues in the US with regards to Chinese policy exist in the Chinese view of the US as well. Most policymakers and staffers on either side of the Pacific haven't actually spent extended time or intercultural experience with the other, and those who have the experience with both Asia and the US remained in the private sector due to better prospects and (in the Chinese case) inability to join the civil service due to age and examination restrictions and (in the US case) due to clearance restrictions. On top of that, those in the policymaking level are those who had around 20-30 YoE within their country's civil service, meaning most policymakers and senior staffers today started their careers in the late 80s/early 90s. This is a major reason why Chinese policymakers have been fairly hawkish compared to a decade ago, as the early 1990s was an existential decade for China - the Tiannamen Square Massacre and subsequent sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade all solidified an anti-American viewpoint among Chinese policymakers who started their careers in that era, unlike the policymakers from 1973 to early 90s who had experience working closely with the US (eg. there was even a US Army listening post in Turpan staffed by both US and PLA soldiers during the 70s and 80s [0]). [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/18/world/us-and-peking-join-in-tracking-missiles-in-soviet.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/18/world/us-and-peking-join-...

throwaway4good 2y ago
Far more Chinese leaders have spent time in the US than vice versa. Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities. I don't think you can find a single US politician or top civil servant with a degree from a Chinese university. I am not saying that US politicians should go and study in China but the claim of equivalence in counter party understanding is just not true at all. The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans, they were (naively) hoping for the better all the way up to the Biden admin; the experiences of 90es/early 2000es drove China closer to the west regardless of the events you mentioned.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities Most leaders with a US educational background were primarily part of the Hu Jintao administration. No one in the current Standing Committee of the Politburo spent an extended (as in multi-year) stay within the US or the West [0] (attending Bowling Green or UI for a couple weeks to months is not enough time to truly understand the US) nor are they technocrats (Hu's administration was unique in the amount of practitioner Engineers it had in its standing committee). > The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans It very much did start in the 1990s [1] at the policymaking level and remained an active part of Chinese planning [2] for decades [3][4]. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Politburo_Standing_Committee_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party#Composition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Politburo_Standing_Comm... [1] - https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-histories/brent-scowcroft-oral-history-part-i https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-hi... [2] - https://www.jis.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-07/20180703142847819805.pdf https://www.jis.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-07/20180703142847819805... [3] - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323960205.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323960205.pdf [4] - http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0504/c384616-24971840.html http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0504/c384616-24971840.ht...
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  That is the newer generation who are a generation or two from power yet, this generation is even being delayed since leadership changes come during presidential changes, and Xi, the last leader to come of age during the cultural revolution, is holding power beyond ten years. Xi literally came in after Hu and said he wanted to make things more like they were under Mao, and not to make Mao a dirty word like it was under Hu. Also, Xi was the first monolingual president who never practiced as anything other than a politician (Hu, Jiang were foreign educated and practiced as engineers before going into politics, they could also speak English and/or Russian, Deng was famously intellectual). I don’t think people can appreciate just how much of a step back Xi was in terms of technocratic leadership for China. China started its hawkish transition as soon as Xi became president, not during the Biden or Trump administration. Where we are right now was a result of gradual aggression increasing since 2012. Top that off, Xi is the first (hopefully last) princeling president who brought in a lot of other princelings as well into senior leadership positions. I’m surprised this didn’t implode, and maybe either the technocrat approach had problems (not enough red family support?) or they are somehow coasting and building on achievements during Hu (probably a combination, Hu was really weak because he didn’t have red family support).

dragontamer 2y ago

China has made the most nukes in the past decade than any other nation in the world. China has also dramatically increased the size of its military fleet, released movies (Wolf Warrior) to build nationalistic zeal and it's Diplomats have taken a liking to that nationalistic / aggressive stance. There is no 'projection' here. It's simply acknowledging that China's war investments have grown dramatically and it's own diplomacy has shifted as a result.