First focus? economic!
I did not realize that in the current Sino-US relations that seemed to be full of uncertainty, the economy remained the focus of the American think tank elite, even beyond the North Korean nuclear crisis and the South China Sea.
As Trump was sworn in after the visit to the United States, the first Chinese think tank, I visited with the Pangu think tank delegation visited 16 US mainstream think tank, met with dozens of top research experts. Most of these think tanks and experts are studying security, diplomacy and other political areas, not the economy, but almost every think tank with at least half of the meeting time to discuss economic issues. Economy is indeed the greatest politics.
What is more noteworthy is that the 16 schools that cover the left and right sides stand out, although the political issues, especially on the evaluation of Trump on the great differences, and even oppose each other, but the economic issues show amazing agreement:
First, we attach great importance to the key role of the economy in Sino-US relations;
Second, are optimistic about the role of Trump on the US domestic economy; at least that even Trump may not be able to directly pull the economy, but its existing pattern of “broken”, conducive to breaking the deadlock, conducive to market forces and then play a role, Pulling the US economic development. In the words of Scott Kennedy, the American Center for International Strategic Studies (CSIS), “chaos is power.”
Third, are basically recognized Trump on Sino-US economic relations, that the United States suffered a loss, and even suffered a major loss;
Four, are basically agree with China to a certain degree of economic countervailing, although generally not optimistic about the prospects for trade war.
Even in dealing with the Korean nuclear issue, these American think tanks have not been so consistent. This is a strong signal: in the current Sino-US relations, the economy is still the biggest concern; how to evaluate the previous three decades of Sino-US relations, especially economic relations, the US elite may indeed form some consensus The
Globalization is a disadvantage? False proposition!
Not only Trump believes that the United States is a harbinger of globalization, and many of the think tanks we have visited are so.
In fact, these think tanks themselves are the beneficiaries of globalization without exception. Some think tanks in Washington or New York have their own office real estate, or even the whole building. As long as a little historical knowledge, you can understand: in the previous process of globalization, the United States is undoubtedly the biggest beneficiaries and the most important promoters. Of course, the globalization of the dividend does not benefit all Americans – “big pot” type of rain are stained, in any real world are only a good dream only.
The visit, I ran the wrong way in Philadelphia morning, just two kilometers away from the five-star hotel stay away, found a rolling old plant, withered mottled, weeds, and not far from the brilliant city formed a great The contrast, just like the two worlds. This view, I thought that only in the so-called “rust zone” to see, and Philadelphia, but the eastern developed areas. The disparity between the rich and the poor is not only in every country, but even in every city; it exists not only before globalization but also in globalization. The United States so, China is not the case? This is a common problem that the two countries and even more countries need to face.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
In fact, it is a false proposition that countries that incorporate the globalization system, which are beneficiaries and those who are at risk. Every country has beneficiaries and those who suffer. What is the practical question is: which people are beneficiaries, which people are those who suffer? The difficulty of achieving “Pareto optimal” is more difficult between different groups in each country than in different countries. Many of the American think tanks visited have clearly pointed out that Trump’s so-called global loss is only some of the industry in the United States, such as low-end manufacturing. The problems in such industries, especially the employment problem, is caused by China’s competition, or technological progress itself? In a time-bound exchange, American think tank counterparts apparently avoided this topic, and this topic is directly related to the current US-China relations, especially the positioning of economic and trade relations.
Trump in the campaign during the internal mobilization techniques, quite “class struggle” brand, and even his inaugural speech, but also a full of “revolutionary passion” of the government. His problem is: the struggle can win the country with the thinking, with the thinking of the struggle can govern the world?
US is discriminated against in China? Self affectionate
US think tank counterparts are generally concerned about the US-owned enterprises in China by discrimination.
According to various phenomena, “discrimination” is concentrated in: First, China’s policy environment for US-funded enterprises become more “bad”; Second, some of China’s industries, such as financial services industry, is still not open to US funds.
China’s policy environment has indeed changed, and the US think tank counterparts generally ignored: a lot of cases, whether it is “discrimination”, or just from the previous “super-national treatment” return to the “national treatment.” After all, in the process of China’s reform and opening up, to give foreign concessions preferential “super-national treatment” is quite common, and now return to “national treatment”, not only the market and the legal economy should be the meaning of China’s progress is also the performance. Of course, for some foreign companies enjoying the privilege, there is a process of adaptation, and there is a process of recalculating the input-output ratio.
As for the US can not enter certain industries, both China still need to “national governance system and the modernization of governance capacity” to continue the objective reasons, but also China’s economic security based on the subjective concerns, the latter even in the United States is not uncommon.
In fact, in the United States friends complain, there is an unconscious misread: that these are deliberately against the US capital. Under the “new economic normal” (even the “L-type”) and its associated “new political ecology” in China, both the industrial structure and the property rights structure are experiencing considerable fluctuation and adjustment. And the United States and the United States encountered almost all the troubled in China, not the US “exclusive”, and for all non-public enterprises to “share”, China’s local private enterprises is more difficult than the US capital. Will be a common, common problem, as specific to their own specific behavior, it is the Americans over “self”, leading to overreaction.
It is noteworthy that many US think tanks pointed out that the US large enterprises, especially multinational companies have been friendly to China’s mainstream, but now because of the “discrimination” also began to join the ranks of tough. Capital profit, this is the nature, the so-called friendship is the means, rather than the purpose. From the perspective of China, in today’s transition period, naturally do not have to deliberately cater to multinational corporations, but for multinational enterprises in the role of Sino-US relations, is indeed worthy of the two think tanks to do further empirical research.
The American intellectuals’ perceptions of the fundamentals of China’s present situation reflect precisely the urgency of the United States in its own reform – many people in the United States have not yet seen their own problems. In contrast, China’s consensus and difficulties , Has long been no whether to reform, but how to reform. However, the grievances of the United States, China may not be a bad thing, can be large, or can play a “catfish effect”, forcing China’s reform. In this regard, the Sino-American Education Foundation, Zhang Zhixiang, the former US trade representative Barshefsky two ladies, invariably, have Zhuo see, it is admirable.
China’s diversity Can not be ignored!
The general problem of China under the “new normal” is regarded as a special problem of discrimination against US dollars in China. This cognitive error is not only based on arrogance, but also because of the bias caused by prejudice: ignoring and ignoring China’s own Diversity.
In discussing Trump’s policy, many American think-tank counterparts did not even cover Trump as “madman” and seriously reminded China not to “madman” words and deeds “overreaction.” Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Affairs Thomas J. Christensen also solemnly advises that there is no need to pay too much attention or overreaction to Trump’s Twitter.
These reminders, starting point is rational and goodwill. But the problem is: the face of an accustomed to bluff, used to use fake action “madman”, what is the “overreaction”? Trump’s fake action contains a lot of tentative, can be considered “heart war”, if a set of ignored, whether it will cause its miscarriage of justice, in the wrong direction more distant?
The details of the visit show that many people in the American think tank are easy to ignore the diversity and complexity of China. In their eyes, from the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the “Global Times”, and then to the social media, seems to be the spokesman for the Chinese government. Not only the US think tank, the US media and other Western countries, the mainstream media, it is easy to all Chinese people, everything, and even overseas Chinese, as the Chinese government, China’s soft power representatives, and even as China’s “impact Force agents “.
So, in the dialogue we had to constantly remind the United States friends:
First, China is vast, large population, of course, there are Trump “madman”. Since the United States has a “madman” willing to stimulate China without any convergence, the two countries “madman” will naturally test each other, mutual stimulation, mutual encouragement, mutual verification, in their respective countries squeeze the rationality of the swing space.
Second, multiple remarks in the United States of course have enough expression of space and channels, in today’s China also has a very full expression of space and channels. Chinese media, especially social media, the so-called “left”, “right” dispute, the so-called “hawks”, “dove” dispute, in recent years has never been cut off, and even make the network into the public opinion field “Shangganling.”
Third, the US media speech may not represent the government, but sometimes not necessarily not “party”; China’s media, and even including “Global Times” remarks may not always on behalf of the government, do not have to read too much.
Interestingly, whenever we break this basic common sense, American counterparts often make a big sense. In fact, common sense in the side, a good understanding, it is easy to ignore.
Trump and his predecessors have a lot of difference, it is said that one of the big difference is that he does not like most of the so-called “think tank”, is unlikely to listen to their suggestions. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
If this is a real origin, the entrepreneurial president who is quite dependent on empiricism, through the experience of life experience, it does prove to some extent how the prejudice obscures the sight of the American think tank, In the new president before the use of value.
Trying to eliminate prejudice with professionalism not only helps the American think tank to better find its position in the United States, but also helps the two countries to more clearly look.
