On November 29, 2018, a working group, co-chaired by Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Hoover Institution, and Orville Schell, Arthur Ross director of the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations, released the report “Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance," which documents the extent of China’s influence-seeking activities in American society. The report details a range of assertive and opaque “sharp power” efforts that China has stepped up within the United States in multiple sectors. These, argue members of the working group, penetrate deeply the social and political fabric of our democratic society and exploit its openness. 

APARC’s Donald K. Emmerson and Thomas Fingar provided the Chinese international affairs website Dunjiaodu with their own commentaries on the report. English language versions of both pieces were published by IPP Review (here and here), and are provided below.

APARC also hosted a special roundtable discussion of the report's findings and recommendations, featuring Diamond and Schell. You can listen to the event's audio recording on our website.

Comment on "Chinese Influence and American Interests"
By Donald K. Emmerson
December 24, 2018

Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance is an important and timely report. It deserves translation into Chinese and wide circulation inside the PRC. It should be made available on-line for free downloading by people in China from all walks of life, including scholars, teachers, authors, entrepreneurs, and officials from Beijing down to the lowest levels of administration throughout the country. Relations between the US and China are far too important to the citizenries of our two countries to restrict access to the report to a miniscule proportion of China’s population—the elite English-reading few who enjoy privileged (uncensored) exposure to critical facts and comments regarding the Chinese government’s behavior abroad.

I willingly attended a meeting of the Working Group on Chinese Influence Activities in the United States. My academic specialty is Southeast Asia, including its relations with China, so I chose not contribute text to the report. Understandably, not every sentence in its the 199 pages exactly matches what I might have preferred to read or decided to write. (Relevant is my “Singapore and Goliath?” in the April 2018 Journal of Democracy.) But I supported the Working Group’s work and I agree with its outcome.

Included in the report is a dissenting opinion by Susan Shirk. I respect her view. But I am less concerned than she that the report risks “putting all ethnic Chinese under a cloud of suspicion.” The word “constructive” in the report’s subtitle explicitly conveys the Working Group’s desire neither to stereotype nor denigrate people of Chinese descent. At the meeting I attended, this wish was repeatedly expressed. I endorse and appreciate the editors’ caution that, alongside our critique, we “must be mindful to do no harm,” and that the report should not be misused to disparage ethnically Chinese people, who have indeed, as the editors state, made “enormous” contributions to American progress. I would merely enlarge that gratitude to include the economic, political, and cultural benefits attributable to ethnic Chinese individuals, historically and now, throughout the world—my own specialty, Southeast Asia, notably included.

"Flies and Barriers": On the China-U.S. Relationship
By Thomas Fingar
December 20, 2018

The recent report of the Working Group on Chinese Influence Activities in the United States was not timed to coincide with the 40^th anniversary of Reform and Opening and the restoration of US-China diplomatic relations but it provides “teaching moment” opportunities for reflection on the ways in which China and the United States have managed the challenges of deeper engagement. I hope that the full report will be available in China and urge readers of this commentary to read it and to think about the issues it raises. I had no role in the preparation of the report but concur with the views expressed by Susan Shirk in her dissenting opinion.

One cluster of issues centers on important asymmetries in the US-China relationship. The report describes numerous ways in which Chinese entities interact with institutions and individuals in the United States and correctly notes the almost complete absence of legal and procedural impediments to such interaction. One cannot say the same about China. Four decades into the era of reform and opening, China remains far less open to foreign ideas, interaction, and influence than is the United States. I encourage readers to ask why that is the case and to consider the consequences and implications for China’s future development. To paraphrase Deng Xiaoping, the concerns raised in the Working Group report represent “flies” that entered the United States through the window of extensive engagement with China. The report calls for dealing with the flies, not closing the window. China seems increasingly determined to prevent the intrusion of foreign “flies” by erecting (or failing to lower) barriers.

Asymmetries in access are not limited to the dimensions of US-China relations discussed in this report. The US economy remains far more open to goods, investment, and ownership from China than China is to comparable forms of engagement by Americans. For decades, US laws, policy, and citizens accepted — even fostered — such asymmetries to strengthen our allies and partners. China has benefitted from this asymmetry, as have dozens of other countries. Policies to make our partners and allies stronger and more prosperous were designed to — and did — enhance American security and prosperity, but almost three decades after the end of the Cold War, many Americans understandably ask why we continue to accept such a high degree of inequality. What made sense during the Cold War and before our partners became stronger and more prosperous now seems unfair and unwise. As a result, American thinking about the ways we interact with other nations is shifting from acceptance of asymmetries to demands for reciprocity and equal treatment.

Some Chinese commentaries on the Working Group report have asserted that it reflects waning self-confidence and fear of China’s rise. Such assessments are wrong. Belief that we should receive essentially the same treatment from other countries as they accord to the United States and American citizens, firms, NGOs, and other entities reflects the strength of our commitment to fairness, not fear of competition. The long-held consensus that US policy should treat all countries (except explicit enemies, which China was from 1950 until the late 1960s) equally regardless of how they treated the United States has eroded significantly. That consensus is being replaced by calls for stricter reciprocity and treating other countries in the same way that they treat us. This sentiment is not limited to engagement with China but the Working Group report captures the emerging consensus by noting that Chinese media have far greater access to the United States than American reporters, newspapers, and broadcasts have to Chinese audiences. That is a fact, not an expression of paranoia or lack of confidence. Indeed, readers of this commentary might reflect upon why it is that China seems to lack confidence in the ability of its people to make their own judgments about foreign ideas and compete with foreign firms.

I was in China when the report was published and many Chinese interlocutors depicted its findings and recommendations as “proof” that the United States had abandoned engagement and reverted to containment policies designed to thwart China’s rise. Both their characterization of the report and their assertions about American policy are wrong. None of these interlocutors had read the report (their opinions were based on negative commentary), and I suspect that many would change their assessment if they had a chance to do so. I also suspect that many in China would change their minds about whether the United States is attempting to “contain” China if they had access to more — and more accurate — information about American willingness to acknowledge and manage the “flies” of engagement and Chinese efforts to erect barriers to Western ideas.

While Americans may be well acquainted with China’s quest for influence through the projection of power in the diplomatic, economic, and military spheres, they are less aware of the various ways in which Beijing has more recently been exerting cultural and informational influence. According to a new report, some of these ways challenge and even undermine our democratic processes, norms, and institutions.

With a growing realization that the ambition of Chinese influence operations requires far greater scrutiny than it has been getting, a group of American scholars and policy practitioners set out to document the extent of China’s influence-seeking activities in American society. The working group, co-chaired by Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Hoover Institution, and Orville Schell, Arthur Ross director of the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations, just released its findings and recommendations in a report that has drawn much attention, “Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance.” On December 4, Diamond and Schell discussed the report’s findings and implications at a special roundtable organized by Shorenstein APARC’s U.S.-Asia Security Initiative (USASI).

Diamond and Schell described the report’s detailing of a range of assertive and opaque “sharp power” activities that China has stepped up within the United States in multiple sectors, including Congress, state and local government, universities, think tanks, media, corporations, technology and research, and the Chinese American community. These activities, they argue, penetrate deeply the social and political fabric of our democratic society and exploit its openness. Unlike legitimate “soft power” efforts within the realm of normal public diplomacy, they constitute improper interference that demands greater awareness and a calibrated response.

“The report was born out of a recognition that things have changed,” said Schell. “Our engagement with China has either failed or is teetering on the brink of failure. The report aims to put the question of our interaction and exchange with China within the context of policy.”

Diamond noted that “The question at least has to be asked whether there is a threat to U.S. national interests.” He emphasized that the members of the working group that produced the report seek a productive relationship between China and the United States. The report therefore advocates for perspective and framework that are built on three principles regarding U.S.-China relations: transparency, institutional integrity, and reciprocity.

Diamond and Schell were joined at the panel by Hwang Ji-Jen, a Taiwanese scholar in the Institute for East Asian Studies at the University of California - Berkeley, who helped situate the forms and effects of Chinese “sharp power” in the United States in comparison to its practice in and toward Taiwan. Karl Eikenberry, director of USASI, chaired the discussion.

The event was co-sponsored by the US-Asia Security Initiative in the Asia-Pacific Research Center, and FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

Audio from the event is available for download or streaming:

Shorenstein APARC's annual overview of the Center's 2017-18 activities  is now available to download. 

Feature sections look at the Center's seminars, conferences, and other activities in response to the North Korean crisis, research and events related to China's past, present, and future, and several Center research initiatives focused on technology and the changing workforce.

The overview highlights recent and ongoing Center research on Japan's economic policies, innovation in Asia, population aging and chronic disease in Asia, and talent flows in the knowledge economy, plus news about Shorenstein APARC's education and policy activities, publications, and more.

A group of 8 Stanford graduate and undergraduate students entered the gates of Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) on September 21st. They are participating in the inaugural fall quarter of China Studies in Beijing, an overseas, pilot program being offered by the Freeman Spogli institute for International Studies in partnership with Peking University. Jay Gonzalez, a Stanford junior, already described his experience as “life-changing” – “exactly what I dreamed of and more.”

 

Image

(From left to right): Lucas Hornsby (sophomore), Jenny Zhao (SCPKU’s Beijing program coordinator), Isaac Kipust (junior), Cathy Dao (sophomore), Minhchau Dinh (second year, Master’s in International Policy), Jenn Hu (sophomore), and Jay Gonzalez (junior) walking towards SCPKU for China Studies in Beijing orientation.

China Program faculty from different Stanford departments and two Peking University faculty are offering intensive courses on contemporary Chinese society, politics, international relations and economic development. And each of the students brought their energy, curiosity and long-standing interest in China to the fall program. With an array of exposure to China – from one whose Chinese begins and ends with “ni hao (hello)” to another who calls China his adoptive home -- their interests vary from a passionate interest in the Belt Road Initiative; China-Africa relations; geopolitics; technology and Chinese entrepreneurs; Chinese domestic politics; and, literally, “anything China.” Many recognize China’s central role in the world and the critical importance of acquiring a nuanced understanding of this global power.

Image

(Clockwise, from left to right): Isaac Kipust, Jay Gonzalez, Prof. Andrew Walder, Lucas Hornsby, Prof. Thomas Fingar, Josh Cheng (Executive Director, SCPKU), Jenny Zhao, Prof. Jean Oi, Jenn Hu, Cathy Dao, and Minchau Dinh

Each of the Stanford China Program faculty teaching in the overseas program has dedicated his or her professional life to engaging with and understanding China. These students have unparalleled access to foremost China experts like Prof. Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein APARC Fellow and former chairman of the National Intelligence Council who has devoted himself to U.S.-China relations since the “ping-pong diplomacy” days in the early 1970’s. Prof. Jean Oi, Director of the China Program and the William Haas Professor in Chinese Politics in the department of political science; and Prof. Andrew Walder, Denise O’Leary & Kent Thiry Professor in the Department of Sociology, were among the first group of U.S. scholars to conduct fieldwork in China after Deng Xiaoping’s Open Door policy was announced in 1978. Prof. Scott Rozell, Senior Fellow at FSI and Co-director of the Rural Education Action Program is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including in 2008 of the Friendship Award, the highest award given to a non-Chinese by China’s Premier.

 

Image

(Clockwise, from left to right): Prof. Thomas Fingar, Isaac Kipust, Prof. Scott Rozelle, Prof. Andrew Walder, Jennifer Choo (Associate Director, Stanford China Program), Lucas Hornsby, Drew Hasson (second year, Master’s in International Policy), Jenn Hu, and Prof. Jean Oi on the Yalu River looking over at North Korea.

The program is simultaneously exposing students to China’s contemporary politics, society and economy in the classrooms and pairing them with lived experiences -- through real-life conversations with PKU professors and PKU classmates; ordinary citizens of Beijing; and through visits to diverse parts of China. To date, the group has traveled to historic Chengde (承德); a mining equipment factory in Jinzhou city (锦州); the China-North Korean border in Dandong (丹东); and the strategic port city of Dalian (大连). Each of these areas embed layers of history and reveal artifacts from different eras: the Manchus who ruled the Han Chinese during the Qing Dynasty (Chengde); the SOE restructuring in the 1990’s that devastated China’s Northeastern “rust belt” (Jinzhou); massive human casualty suffered by the Chinese during the Korean War (Dandong); and the Sino-Russo-Japanese tug-of-war that marked Dalian’s fate throughout the 19th and 20th century. Through these experiences, students are gaining insights into how the world might look to their counterparts in China and elsewhere.

Below are pictures and reflections from students’ own experiences at Jinshanling (金山岭) Great Wall, Chengde as well as in China’s Northeast (东北) region.

Jinshangling (金山岭) Great Wall

 

Image

Jenn Hu and Minchau Dinh (holding up the Stanford banner) at the Great Wall

Chengde City (承德市)

The city of Chengde in Hebei Province, located 155 miles northeast of Beijing, was an imperial summer resort during the Qing Dynasty. Emperor Kang Xi (1662-1723) discovered this rare scenic spot during a hunting trip and turned it into a “Mountain Resort.”

As one student noted, these field trips “supplement academic discussions with . . . diverse representations of China – from historical kingdom to innovation contender (Cathy Dao, Stanford sophomore).”

 

Image

Prof. Jean Oi and Isaac Kipust engaged in discussion at the imperial summer resort of Chengde

China’s Northeast region (东北)

Jinzhou City (锦州市), Liaoning Province
Jinzhou Mining Machinery (Group) Co., Ltd

 

Image

Faculty and students enter the factory at Jinzhou Mining Machinery (Group) Co., Ltd. with the company’s senior managers

Stanford students and faculty toured a mining equipment factory in Jinzhou city in Northeast China. Massive worker lay-offs and closures of state-owned enterprises devastated this “rust belt” region throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s. The company’s senior management sat with students and faculty and described its current reincarnation as a private shareholding company. They also opened up about their difficulties in attracting talent; local tax rates and land use fees; and their inability to enforce contracts and redress payment defaults.

As Jenn Hu (Stanford sophomore) remarked, “One thing I found particularly fascinating [was that]. . . it was not unusual for [the company’s] clients to bail on contractual obligations . . . . [T]he company allowed their client to pay them back in the form of raw materials, essentially engaging in barter trade . . . The fact that an increasing number of clients are unable to pay back, a trend party leaders have dubbed the ‘new normal,’ is also indicative of China’s slowing growth.”

Image

Jay Gonzalez and Jenny Zhao pose in front of a giant painting of “model workers” at Jinzhou Mining Machinery (Group) Co., Ltd.

Dandong City (丹东市)
War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea Railroad Museum (铁路抗美援朝博物馆)

 

Image

Group photo in front of the old railroad tracks in Dandong, Liaoning province, that helped transport Chinese troops into North Korea during the Korean War

Image

Jenn Hu reading the captions at the “War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea” Railroad Museum

Dandong’s small “railroad museum” displayed images, quotes and photos from the Korean War – better known as “War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea” in China. Nearly 3 million People’s Liberation Army troops overwhelmed the U.S. troops and allies in 1950; and China tragically lost anywhere from 149,000 to 400,000 soldiers in the war.

Students heard the Chinese perspective on the war, which focused on U.S. aggression and China’s rightful defense. The museum’s guided tour, in fact, ended with an anti-American sing-along that praised China’s bravery and denounced U.S. imperialism. As one student commented on her blog, “[f]rom the ends of the room, [the museum’s visitors’] voices rose in unison, and swelled into a chorus of song -- 抗美援朝鲜，打败美帝野心狼! (‘Resist America, help Korea, defeat the American imperialists with their wolf-like ambitions!’) (Cathy Dao, Stanford sophomore),” giving substance to the reality that history is, indeed, political.

Image

Prof. Scott Rozelle, Senior Fellow at FSI and faculty member for China Studies in Beijing, engaged in a heated debate with the local guide from Dandong who argued that North Korea’s decision to start the Korean War was to defend its motherland against U.S. military aggression.

Image

Sino-North Korean Friendship Bridge that links Shinuiju, North Korea, to Dandong, China.

Dalian (大连)

Lastly, students traveled to Dalian, the “pearl of the East” founded by the Russians in 1898 and built in the style of European cities at the turn-of-the-century. The site of intense battles during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, the city now boasts a Sino-Soviet Friendship Monument built in 1996.

Image

Group photo in front of the Sino-Soviet Friendship Monument in Dalian city

Whether it be “[t]he sheer size of a small city like Jinzhou”(pop: 3.1 million) or the “‘little’ city” of Dalian (pop: 6.2 million), these cities drove home for students the sheer scale of a country like China – its significance, complexity, and import.

Students have written blog pieces posted on FSI’s Medium site in which one student also described a fascinating solo backpacking trip to Tibetan communities in western Sichuan and, another, the quotidian challenges of everyday life in Beijing. Regardless of their subject matter, however, their words echo the program’s success in enabling students to perceive the world through vastly differing lenses – lenses that often show a place and people that are deeply warm and welcoming and, at other times, reflect a world that proves decentering and unclear. Yet, the complementary experiences in the classroom and outside the curriculum are enabling students to develop an imagination that can encompass the “other” and nurture a humility that can feed a lifetime of questions. As Cathy Dao commented upon visiting the “War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea” Railroad Museum, “I realized that such hostility is a function of history. How each country portrays conflicts [such as the Korean War] strongly influences the perceptions that its people have. [But] [s]hould we learn how one another views history, we can see the humanity in what would otherwise be an abstract and incompatible ‘other.’”

 

Image

(Counter clockwise): Julie Gu (second year, Masters in International Policy), Pan Xue (Beijing program assistant), Jenny Zhao, and Lucas Hornsby taking a group selfie in Dalian city

For information regarding similar opportunities, please visit FSI Student Programs or email Patrick Laboon, FSI’s Academic Program Manager, at plaboon@stanford.edu for all updates regarding the many international student opportunities offered through FSI.