Richard Haass
wrote an article that is perfect in every sense of the word –– the ordinary
sense, that is. It’s that the article lacks the most crucial ingredient that's necessary
to bring about the condition it professes to advocate. This would have been the
extraordinary part if it were there.
The article comes
under the title: “To the Brink With China,” and the subtitle: “A Sino-American
cold war, or even an actual one, is not inevitable, but either is more likely
now than just months ago.” The article was published on August 13, 2020 on the
website of the Council on Foreign Relations.
When you read the
article, you'll find it to be a model of common sense. You will not encounter a
single idea that's incomplete or out of order. But deep down––based on your
experience and years of observations––you'll feel that what's in the article
cannot alone lead to a peaceful resolution of the differences that currently
separate the United States of America and China.
What's this about?
Is there a physical parallel that can help us see this point more clearly? Yes,
there is. It's about the way that nature is allowing us to see things.
For example, we
can stand outside on a clear night, look into the heavens and see stars that
are trillions of miles away. Even during the day, we can look up and see our
own star which is 93 million miles away. But if we stand in the middle of the
desert or the ocean where no obstacle impedes our line of sight, we can see
only up to the horizon that's 8 miles away. This is due to the curvature of the
Earth. If we want to see farther away, we can get into a helicopter and the
higher up we go, the farther away we'll see.
In a similar
fashion, Richard Haass sees with absolute clarity, the things that stand within
his line of sight. He described them exactly right, and analyzed what they
stand for in a way that makes perfect sense. What is missing in his article,
however, are the things which stand beyond the horizon, and have the potential
in the future to affect what he sees today.
In real life, you
can describe what you see, and you'll have a snapshot of the situation as it
stands now. But if you're going to give advice on how to handle a situation,
the snapshot alone will not suffice because history begins now and proceeds
like a movie. Of course, no one knows what the future holds, thus you cannot
make accurate predictions. But what you can do is explain what vehicles you see
over the horizon that might be involved in creating future events, and what
kind of fuel is powering them.
For this, you must
develop a kind of over-the-horizon radar that will help you see what's beyond
the line of sight –– not out into the heavens –– but down here on Earth past
the horizon. Well then, what is there to see beyond the horizon that might, in
the future, affect the relationship between the United States and China? The
answer to this question is contained in 4 words which are etched into the
Chinese consciousness, and will be difficult to erase because they describe: A
century of humiliation.
To get a sense of
what role the historical memory of the colonial era now plays, and will
continue to play in China's relationship with America and the Europeans, think
of a moment in time when you innocently uttered a word which to you, was
nothing more than a linguistic unit that’s defined by the dictionary. But as it
turned out, it was a word that was loaded with a ton of meanings, and bearing
painful memories to a Black or Jewish or Native audience.
In a similar
fashion, the inadvertent use of words can cause a temporary hiccup in the
relationship between nations, but once the words are explained, the matter is
forgiven and forgotten. What will not be forgiven or forgotten, however, is the
attitude that a high American official might display, and remind the Chinese of
the humiliation they suffered for a century at the hands of the colonial
powers.
And this is the
aspect, which you'll realize, Richard Haass has neglected to treat in his
article. It simply was not in his line of sight, and he did not bother activating
his internal over-the-horizon radar to see it. Without this step, however, some
of the things he suggested in the article might send the wrong signal about
American attitude toward the Chinese nation and Chinese people. Here are five
areas you’ll find in Haass’s article where American attitude can touch a raw
nerve among Chinese officials:
“The inhumane
treatment of its Muslim Uighur minority.”
“China's
consistent theft of American intellectual property.”
“Mounting
repression at home.”
“Hopes that
integration would bring about a rules-abiding China.”
“Focus on shaping
China's external behavior.”
When talking about
a “Western” or former colonial master, the Americans would not use expressions
like “inhumane treatment,” or “consistent theft,” or “repression at home,” or
“rules-abiding so and so” or “shaping the behavior of so and so.” They do it
talking about the Chinese as Richard Haass just did.
Consciously or
unconsciously, the Americans use such expressions to denigrate someone, and the
Chinese know it. Worse, it reminds them of the century of humiliation they went
through, a reality that will cause them to turn indignant and respond
accordingly.
The way to avoid
such outcomes is to begin with pundits like Richard Haass, and impress upon
them the necessity to respect the peoples they once thought were inferior.