Let’s Talk About Trust (Part II)

Image courtesy of Cabrera Research Lab. See the other twin image here.

If you ask any China Hand, you might get the same response: that mutual mistrust and distrust are commonplace in the bilateral relationship between the US and China. If you ask military hawks and diplomatic doves, their answers might also fall into the same rut. The ebb and flow of the level of strategic distrust between the two economic powers shed light on how much the leadership of both countries care about their mutual interests and shared history.

Put simply, under one party rule, China’s form of government is authoritarian. The characteristics of an authoritarian state are strong central power and limited political freedoms. This is contrarily different from the constitutional republic in the US where the chief executive and representatives are democratically elected by the people. Constitutional republics have a separation of powers. Checks and balances are applied in constitutional governments. If we apply systems thinking, China and the US have their own unique perspectives.

The distrust between both countries boils down to the distrust of the form of government of the other. Imagine if China were like the Philippines or even Taiwan, the US would not single out China as a rival. The US sees Taiwan and the Philippines sharing its core values. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi implied recently at a press conference that foreign countries should not force China to change and that China does not intend to change other countries. Let’s face it. China’s form of government won’t change. That’s sad news. So it’s a waste of time of daydreaming that the ruling party would be in disarray amid criticism. It’s an act of sheer folly for the US to use China as a shield for its unpopular domestic and foreign policies.  

Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither is trust. How many trusted friends do we have? How long does a trusted friendship last? It took 235 years (as of 2020) for the US and the UK to maintain a trusted bilateral relationship. The relationship between the US and Russia has lasted 211 years but it has never been a trusted one. The demise of the US-Russia missile treaty has aroused distrust and suspicion. Looking back at history, the core purpose of the INF Treaty was to prevent nuclear war between the two countries and maintain peace in the post-Cold War era. When two countries lack trust and cooperation, it will lead to an arms race not only between the two countries, but also in other countries that see their national security threatened. According to a report by SIPRI, a Sweden-based research institute, global military expenditure rose to $1,917 billion in 2019, marking the largest annual increase in a decade. This is the price of geopolitical mistrust. The blatant affinity of the incumbent American ruler for Russia adds to the danger.

Because of freedom of movement and a long history of diplomatic relationships, American people are more familiar with Great Britain than China. Because of Cold War, American people may be more aware of Russia as a rival than China. Established in the era of the Communist leadership, the US-China diplomatic tie is only 41 years, much shorter than those with the UK and with Russia. Besides, liberal Chinese who fled to North America have shared their unreserved grievances about Communist China with American people. From literature to public demonstrations, anti-Communism sentiments are prevalent outside Communist China (as well as about North Korea, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba). This noise adds confusion to global trust in China, the world’s second largest economy. It is inevitable that Americans’ perception of China is limited to Communism and a hundred years prior, as if China had a blank history before the First Opium War (1840-1842). A few history buffs might know more about Imperial China. Ordinary Americans are as ignorant about Chinese emperors as ordinary Chinese are about US founding fathers.  

Without knowing the truth, it is hard to build trust. The modern day polarization in America speaks for itself. Our trust is built on reality to which our worldview is constantly justifying and adapting. The intellectuals can’t trust fake news because it can’t be justified by their knowledge. How can a patriotic American trust China whose form of government is contrary to the US? How can an American give a fair judgment of China if negativity about Communist China is all she learns from media and word of mouth? Likewise, according to Chinese party propaganda, the US represents capitalism and monopoly. How can a Chinese youth not be brainwashed with patriotism if he grows up with the party doctrine disapproving of US politics?

If the Planet were like a human, she would be bipolar, with the US and China at opposite ends. In the age of information overload and mercenary mindset, leaders neither look back at far-back events, nor do they look too far ahead. Forty-one years in history is nothing. Forty-one years in future planning could barely fit the midrange of time, if a hundred years is a full range in the power weaponry sense. If we do look back and look ahead with the vision of an eagle, and if we evaluate situation of self and of others as well, it will significantly increase our trust building. In systems thinking, these are perspectives and relationships.            

What surprises me this year is that while China is distinguishing itself from the US’s way of doing things, the US is doing things resembling China. I was appalled to see American history of 2020 unfolding like Chinese history under one party rule. Watching on the TV as Confederate monuments toppled one after another in response to the anti-racism movement, I was reminded of China’s Red Guards defacing churches and demolishing monuments deemed to represent the Four Olds, that is, old ideas, customs, culture and habits of mind. That was during the Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976. A significant number of historical artifacts and cultural heritage were destroyed during a decade of political upheaval. We should not destroy historical evidence, nor should we glorify a one-sided account of history. History is incomplete without the narrative of victims of a controversial historical event and ever-changing critical judgement of humanity. To err is human. Idolatry has no place in history.    

I was flabbergasted. On June 4, 2020, Lafayette Park in Washington DC was compared to Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. I saw on TV armed troops rushing into the nation’s capital to quell anti-racism protesters. The familiar scenes that took place throughout Hong Kong streets last year over a controversial extradition bill were repeated in DC. Pepper spray and rubber bullets were deployed as if protesters were the enemies of the ruler.

On the same day, the US Senate confirmed Michael Pack as the new head of the US Agency for Global Media, a federal agency overseeing broadcasters such as  Voice of America and alike. Soon after Mr. Pack took office, he fired all top dogs of the affiliated government-funded broadcasters. The scale of administrative reshuffle reminded me that what could happen only in China has happened in the US. Party loyalty, except for the few foreign contractors, is non-negotiable in news outlets such as CCTV or Xinhua News. In China, if officials don’t follow the party line, they are likely demoted or put behind bars for an alleged crime. In 2020, a strange phenomenon has taken place in the US—trustworthy public servants are forced out willy-nilly and distrustful officials become confidants of the ruler of the White House.

Anyone who knows some Chinese history can draw a parallel between current affairs in the US and painful Chinese historical events. How can we not to trust our own eyes in the face of tattering democracy eroded by authoritarianism?        

A relationship can’t last without trust. The US-China relationship needs more trust than distrust for global security, stability and sustainability. When two economic powers distrust one another, the world suffers; so does the Planet. The Paris Agreement on climate change aims to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius. Had the US remained in the accord and worked together with China to achieve this goal, the two worlds of developed and developing countries would follow suit. Authoritarian countries may also follow China’s lead to reduce GHG emissions.

If China is an apple, the US is a pear. How can we convince ourselves that we eat an apple the same way as we eat a pear? They look different; their taste is different, too. If I tell you both an apple and a pear are good for your health because they are fruit, you can eat both. Without an apple, we won’t know that a pear looks different. Without a pear, we won’t know that an apple tastes differently either.               

Many a notable immigrant says the US is more than a country, it is an idea. I say it is an embodiment of ideological infrastructure. Why not start from rebuilding trust in our big and small relationships?