In Episode 149 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Orville Schell, Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society about the implications of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s monumental speech at the Nixon Library, the history of engagement with China’s Communist Party, and what a New Cold War with China will mean for the future of peace and security.
Dr. Schell’s career as a China scholar spans the entire arch of US-Sino relations since Nixon’s fateful trip to the Middle Kingdom in 1972 and the opening up of China to the world.
The same year (1967) that Dr. Schell earned his master’s degree in Chinese studies an astounding 70 percent of Americans agreed on one thing: the greatest threat to U.S. security was the People’s Republic of China. After fifty years of engagement where relations between the two nations would improve dramatically, Americans are now back to viewing China as an enemy.
A Pew Research Center poll conducted in March 2020 shows that roughly two-thirds of Americans now say they have an unfavorable view of China, the most negative rating for the country since the Center began asking the question in 2005, and up nearly 20 percentage points since the start of the Trump administration. Positive views of China’s leader, President Xi Jinping, are also at historically low levels.
In a recent speech delivered at the Nixon Presidential Library, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared the failure of 50 years of engagement with China and called for the free world to stand up against this “new tyranny” in what felt very much like the beginning of a new cold war.
“It’s true, there are differences,” remarked Pompeo, when contrasting China to the USSR. “Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them.” “I reject the notion,” he continued, “that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. . . . If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world. General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever unless we allow it.”
In their conversation, Orville Schell and Demetri Kofinas discuss the speech, what it means for US-Sino relations, and the implications of disengagement for the US, China, and the world.
You can access the episode overtime, as well as the transcript and rundown to this week’s episode through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:
Orville Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at Asia Society in New York. He is a former professor and Dean at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Schell is the author of fifteen books, ten of them about China, contributed to numerous edited volumes and has written widely for many magazine and newspapers, including The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Time, The New Republic, Harpers, The Nation, The New York Review of Books, Wired, Foreign Affairs, the China Quarterly, and The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Schell was born in New York City, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University in Far Eastern History, was an exchange student at National Taiwan University in the 1960s, and earned a Ph.D. (Abd) at University of California, Berkeley in Chinese History. He worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia, covered the war in Indochina as a journalist, and has traveled widely in China since the mid-70s. He is a Fellow at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University, a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg School of Communications at USC, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Schell is also the recipient of many prizes and fellowships, including a Guggenheim Fellowship, the Overseas Press Club Award, and the Harvard-Stanford Shorenstein Prize in Asian Journalism.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur. Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est? An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit. Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Servari enim iustitia nisi a forti viro, nisi a sapiente non potest. Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt. Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam.
Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. In qua si nihil est praeter rationem, sit in una virtute finis bonorum; Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Sed mehercule pergrata mihi oratio tua. Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit. Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Et quidem, Cato, hanc totam copiam iam Lucullo nostro notam esse oportebit;
Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Moriatur, inquit. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Ergo in utroque exercebantur, eaque disciplina effecit tantam illorum utroque in genere dicendi copiam. Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Sunt enim prima elementa naturae, quibus auctis vírtutis quasi germen efficitur. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. An potest cupiditas finiri? Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni.
An dubium est, quin virtus ita maximam partem optineat in rebus humanis, ut reliquas obruat? Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse?
Itaque mihi non satis videmini considerare quod iter sit naturae quaeque progressio. Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet. Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum.
Id enim volumus, id contendimus, ut officii fructus sit ipsum officium. Hoc ne statuam quidem dicturam pater aiebat, si loqui posset. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Nullum inveniri verbum potest quod magis idem declaret Latine, quod Graece, quam declarat voluptas. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Alterum significari idem, ut si diceretur, officia media omnia aut pleraque servantem vivere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed nimis multa. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Non est igitur voluptas bonum. Tubulum fuisse, qua illum, cuius is condemnatus est rogatione, P.
Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Quis enim confidit semper sibi illud stabile et firmum permansurum, quod fragile et caducum sit? Modo etiam paulum ad dexteram de via declinavi, ut ad Pericli sepulcrum accederem.
At multis malis affectus. Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur. Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere;
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit. Ille incendat? Aut, Pylades cum sis, dices te esse Orestem, ut moriare pro amico? Quid, quod res alia tota est? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur. Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis; Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis?
Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata.
Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Et quidem, Cato, hanc totam copiam iam Lucullo nostro notam esse oportebit; Hunc vos beatum;
Sed nonne merninisti licere mihi ista probare, quae sunt a te dicta? Memini me adesse P. Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae.
