How a Politicized U.S.-China Relationship Is Impacting China Studies

The latest report by the National Committee on United States-China Relations identifies five major research gaps in the field of China studies

By Carnegie Corporation of New York October 1, 2021

Scholarship & Policy

Over the past 25 years, the National Committee on United States-China Relations has written five survey-based reports that provide an overview and analysis of China-related international relations and security issues at American academic centers, think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations.

The latest of these reports, American International Relations and Security Programs Focused on China: A Survey of the Field (2021), was conducted at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic had killed over 1.4 million people globally and the U.S.-China relationship, already worsening for years, had suffered as each government blamed the other for its response to the coronavirus. The Chinese government’s actions in the South China Sea, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, and tensions over trade and pandemic management also contributed to an increasingly bipartisan, anti-China turn in the rhetoric of U.S. policymakers. These issues, which have contributed to the rise of anti-Asian sentiments in the United States, have politicized the field of study, making it difficult for people to feel comfortable expressing more nuanced views in fear of being labeled excessively pro-China while also limiting scholars’ ability to conduct productive research.

Funded and published by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the report identifies major research gaps in the field, among these:

Emerging Technologies, including the role of artificial intelligence, the effects on cybersecurity, Chinese science and technology policy, and the implications of technological decoupling and/or localization.

China’s International Economic Engagement and its continuing trade expansion, U.S.-Chinese economic interdependence and interests, the stability of the global economy, and the role of the economy as a tool of Chinese statecraft.

Data Access and the ability to analyze original Chinese-language documents, datasets, articles, commentary, and speeches, as well as the need for open-source translation of these documents for foreign policy analysts not fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

Nontraditional Security Studies such as environmental security, public health, and human rights, which are too siloed and require better integration in U.S. foreign policy and peace and security conversations.

Understanding China’s Political Intentions, both internationally through efforts to shape international regimes and its bilateral relations with countries other than the U.S., especially Russia and India, and domestically as viewed through the dynamics of the Chinese Communist Party and decision-making under President Xi Jinping.

Further key findings include an increasing demand for China content in the U.S. and a shift toward more public-facing work in academia. Meanwhile, China’s domestic tightening of information flows has limited access to data and the ability to conduct in-country research as well as to interact with Chinese colleagues. The downturn in the bilateral relationship has reduced the quality of discourse between both countries, especially in the aftermath of the Trump Administration’s management of the relationship. Lastly, many China-related topics are viewed, within and outside of academia, through a narrow lens of national security, which reduces the complex area of study.

In the report, the authors consider how to understand the current state of the field. Their results are useful to inform scholarship, public policy decisions, and the general public’s desire to better comprehend China, while also pinpointing gaps in the field. To learn more, read the full report American International Relations and Security Programs Focused on China: A Survey of the Field.

TOP: A man wears a protective mask on February 10, 2020, in Wuhan, China, at the outset of the coronavirus. (Credit: Stringer/Getty Images)