David M. Lampton is a professor and author focused on U.S.-China relations. His extensive research and fieldwork in China have provided him with unique insights into the inner workings of the Chinese political system, its leadership, and its evolving foreign policy objectives. His new book, Living U.S.-China Relations: From Cold War to Cold War, traces how the relationship between the two countries has evolved across different administrations. The book draws from his personal experience, including his service as a firefighter during his studies at Stanford University. Comparing it to the U.S.-China dynamic, he argues that “numerous people stamp out the endless small fires of misunderstanding and misperception.”
In your book, you wrote that U.S.-China relations are shaped by “two large, powerful, and above all proud peoples.” With Donald Trump recently elected as the 47th U.S. President, how do you anticipate his administration will navigate this pride in relation to China, especially given his previous rhetoric?
First of all, he’s met with President Xi Jinping on several occasions before. So, compared to other new presidents, he has some background with Xi Jinping, and personal relationships are important. On balance, it’s good that they know each other. Secondly, I think compared to the Biden administration, he’s very much less dependent on bureaucracy and regularized decision-making. From the Chinese point of view, I think he’s very much more unpredictable. He’s also not driven by unwavering principles like commitment to democracy, for instance. Therefore, he’s very much more transactional, meaning he will want to make a deal. In other words, he’s looking to make a deal, and often in the process of negotiating deals, the outcome is unexpected. His style is one of transactionalism, and it means that there are multiple possibilities for the future relationship.
As a Chinese international student studying in America, I am concerned about the narrative surrounding China in U.S. media. How did both governments respond to the negative stereotypes that arise from national pride and historical grievances? How would the future evolve with the new administration?
We have some experience with Trump in his previous incarnation as president, the first time, and that came during COVID-19. Very rapidly, he transformed a virus into a manifestation of Chinese character, and I think that was untrue. Secondly, it’s certainly not the proper way to conduct international relations or human relations. So, I think he often defines out groups and then dehumanizes them. That’s a political style he has. If he continues that style with Xi Jinping, or indeed, any other Chinese leader, it’ll be extremely counterproductive.
You discussed that both nations are trying to maximize their welfare and security. Has this pursuit led to miscalculations in policy on either side, and what are some examples?
We have the reality that engagement increases the welfare of both of our nations. That’s the period from when Nixon went to China in 1972. I call that the “Engagement Period.” Incomes and life expectancy in China went up dramatically in that period. So, I think it’s unquestionable to me that both our economic welfare and security were served by that long period of engagement between Nixon going to China and so forth. However, when Jiang Zemin, particularly after a crisis over Taiwan in 1995, began to increase the military spending substantially, China’s military began to be stronger and stronger. As China grew economically, it became a bigger competitor to the U.S. It became concerned about its security; it grew its military, which then our military responded to. Suddenly we ask, do we want students from China to be in the military or electrical engineering programs? Once security becomes a negative consideration, it spills over into economics and into education culture.
The book emphasizes the importance of historical context in shaping current relations. In your view, what are the key historical events that impact U.S.-China relations today?
When Deng Xiaoping came along and launched the “Open and Reform” policy in 1978 and 1979, Americans were very optimistic, especially as reforms in markets opened up in China and travel and tourism. 70% of Americans had a favorable opinion of China before the “Tiananmen Incident.” This is when, suddenly, CNN is there in Tiananmen Square, providing live coverage of tanks driving down Changan Street and the violence that resulted from that. It was live and there was nothing in between the viewer and the reality. Then the public opinion towards China reversed to almost 70% negative, and it has never fully recovered.
With the rise of nationalism in both countries, how can the leaders lower the tension in the relationship and mitigate this risk?
I think the first biggest thing our leaders need to do is find a common security interest. What I’m saying is, once you improve security, then economics and cultural relations will fall because our people need to be assured that cooperation serves their security. What we need are leaders who see a broader definition of security interests that reinforces cooperation. With more efficient cooperation, it would begin to open up discussion about broader economic relations and take some of the heat off students and all of the problems in education and science.
The second thing we should do is to not do stupid stuff. I’m a free market and trade-oriented kind of person. Tariffs are a really bad idea for everybody. In fact, it was the decline in global trade that eventually led after World War II to the creation of the International Monetary Fund and agreements on free trade in the post war period. So, I think we need to have our economic relationship based on sound economic principles.
Lastly, as someone deeply involved in U.S.-China relations, what role do you see for young leaders and students, like myself, to contribute in our own ways?
I think the greatest and most self-fulfilling careers are the ones where you tackle problems that are really important, not just to yourself or your pocketbook, but to broader communities. They could be nations, towns, states, international organizations. Define an area where you can contribute. It seems to me that your generation could look at the world negatively and say “we have so many problems.” Instead, you can say “we have so many opportunities to contribute.” If we’re in a downswing, how do we stop the slide, shorten it, and get us onto a better trajectory?
Just find something that engages you, that you think is important, and go after it.
Photo: Author David M. Lampton (Courtesy of Jinge Li)
