Over the past quarter century, hundreds of thousands of students from China have studied at American colleges and universities. More than 50,000 were enrolled last year alone. That Western-educated contingent is China's best hope for intensified economic reforms and, someday, a more open, democratic political system.
Students educated at colleges in the US (and who often subsequently live in US communities for several years) are exposed to the full range of Western political and economic values. And they take that experience back with them to China. One would be hard pressed to find a more lethal, cost-effective way of injecting the virus of freedom into China's body politic.
Unfortunately, that great experiment is now at risk. In recent months, US embassy personnel have tightened their scrutiny of visa applications. Thousands of Chinese students, some with full scholarships, are being denied admission to the US. During one 5-week period in the late spring, 41 percent of all applications were rejected.
The sudden upsurge of exclusionary practices has already provoked angry comment in China, not only from the Beijing government but from the Chinese public. The sense of outrage is heightened because denials are often made after a hasty and superficial examination. Some decisions have apparently been based on interviews lasting no more than five minutes.
The reason for the change in US policy is not entirely clear. The official reason is that too many students remain permanently in the US instead of returning to China. A greater effort is being made to scrutinize visa applications to screen out more students who want to emigrate to the US rather than merely study there.
It is true that many Chinese students, having experienced the unparalleled freedom and economic opportunity of the US, choose to stay -- although that percentage has been declining in recent years. For Americans who view such expatriates negatively -- believing that they "steal jobs" from US citizens -- a decision to remain in the US is a serious problem. That mistaken view has probably received new impetus from the dramatic slowing of the US economy in the past year. Concerns about competition from immigrants always flare during times of economic stagnation or recession.
That factor alone may explain the increased hostility of US Embassy personnel toward visa applicants. But there may be another reason as well. It is possible that the jaundiced attitude is payback for Beijing's mistreatment of US scholars in recent months. The prosecution of several Chinese-American professors on apparently frivolous charges of espionage has clearly annoyed Bush administration officials. Tightening the visa requirements could be one way of conveying a subtle but effective message of irritation to the Beijing government.
Whatever the motive, Washington's policy is short-sighted and damaging. Those Chinese students who remain in the US become contributors to the dynamic American economy. Only people who foolishly view immigrants as economic liabilities, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, would fret about a decision by some of China's best and brightest young people to stay in the US.
Those Chinese who return home are also valuable. They are the agents of change for China in the 21st century. If they are successful, China will become a more prosperous and more democratic country. That change, in turn, would make China an easier international neighbor with which to live. The US State Department should not jeopardize such a worthwhile prospect because of a foolish change in its visa policy.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with