In recent months, there has been a surge in media articles and opinion pieces touting alarmist forecasts and predicting the imminent unfolding of dire scenarios involving the USA, China and Hong Kong. While it is understandable that attention spans these days require the allure of “clickbait”, these prognosticators are often offering predictions and forecasts without any credible rationale or timelines. Moreover, they are often doing so under the influence of a constant flow of persuasive rhetoric that seems to warrant immediate attention and responses.
A challenge for many pundits and soothsayers is making forecasts with incomplete information especially if they limit themselves to news sources from one side or the other. There are inherent biases from reading only English-language news sources (which have their own ideological slants), as well as those on the Chinese side that can differ widely within and across China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In addition, there is the problem of reducing complex arguments into easily digestible sound bites that fit existing narratives and thus ensure wide circulation among an established audience. Those in an echo chamber tend to want their biases reinforced and content generators or certain all-powerful algorithms ensure readers are given what they crave.
An often more pernicious problem with forecasts than bias is noise. In this context, noise can be defined as the “chance variability of judgments” in the words of Daniel Kahneman. This is the useless variability that comes because we are all influenced by various factors, many of which may be irrelevant to the question at hand. In highly emotional and politicized issues like USA/China relations, these factors can vary widely and influence the best of forecasters, to the detriment of accuracy and objectivity.
This noise is amplified when unfounded statements get cannibalized and repurposed as they move across different media platforms. As in the old children’s game, the original statement mutates and changes to become even less predictive and accurate. More noise is created and because this often follows an exponential growth path, the trend becomes irreversible by traditional, linear means.
A further issue with many forecasts and predictions is less about accuracy and more about time. A statement might be true in 1 week or 1 month or 1 year but unless this is specified, there is no way to assess its validity or usefulness. Timelines are also important but often in different ways to leaders in the USA and China camps. For example, the current election cycle in the USA greatly influences what rhetoric comes from the current Administration, while the PRC leadership takes a very different view on timelines, considering its political structure. It is often said that the Chinese leadership plans across ten-year time horizons. Even if this is an exaggeration, there is some truth in how autocratic systems view time as compared to systems where elections are a frequent part of the system.
There are many complex and serious regional questions currently dominating the press and social media. Just a few include USA/China relations, China/India relations, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and span topics across the military, technology, human rights, political systems, the environment and financial markets. These cannot be viewed in a vacuum, however, and do not avail themselves of simple answers, even if this is how issues are presented to the wider public. This lack of rigor and often objectivity, in media coverage, is to the detriment of all parties seeking to find solutions, or just navigate the shifting spaces between assumptions. To be fair, there is credible information available if people are interested, but too many prefer the quick and easy opinion that comes from the snack food version of news offered on social media.
This form of shallow, sound bite analysis and information dissemination, when coupled with an increasingly bellicose type of official diplomacy leads to a reduction in thoughtful debate and growing mistrust. This is exacerbated when individuals refuse to accept information, even easily verifiable facts, that comes from parties on the other side of a divide. Everything can be labeled fake news if it extends beyond your observable universe or challenges ideas in which you are emotionally invested. When these trends are writ large and extend through broad sections of a population, it increases the probability of misunderstanding and conflict.
A Loss of Trust
In our work, we have seen an increase in confusion and a concurrent reduction in confidence when dealing with actors in China, Hong Kong and the USA. Established assumptions are being modified in real time and there is a feeling among even seasoned parties that the foundation on which they have built these assumptions has changed. USA/China tensions and the new Hong Kong National Security Law (香港國家安全法) has transformed the playing field but understanding the magnitude and significance of this change is hard to gauge, and again, the question of time becomes relevant.
What is clear is that a breakdown in trust has occurred. The scale of this breakdown depends on the individual, industry or proximity to centers of power and influence. Everyone must answer to someone for their China or USA relationships, but it is not always clear who that someone is or will be. This is of particular relevance in Hong Kong where there are frequently wild rumors circulating which highlight real or imagined threats to commerce, the rule of law, freedom of expression, etc. Assessing the validity of rumors is challenging at the best of times but takes on added significance when rumors are often taken up and published in partisan publications on different sides of the political spectrum, with little in the way of fact-checking or confirmation. This is not unique to Hong Kong but in the current environment, it leads to more mistrust and outrage.
Navigating this new reality is difficult and perceptions often reflect your experience and history operating in the region. Those seen to be too close to China may be labeled “Panda huggers”, while those coming from the West may be labeled fanatics of the anti-China brigade. These labels are unhelpful and attempt to reduce nuanced positions into something that can be fitted neatly into an “us versus them” paradigm.
Unfortunately, this situation is not likely to improve, even with a change of administration in the USA. It may become more civil and less bombastic under a Biden presidency, but the reality is that a major geopolitical adjustment has occurred. China is now perceived differently than it was in previous years and it will be expedient for Beijing to change this narrative and attempt to meet a skeptical international community half-way.
A Third Way
Relations between countries will need to find their level but in parallel with these official relationships is a growing need for what is often called “track 3” diplomacy. In our view, this involves the careful and genuine building of relationships and bridges between parties on both sides of the divide. It involves finding common ground while accepting fundamental differences may exist in the realms of politics, legal traditions, cultural preferences and economic systems.
The challenge is ensuring the right people are talking to each other across the divide. Vested interests on both sides tend to sideline those who do not share the commonly accepted viewpoint or bias. When this happens, track 3 ceases to be effective and useful. However, when trusted and committed individuals on opposing sides can work together, they can be very effective in rebuilding ties and changing entrenched viewpoints.
For those of us who operate between the East and West, this work is not only useful but critical to ensure that the worst instincts on both sides do not lead parties towards an outcome that benefits no one and creates an environment of perpetual conflict and strife. These interactions already occur between the countless people who cross borders, both literal and figurative, in their daily lives. Common ground is always found when there is an incentive to do so, whether it is through negotiating contracts, building businesses, learning a language, making investments or the simple process of trying to figure out what to have for lunch. While we cannot control how governments and the media operate, we can most certainly ensure that our individual and business relationships remain civil, respectful and with an eye towards a future where cooperation can co-exist alongside genuine disagreement.