An economist by training, Khanna advocates for new trade policies and strategic business partnerships to be front and center in U.S. diplomacy with China. This “rebalancing,” as Khanna termed it, is a call for both countries to pursue a fuller, more robust economic development strategy while continuing to engage with each other.

Drawing inspiration from President John F. Kennedy’s commencement address at American University in 1963, Khanna urged listeners not to view “conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats,” when it comes to managing the U.S.-China relationship.

Instead, Khanna outlined four key principles he believes will be crucial to navigating the tense years ahead. These include:

1. An economic reset to reduce trade deficits and tensions
2. Open lines of communication
3. Effective military deterrence
4. Respect for Asian partners and robust economic engagement with the world

Khanna is clear-eyed that these goals will take time to realize. Bringing jobs back to the United States will require large investments in domestic infrastructure. Leaders in Washington will need patience, persistence, and help from partners outside of politics to bridge communication gaps and ensure Beijing picks up its phones in moments of tension. Reallocating defense spending in a way that is fair both to American taxpayers and partners like Taiwan will need cooperation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

But Khanna is confident that these barriers can be overcome. 

“I believe a constructive rebalancing with China can maintain the peace,” he told the audience. “It will not happen overnight. It will not happen with one president or one congressman. But it will happen if all of us - military and business leaders, educators, unions, activists, foreign policy experts and students work toward this goal. [We will win by] helping our own nation flourish and by putting our system and our promise of freedom on display for the world to see.”

Click the link to read Congressman Khanna's full remarks on
"Constructive Rebalancing with China."

“There have been 120 Deliberative Polls® around the world. But this is the first to focus on the policy challenges of the further future,” shared Professor James Fishkin, Director of DDL. “The deliberators weighed many difficult trade-offs and came up with thoughtful judgments about what needs to be done. They clearly envisioned a future for California that is more sustainable, equitable and governable—and they thought about how to get there.”

"This Deliberative Poll® allowed Californians from across the state to listen to each other and learn from each other's experiences. Participants found that even though they may live in different parts of the state, have different jobs, or different lifestyles, their opinions on many of the policy issues are not so different. And, that they share the same concerns and worries for the state," added Alice Siu, Associate Director of DDL.

“California Considers shows that Californians are worried, upset, and unsure about California’s future, but they also felt more hopeful, curious, and energized about the future following deliberations where they got a chance to make concrete proposals to solve California’s problems. There are many novel findings from this exercise that merit deeper exploration, to help California address its looming challenges,” said Henry Brady, Director of Research for California 100.

“The California Considers Deliberative Poll® presented a representative sample of over 700 Californians with policy ideas that could transform our state’s direction in the long-term,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, executive director of California 100. “Rather than simply getting their initial perspectives and taking them at face value, participants read briefing materials, deliberated with each other and experts, then revisited their positions to see what they concludedafter becoming better informed. What we found is that, in many instances, Californians from different backgrounds coalesced around common ideas seen as helping our state become more transparent, efficient, and innovative.”

About Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab

The Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University is housed within the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. DDL is devoted to research about democracy and public opinion obtained through Deliberative Polling®. The method of Deliberative Polling® has been used in over 50 countries and jurisdictions around the world through over 120 projects, at varying levels of government and society.

About California 100

California 100 is a transformative statewide initiative focused on inspiring a vision and strategy for California’s next century that is innovative, sustainable, and equitable. The initiative is incubated at the University of California and Stanford, and is guided by an expert and intergenerational Commission. 

The mission of California 100 is to strengthen California’s ability to collectively solve problems and shape our long-term future—through research, policy innovation, advanced technology, and engagement—by identifying, mobilizing, and supporting champions for innovative and equitable solutions.

About the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy

The Goldman School of Public Policy is a graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley that prepares students for careers in public leadership. As a professional school of public policy grounded in scholarly practice, the Goldman School mobilizes the rich intellectual resources of the UC Berkeley campus to provide a transformational academic and cultural experience that instills standards of excellence and a deep sense of pride in one’s work, learning community, peers, and academic home. It is ranked one of the top three public policy schools in the world according to U.S. News and World Report.

Goldman School faculty represent the top researchers in their respective fields, which include economics, political science, law, social psychology, and engineering. Their expertise ranges from education policy to racial profiling to clean energy. As teachers, they are dedicated to training tomorrow's policy leaders. As researchers, their work is shaping public policy today.

Contacts
 

• James Fishkin (DDL, Stanford)

• Alice Siu (DDL, Stanford)

• Karthick Ramakrishnan (California 100 Initiative)

• Henry Brady (University of California, Berkeley)

In 2009, world events collided with Schaake’s position as a newly-seated MEP. While the democratic elections in the EU were unfolding without incident, 3,000 miles away in Iran, a very different story was unfolding. Following the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a second term as Iran’s president, allegations of fraud and vote tampering were immediately voiced by supporters of former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leading candidate opposing Ahmadinejad. The protests that followed quickly morphed into the Green Movement, one of the largest sustained protest movements in Iran’s history after the Iranian Revolution of 1978 and until the protests against the death of Mahsa Amini began in September 2022.
 
With the protests came an increased wave of state violence against the demonstrators. While repression and intimidation are nothing new to autocratic regimes, in 2009 the proliferation of cell phones in the hands of an increasingly digitally connected population allowed citizens to document human rights abuses firsthand and beam the evidence directly from the streets of Tehran to the rest of the world in real-time.
 
As more and more footage poured in from the situation on the ground, Schaake, with a pre-politics background in human rights and a specific interest in civil rights, took up the case of the Green Movement as one of her first major issues in the European Parliament. She was appointed spokesperson on Iran for her political group. 

The Best of Tech and the Worst of Tech

But the more Schaake learned, the clearer it became that the Iranian were not the only ones using technology to stay informed about the protests. Meeting with ights defenders who had escaped from Iran to Eastern Turkey, Schaake was told anecdote after anecdote about how the Islamic Republic’s authorities were using tech to surveil, track, and censor dissenting opinions.
 
Investigations indicated that they were utilizing a technique referred to then as “deep packet inspection,” a system which allows the controller of a communications network to read and block information from going through, alter communications, and collect data about specific individuals. What was more, journalists revealed that many of the systems such regimes were using to perform this type of surveillance had been bought from, and were serviced by, Western companies.
 
For Schaake, this revelation was a turning point of her focus as a politician and the beginning of her journey into the realm of cyber policy and tech regulation.
 
“On the one hand, we were sharing statements urging to respect the human rights of the demonstrators. And then it turned out that European companies were the ones selling this monitoring equipment to the Iranian regime. It became immediately clear to me that if technology was to play a role in enhancing human rights and democracy, we couldn’t simply trust the market to make it so; we needed to have rules,” Schaake explained.

The Transatlantic Divide

But who writes the rules? When it comes to tech regulation, there is longstanding unease between the private and public sectors, and a different approach between the East and West shores of the Atlantic. In general, EU member countries favor oversight of the technology sector and have supported legislation like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Services Act to protect user privacy and digital human rights. On the other hand, major tech companies — many of them based in North America — favor the doctrine of self-regulation and frequently cite claims to intellectual property or widely-defined protections such as Section 230 as a justification for keeping government oversight at arm’s length. Efforts by governing bodies like the European Union to legislate privacy and transparency requirements are with raised hackles 
 
It’s a feeling Schaake has encountered many times in her work. “When you talk to companies in Silicon Valley, they make it sound as if Europeans are after them and that these regulations are weapons meant to punish them,” she says.
 
But the need to place checks on those with power is rooted in history, not histrionics, says Schaake. Memories of living under the eye of surveillance states such as the Soviet Union and East Germany still are fresh on many European’s minds. The drive to protect privacy is as much about keeping the government in check as it is about reining in the outsized influence and power of private technology companies, Schaake asserts.
 

Big Brother Is Watching

In the last few years, the momentum has begun to shift. 
 
In 2020, a joint reporting effort by The Guardian, The Washington Post, Le Monde, Proceso, and over 80 journalists at a dozen additional news outlets worked in partnership with Amnesty International and Forbidden Stories to publish the Pegasus Project, a detailed report showing that spyware from the private company NSO Group was used to target, track, and retaliate against tens of thousands journalists, activists, civil rights leaders, and even against prominent politicians around the world.
 
This type of surveillance has innovated quickly beyond the network monitoring undertaken by regimes like Iran in the 2000s, and taps into the most personal details of an individual’s device, data, and communications. In the absence of widespread regulation, companies like NSO Group have been able to develop commercial products with capabilities as sophisticated as state intelligence bureaus. In many cases, “no-click” infections are now possible, meaning a device can be targeted and have the spyware installed without the user ever knowing or having any suspicions that they have become a victim of covert surveillance.

“If we were to create a spectrum of harmful technologies, spyware could easily take the top position,” said Schaake, speaking as the moderator of a panel on “Countering the Misuse of Technology and the Rise of Digital Authoritarianism” at the 2023 Summit for Democracy co-hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden alongside the governments of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, and Republic of Zambia.
 
Revelations like those of the Pegasus Project have helped spur what Schaake believes is long-overdue action from the United States on regulating this sector of the tech world. On March 27, 2023, President Biden signed an executive order prohibiting the operational use of commercial spyware products by the United States government. It is the first time such an action has been formally taken in Washington.
 
For Schaake, the order is a “fantastic first step,” but she also cautions that there is still much more that needs to be done. The use of spyware made by the government is not limited by Biden's executive order, and neither is the use by individuals who can get their hands on these tools. 

Human Rights vs. National Security

One of Schaake’s main concerns is the potential for governmental overreach in the pursuit of curtailing the influence of private companies.
 
Schaake explains, “What's interesting is that while the motivation in Europe for this kind of regulation is very much anchored in fundamental rights, in the U.S., what typically moves the needle is a call to national security, or concern for China.”
 
It is important to stay vigilant about how national security can become a justification for curtailing civil liberties. Writing for the Financial Times, Schaake elaborated on the potential conflict of interest the government has in regulating tech more rigorously:
 
“The U.S. government is right to regulate technology companies. But the proposed measures, devised through the prism of national security policy, must also pass the democracy test. After 9/11, the obsession with national security led to warrantless wiretapping and mass data collection. I back moves to curb the outsized power of technology firms large and small. But government power must not be abused.”
 
While Schaake hopes well-established democracies will do more to lead by example, she also acknowledges that the political will to actually step up to do so is often lacking. In principle, countries rooted in the rule of law and the principles of human rights decry the use of surveillance technology beyond their own borders. But in practice, these same governments are also sometimes customers of the surveillance industrial complex. 

Schaake has been trying to make that disparity an impossible needle for nations to keep threading. For over a decade, she has called for an end to the surveillance industry and has worked on developing export controls rules for the sale of surveillance technology from Europe to other parts of the world. But while these measures make it harder for non-democratic regimes to purchase these products from the West, the legislation is still limited in its ability to keep European and Western nations from importing spyware systems like Pegasus back into the West. And for as long as that reality remains, it undermines the credibility of the EU and West as a whole, says Schaake. 
 
Speaking at the 2023 Summit for Democracy, Schaake urged policymakers to keep the bigger picture in mind when it comes to the risks of unaccountable, ungoverned spyware industries. “We have to have a line in the sand and a limit to the use of this technology. It’s extremely important, because this is proliferating not only to governments, but also to non-state actors. This is not the world we want to live in.”

Building Momentum for the Future

Drawing those lines in the sands is crucial not just for the immediate safety and protection of individuals who have been targeted with spyware but applies to other harms of technology vis-a-vis the long-term health of democracy.

“The narrative that technology is helping people's democratic rights, or access to information, or free speech has been oversold, whereas the need to actually ensure that democratic principles govern technology companies has been underdeveloped,” Schaake argues.

While no longer an active politician, Schaake has not slowed her pace in raising awareness and contributing her expertise to policymakers trying to find ways of threading the digital needle on tech regulation. Working at the Cyber Policy Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), Schaake has been able to combine her experiences in European politics with her academic work in the United States against the backdrop of Silicon Valley, the home-base for many of the world’s leading technology companies and executives.
 
Though now half a globe away from the European Parliament, Schaake’s original motivations to improve society and people’s lives have not dimmed.

“It’s up to us to guarantee the upsides of technology and limit its downsides. That’s how we are going to best serve our democracy in this moment,” she says.
 
Schaake is clear-eyed about the hurdles still ahead on the road to meaningful legislation about tech transparency and human rights in digital spaces. With a highly partisan Congress in the United States and other issues like the war in Ukraine and concerns over China taking center stage, it will take time and effort to build a critical mass of political will to tackle these issues. But Biden’s executive order and the discussion of issues like digital authoritarianism at the Summit for Democracy also give Schaake hope that progress can be made.
 
“The bad news is we're not there yet. The good news is there's a lot of momentum for positive change and improvement, and I feel like people are beginning to understand how much it is needed.”
 
And for anyone ready to jump into the fray and make an impact, Schaake adds a standing invitation: “I’m always happy to grab a coffee and chat. Let’s talk!”

The complete recording of "Countering the Misuse of Technology and the Rise of Digital Authoritarianism," the panel Marietje Schaake moderated at the 2023 Summit for Democracy, is available below.

“The repression doesn't only happen in non-democratic countries. Unfortunately we also see governments of democracies using these tools to go after judges, journalists, opposition figures.”
— @MarietjeSchaake on commercial spyware #SummitForDemocracy pic.twitter.com/qVklZY3fae

— Andreas Sandre (@andreas212nyc) March 30, 2023

The Stanford/SPICE East Asia Seminars for Teachers in Hawai‘i or “Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i” is a nine-month fellowship program created to empower educators to reinvigorate their teaching of Asia. The program is made possible through the generous support of the Freeman Foundation.

Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i convenes Stanford/Freeman SEAS Hawai‘i Fellows for four virtual seminars during the academic year and a culminating three-day in-person institute the following summer. So far, this year’s Fellows have participated in virtual seminars featuring Stanford-affiliated scholars Ethan Segal (Associate Professor of History and Chairperson of the Japan Council at Michigan State University), Zoë Gioja (PhD candidate in History and a PhD minor in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Stanford University), and Andrew Walder (Denise O’Leary and Kent Thiry Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University). These sessions have focused on Japan, Korea, and China, respectively. The final virtual seminar will take place next month, when Fellows will meet Scot Marciel, former U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar and Indonesia, and deepen their understanding of Southeast Asia.

“I’ve really enjoyed learning in this environment alongside all of the SPICE fellows, and [I] find the content very interesting and informative to my work,” commented Fellow Jonathan Chang, who manages a national mentorship program for Asian American youth. “I’ve had several conversations with my family, friends, and colleagues about our learnings and it’s been really great!”

Besides receiving content lectures and engaging in Q&A sessions with the guest speakers, Fellows also debrief their learnings and share favorite teaching resources with each other, so that everyone can benefit from their shared learning and teaching experience.

The current 2022–23 cohort of Stanford/Freeman SEAS Hawai‘i Fellows is comprised of 19 teachers representing three islands (Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, and Hawai‘i Island). Most teach world history and/or U.S. history, and others teach subjects such as English, math, foreign language, and civics. The SPICE staff is pleased to work with the Hawai‘i educators below. 

Amy Boehning, Mililani High School
Carl Wright, Kapolei High School
Chayanee Brooks, Ka‘u High and Pahala Elementary School
David Brooks, Ka‘u High and Pahala Elementary School 
Grace Nguyen, Konawaena High School  
Gregory Gushiken, Punahou School 
Hannah Lim, ‘Iolani School 
John Ates, Le Jardin Academy 
Jonathan Chang, Apex for Youth 
Jonathon Medeiros, Kauaʻi High School
Laura Viana, Mid-Pacific Institute 
Mariko Shiraishi, Hawaii Baptist Academy 
Michael Hamilton, Leilehua High School 
Molly M. Satta-Ellis, Konawaena High School 
Niti D. Villinger, Hawai‘i Pacific University 
Patricia Tupinio, Leilehua High School 
Ria Lulla, Kawananakoa Middle School 
Sarah Fujioka, Waipahu High School 
William Milks, ‘Iolani School

Fellow Amy Boehning launched Mililani High School’s Asian Studies class eight years ago, offering it for a single period. Now it is offered for four periods and still has a waiting list. Like many others in her cohort, she joined Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i in hopes of adding more depth and richness to her existing practice. “I’m so excited to be a part of [this] program. Everything so far has been stellar, and I have immediately been able to add to my Asian Studies curriculum and Social Studies Directed Studies curriculum.”

Boehning also leads Mililani’s National History Day program, and she has noticed that each year more students choose to focus their projects on Asia-centric topics.

“It’s our goal to support teachers like Amy as they coach and mentor students like that,” said Sabrina Ishimatsu, a coordinator of Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i. “It’s always gratifying to know that our program is making a positive difference for both educators and students.”

Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i is coordinated by Ishimatsu and Rylan Sekiguchi.

In addition to Stanford SEAS Hawai‘i, SPICE offers teacher PD opportunities virtually to teachers nationwide and locally in California to middle school teachers, high school teachers, and community college instructors.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

By traditional measures, South Korea is not a large country. It ranks 28th in the world in population and only 107th in land mass. Its language is not widely spoken outside the Korean peninsula, and it does not have a large diaspora. Yet since around 2005, it has arguably become the major producer of youth culture in the world. How did this happen?

Stanford professor Dafna Zur has filmed a video to answer that complicated and important question. Dr. Zur is an Associate Professor of Korean literature and culture in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures of Stanford University. She specializes in Korean literature, cinema, and popular culture. As part of her research, Dr. Zur has interviewed the main architects of South Korea’s popular culture wave, including SM Entertainment founder Lee Soo-man and many K-Pop stars.

Stanford’s Center for East Asian Studies and SPICE collaborated on a discussion guide to bring the lessons from Dr. Zur’s video to high school and university students. The video and discussion guide are available for free on SPICE’s Multimedia page. They address the following questions:

• What is popular culture?
• What is soft power, and why is it important?
• How did South Korea become such a successful producer of popular culture in the past 20 years?
• How can we measure South Korea’s success in becoming a popular culture powerhouse? 
• How did South Korea’s popular culture evolve in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? What’s the next stage in its development?
• How easy would it be for other countries to replicate South Korea’s soft power success? 

Because the main vehicle for South Korea’s rise as a soft power giant has been Korean pop music, known as K-Pop, Dr. Zur directs viewers to several music videos that illustrate how K-Pop has evolved since 1997 and where it might go in the future.

She provides deep insight into the building blocks of K-Pop’s success, which she identifies as support from the national government, the kihoeksa (entertainment conglomerate) system, technology, timing, content release strategy, and fan communities. In particular, Dr. Zur explains how the kihoeksa are able to produce high-quality entertainment at a low cost and how their scale has allowed them to invest in new technologies that keep them at the forefront of pop culture production.

The discussion guide provides context for students to understand the complexity in Dr. Zur’s video. In preparation for the video, students take and then discuss a quiz on South Korea’s popular culture. The teacher then defines key terms such as popular culture and soft power and displays charts that show how South Korea’s soft power has increased since 2000. 

Students view Dr. Zur’s video and the accompanying K-Pop music videos as homework and respond to a series of questions on the main themes of the video. During the next class period, they work in groups to develop a plan for another country to elevate its soft power by drawing on what they learned about South Korea’s success. This complex activity requires students to clearly define the factors that have led to the popularity of Korean popular culture, distinguish between the factors they believe are replicable and those that are not, and then adapt this analysis into a set of recommendations for another country that hopes to achieve the same success as South Korea. After groups present their findings to the class, the teacher concludes the lesson by asking students to predict whether South Korea will be able to maintain its soft power dominance into the future. 

The discussion guide contains a complete transcript of the video and is appropriate for advanced secondary students and university students. 

The video lecture and guide were made possible through the support of U.S. Department of Education National Resource Center funding under the auspices of Title VI, Section 602(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Amid escalating tensions between the United States and China and as the U.S. government is exploring how to further limit China's access to U.S. technology, discussions about the possibility of decoupling between the two countries have intensified. As businesses operating in China grapple with the potential consequences of decoupling, APARC’s China Program hosted a panel of executives across industries from tech, retail, and finance currently engaged in reshaping their China businesses to provide a view from the ground and consider the future of decoupling with China.

The event was the second installment in a special series celebrating APARC’s 40th anniversary. Titled Asia in 2030, APARC@40, the series highlights core areas of the center’s expertise, examines Asia’s transformation over the past four decades, and considers the drivers and shapers of the region’s future.

The panel featured Dan Brody, the managing director of Tencent Investments, who is responsible for the company’s overseas investments; Frits Van Paasschen, a change management expert, former CEO of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, and former president of EMEA at Nike; and Stuart Schonberger, a founding partner of CDH Investments, one of the leading China-focused alternative asset managers. China Program Director Jean Oi chaired the panel.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates on our events and analysis from our guest speakers >

Risks and Opportunities

Van Paasschen described his extensive experience developing strategies for expanding licensing and retail in China, which involved navigating the country's infrastructure and legal framework and, as CEO of Starwood Hotels, overseeing the construction of over 100 hotels. He ascribed his success in the country to his recognition of China’s strengths and weaknesses and his finding ways to interact positively with Chinese stakeholders.

The term decoupling is an oversimplification of the relationship between the complex Chinese and U.S. economies, said Van Paasschen. He noted that retailers in many cases are looking to sources from alternative markets to China, but that he believes there are still opportunities for investment in and co-development with China that remain unaffected by current frictions. He highlighted in this context the interplay between the U.S. and Chinese travel and tourism industries before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Schonberger, who also challenged the notion of decoupling as a misleading shorthand, emphasized the need for cognitive empathy between the world’s two great powers and understanding the motivation behind China's actions. He noted that the challenges facing China today are complex, including debt problems, real estate slowdown, and productivity stagnation, but said these are "known knowns" that the Chinese government is actively working to correct.

Schonberger sees two distinct issues facing institutional equity investors worried about China: government policies that negatively affect growth and corporate prospects, and longer-term risks arising from China's geopolitical position. For private investors who are focused on total return and can tolerate overt political pressures, China remains investable, as Chinese stocks have been some of the best performers on the public markets recently, said Schonberger. The challenges are greater, however, for public entities and bond investors who are more affected by political risk in their decisions. While the risks are higher, Schonberger's firm continues to invest in Chinese companies in multiple sectors.

Changes Underway

Brody said that China remains a key player in the global economy. As a personal anecdote, he noted that, while he makes fewer trips to the United States, he is traveling more frequently to Europe, India, Japan, and Southeast Asia. According to Brody, the extent to which the Chinese economy would be affected by international fluctuations is unclear, but he expects the country to continue its economic growth and attract foreign investors. He stated that a huge amount of value in the tech sector is still being created in America, so economically driven foreign investors in the tech sector still pay close attention to developments in Silicon Valley.

Van Paasschen, by contrast, pointed out that by decoupling with China, the United States would miss out on a generational opportunity for development and could potentially lose out to other countries. China still presents an enormous opportunity for businesses, he said, particularly in the hotel industry, given the country’s rate of urbanization. He reminded the audience that every country and region presents its own set of challenges and risks for investors. The imperative is to ensure Beijing and Washington maintain a dialogue and businesses are willing to take risks to invest in China.

Van Paasschen went on to describe how the U.S.-China political tensions are affecting business operations in various sectors. For instance, in the biotechnology sector, companies might consider protecting intellectual property and ensuring sustainability in their supply chain. In the apparel business, there is a growing concern about human rights and the opacity of the cotton supply chain. Overall, Van Paasschen sees a transition underway from a bilateral and straightforward approach to trade to a much more nuanced and complicated approach.

When asked if political tensions would affect some sectors more than others, Van Paasschen responded affirmatively. He gave the example of a sovereign wealth fund that refused to support investments in Chinese hotels because of the uncertainty zero-COVID policies had created. He also said that further uncertainty could arise from countries' reactions to China’s foreign policy stance, such as China's support of Russia in Ukraine.

What advice would the three business experts give Washington?

Van Paasschen expressed his hope the United States finds ways to avoid being reactive. Schonberger, urging policymakers to keep working towards peaceful coexistence, emphasized it would be counter-productive to frame China as an enemy. He also highlighted the importance of redundancy and efficiency in trade relationships and cautioned against overlooking the cost of decoupling, reminding the audience that engagement with China has boosted global trade, lifted millions out of poverty, and created a vibrant society.

From Brody’s perspective, predictability is crucial for business, regardless of the country one is conducting business in. He also stressed that, from a personal perspective and regardless of one’s political stance on China, the reduction in people-to-people ties between China and the United States due to recent travel restrictions is unfortunate. Ultimately, these ties have always been a net positive, and it is important to recognize their value even in the midst of tensions between the two nations. While political leaders may grapple with complex geopolitical issues, the connections between ordinary citizens remain a vital foundation for maintaining a constructive relationship. By fostering personal exchanges, the United States and China can build bridges and promote mutual understanding, even in the face of challenging circumstances.