My Take | US risks hard-won soft power by alienating Chinese students

While the US has resumed processing of student and exchange visitor visas, the future of Chinese students who are attending Harvard remains uncertain. The resumption followed a federal judge’s decision last week to temporarily block a ban on Harvard’s qualification to enroll international students. The judge set a June 16 hearing for further arguments in the case. Harvard also vowed to continue its legal battle, while working to ensure its international students and scholars can “fully” pursue their academic work. While many have highlighted how hard Chinese students have been hit by the ban, since they account for one-fifth of Harvard’s international enrollment, the visa restrictions imposed by the White House have sent mixed messages. In a phone call last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Donald Trump said the “US loves to have Chinese students coming to study in America”. Earlier, Trump said he welcomed Chinese students, but not those who caused “troubles”. It is still not clear what he meant. Some US politicians have launched fierce attacks on Harvard’s China ties, but trying to sever such links would be undesirable for the US, if not impossible. For decades, Harvard has played a significant role in helping the United States and the Western world to understand opaque Chinese politics, thanks to its distinguished scholars who are often helped by their Chinese students in their research. Such interactions have been crucial for the US to formulate sound China policies or when it has sought to reach out to Beijing. But the benefits have gone both ways. The communications between the two countries can be more rational – albeit with differences – when the US officials are advised by scholars who have spent years gaining insights on China. One example is Professor Ezra Vogel, the former director of Fairbank Centre for Chinese Studies, who is known for research on Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Apart from his research, he has also helped to organise many China-US exchanges, including former Chinese president Jiang Zemin’s visit to the US. While some US media and politicians have attacked Harvard Kennedy School for training communist cadres, it should be noted that the school was founded to improve government-business relations, as well as improving public governance by training government and business leaders from around the world. Under China’s political system, an official must join the Communist party if he or she wants to be promoted to senior ranking. As such, it is inevitable that many officials who further their studies on public administration abroad are party members. This means that Western governments and universities have a decision to make: do they want to continue to promote public governance worldwide, including China, by influencing policymakers with modern concepts of public administration, as well as helping them to be more open minded? The same case is even stronger for public health. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is known for its many collaborations with universities and policy think tanks in China. Training officials, regardless of their nationalities, to provide better public health services can be seen as contributing to humankind as a whole because public health failure in one country can easily have a global impact. For decades, an important component of US soft power has been its ability to attract talent from around the world, as well as educating international leaders and policy makers. The connections, along with the experiences of living in the US, have become an important link to build connections and goodwill among policy makers and influencers from around the world. The US is also aware of its influence and has created different platforms to promote such exchanges. The East-West Centre in Hawaii, which was established by the Congress for such a purpose, is one example. While China has been a main source of international students for the US and UK, Beijing from time to time has been wary about Western influence. But it should not be overly worried, because producing new generations with a global mindset will only help the country going forward. The US can guard its core technologies if it wishes, but if it relinquishes its status as an international education hub, other countries will try to fill the gap, and decades from now it will regret ceding this important soft power.

.css-1m2rp1p{color:#34b8b5;}My Take | US risks hard-won soft power by alienating Chinese students

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}America can guard its core technologies, but relinquishing its status as an international education hub will undermine its global influence

My Take | US risks hard-won soft power by alienating Chinese students

America can guard its core technologies, but relinquishing its status as an international education hub will undermine its global influence