#?
#P[80]&#A*FAmerican^ Studies^ in^ China^ #FKVol.2#FS,^ 1995/_@#a$#P[100]
#J[-100]
#T3THE NEW FRONTIER$
OF THE RESEARCH OF SINO-$
AMERICAN RELATIONS#t
#T4TAO Wenzhao#t
Tremendous progress has been made in the studies of Sino-American Н
relations since China began to carry out the reform and open policy: a Н
number of research centers and institutions have emerged: an academic Н
echelon made of old , middle -aged and young scholars has been formed; Н
research results during the period have surpassed  those in the thirty Н
years before the period in quantity; a number of questions have been Н
fairly intensively studied; many relevant national  and international Н
symposiums have been convened. In order to liaise scholars with each Н
other across the country, share information, and push forward the Н
research and teaching in the field the Society for Scholars of Sino-Н
American Relations was established in the mid- 1993 as a branch of the Н
Chinese  Association of American Studies with Professor Zi Zhongyun Н
from the Institute of American Studies under CASS as the president , Н
and Professors Wang Xi from the Fudan University, Jiang Xiangze from Н
the Zhongshang University and Wang Zhigang from the Nanjing University Н
as the vice presidents, and Prof. Tao Wenzhao from the Institute of Н
American Studies as the secretary-general. Mr. Huang Hua, the Н
erstwhile Minister of Foreign Affairs, was invited to be the honorary Н
president, and Mr.Chai Zemin and Zhu Qizhen, former ambassadors to the Н
United States, as the advisors.$
    In March 1994 the Society held its first conference in Beijing. Н
Its  theme was, instead of discussing particular historical events and Н
figures, to review the studies of  Sino-American relations  in the Н
past fifteen years, to pinpoint where we were, what we had attained, Н
where we should go, and what we should do in the future to further Н
promote the development of the discipline. Nineteen papers were Н
delivered at the conference, and a comprehensive survey was made both Н
of the studies of the various historical periods of the more than two Н
century's Sino-American relations, and the studies of their political, Н
economic, and cultural aspects. The participants unanimously agreed to Н
the achievements in the research while locating its inadequacies . The Н
major shortfall was the imbalance of research: we had done more on the Н
relations between the two countries, and less on the relations between Н
the two peoples; more on the political relationship, and less on the Н
cultural  and especially economic relationship; more on the U.S.policy Н
toward China, and less on China's policy toward the United States; we Н
had been in possession of more American materials, and less Chinese Н
ones.$
#M1The New Frontier of the Research of Sino-Aermican Relations#m
#M2American Studies in China#m
   Consensus has been reached at the conference on the following Н
points:$
   -- Sino-American relations should be studied in a bigger context of Н
international relations. The bilateral relations between China and the Н
United States have always been and are closely connected with the Н
developments of international relations. It would be impossible for Н
researchers to truly understand the development of Sino-American Н
relations without taking into account that bigger context.$К  -- Sino-American relations should be studied in connection with the Н
internal developments of both countries. A country's foreign and Н
internal affairs have always been closely connected with, influenced Н
and restricted by each other. It would be impossible to interpret Н
properly the foreign policy of either country if it is conducted in Н
isolation from its domestic policy.$
  -- Sino-American relations should be studied comprehensively, from Н
various angles, at various levels, using different approaches. We Н
should not oversimplify the complicated historical events or figures, Н
or mistake one aspect of a question as a whole picture.$
  Several proposals have been put forward at the conference:$
  -- To strengthen the ties between scholars who study current affairs Н
and those who do historical research. Political scientists and Н
historians are often separated from each other. Sometimes they despise Н
each other. By inviting both political scientists and historians, the Н
conference has  broken this invisible wall, and provided a forum for Н
them to learn from each other through discussions. The participants Н
have felt that it is unnecessary and impossible  to draw a categorical Н
line between current affairs and history.  Scholars who are doing Н
historical research should be  more concerned about the  current Н
affairs, while those who study the current affairs should be well-Н
versed in historical knowledge. Only then will they do their work Н
better.$
  -- To use the materials accessible to us as much as possible, and Н
strive for declassification of more documents.  Rapid progress has Н
been made in declassification and use of historical documents in Н
recent years. Nevertheless, the situation is far from satisfactory. Н
And this has become one of the major restrictive factors for the Н
further development of the discipline.  It has also been pointed out Н
that more efforts should  be made to make sure that more materials be Н
accessible to everybody.$
  -- To establish good academic norms.Our research is based on the Н
work already done. We all use previous research results as reference. Н
It is an honest way of doing things to state clearly what is quoted Н
and what are one's own conclusions and discoveries. But some Н
researchers do not follow this basic academic norm. It seems that he Н
or she is the first one  who has ever done the research on the topic. Н
In some articles and books the authors quote much from  foreign Н
scholars' monographs and foreign archives in their notes. But actually Н
they have not seen these materials. They  just re-quote these Н
materials from their Chinese colleagues' works. But they do not want Н
to acknowledge this. It is an unhealthy style of study, and should be Н
rectified.$
  -- To promote academic criticism. We have had  rather heated debates Н
on some particular questions in Sino-American relations. But generally Н
speaking, we still lack regular academic criticisms. And some critics Н
prefer to praise rather than  make serious and academic criticisms. Н
This kind of situation should be changed.$
   The Society and the History Department, Zhongshan University, co-Н
sponsored another conference from November 15 to 17, 1995, in the Н
Zhongshan University in Guangzhou. Its  major theme was "the United Н
States and China's modernization". More than sixty scholars across the Н
country took part in the conference, and thirty odd papers were Н
delivered there. The participants studied the relationship between the Н
United States and China's modernization from political, economic, and НКcultural perspectives.$
   Prof. Lo Rongqu from the Peking University made an overall survey Н
of the U.S. role in China' modernization. Using the theory of Н
modernization, he analyzed the process of China's social Н
transformation in modern times and the part the United States played Н
at its every stage. His general conclusion was that the U.S. had  made Н
its contributions to China's modernization, especially in the cultural Н
aspect. The U.S. introduced its values to China, providing an Н
ideological weapon to Chinese intellectuals in their struggle against Н
the traditional society; the U.S. played an important role in  the Н
establishment of the modern educational system in China; scientist and Н
the method of scientific experiments introduced from the U.S., Н
produced a profound influence on the development of modern science and Н
technology in China.$
   The participants showed great interest in political relationship Н
between the two countries as they did before.$
   -- Ms Pan Yi'ning from the Zhongshan University reexamined the Н
Anson Burlingame Mission and made a new conclusion. She asserted that Н
since the mid- nineteenth century the treaty system with the West as Н
its center gradually replaced the Cathaysian-barbarian system, and Н
China's foreign policy was compelled to change from traditional to Н
modern ones.This was the background of the Burlingame Mission. The Н
Burlingame Treaty was the first treaty between China and a western Н
country since the Opium War that was signed under relatively peaceful Н
conditions and on a reciprocal basis as its form as well as contents Н
were concerned. Objectively the treaty  pushed the Qing government Н
forward in the establishment of consulates in foreign countries and Н
protection of overseas Chinese.$
   -- Professors Li Jikui and Zhou Xingliang studied the United Н
States' attitude toward Dr. Sun Yatsen and the 1911 revolution and Н
differed in their evaluation. Prof. Zhou said that it was Sun's Н
consistent  hope that Chinese people's just struggle under his Н
leadership would get sympathy and support from the United States. But Н
to his disappointment, the U.S. government refused to do so, while Н
some of his American friends like C.E.McWilliams and Homer Lea showed Н
their sympathy with and concern about his revolutionary activities and Н
offered their help and support.Prof.Li held that the American  policy Н
toward the 1911 revolution was reasonable, and it gave no cause for Н
much criticism.$
   -- Taking the Southwestern United University as an example, Prof. Н
Wen Liming from the Institute of Modern History, CASS, examined the Н
change of the Chinese intellectuals' viewpoint on the U.S. around the Н
victory of the China's War of Resistance Against Japan. They held that Н
American political democracy could be a good example to China and Н
hoped that the U.S. would exert pressure on the Kuomintang in order to Н
accelerate China's democratization. But their hope did not come true. Н
It was the U.S. policy to support Chiang's totalitarian regime that Н
changed the Chinese intellectuals' attitude toward the U.S.$
   -- Dr. Wang Jianlang from the Institute of Modern History, CASS, Н
studied  John Leighton Stuart's attitude toward the Kuomintang Н
government in crisis and pointed out that the ambassador diligently Н
advised the Kuomintang to carry out  reform and hoped that it would be Н
saved through  a radical reform. Actually, to a government so Н
totalitarian and corrupt as the Kuomintang government, democratic Н
reforms could only speed up the process of its disintegration. НКAlthough Stuart had been living in China for several decades, he still Н
lacked true understanding of the Chinese reality such as the Н
relationship between the army and politics in China.$
   -- Ms. Xu Luhang from the Shantou University examined the part Н
played by the returned students supported by the remitted Boxer Н
Indemnity in the process of China's political democratization and Н
claimed that they used the western political theories and viewpoints Н
as their ideological weapons and basis in their criticism of the Н
autocratic rule of the Beiyang and the Kuomintang governments. Many of Н
them joined the democratic movement, and some even gave their lives.$
    -- Prof. Shi Yinhong analyzed the U.S. attitude toward China's Н
entry into the international society, dividing the process of over one Н
and half century into five stages. He concluded that while China holds Н
that international relations should be based on respect to all Н
countries' sovereignty, the United States is inclined to limit other Н
countries' sovereignty and to strengthen big power control. This is  Н
the major difference between two countries at present in this Н
question. Therefore, the problem of China's accommodation with the Н
international society is far from solved.$
   In the economic aspect a few papers concentrated on Sino-American Н
trade relations and the U.S.investment in China.$
   -- Ms. Duan Xiaohong from the Zhongshan University made her Н
evaluation of the trade between the two countries at the end of the Н
last century and the beginning of this century like this: the trade Н
had both positive and negative influence on China. On one hand, Н
China's burgeoning industry was thrown off balance by the dumping of Н
American commodities, while on the other, the trade and American Н
investment brought to China new technology and management expertise.$
   -- Prof. Hu Hanjun from the Fudan University made a review of Sino-Н
American  trade  from 1972 to 1995 and discussed three major  problems Н
that hinder the further development of the trade relations,namely, Н
trade imbalance, whether China is a country of market economy, and Н
whether China is a developing  country. He emphasized that the overall Н
framework of Sino-American relations should be fixed as soon as Н
possible, that it would not be difficult to solve these minor Н
contradictions and frictions within this framework  if the influence Н
left over by the Cold War could be eliminated.$
   -- Prof. Wang Xi and Mr. Zhang Yaohui made a rather comprehensive Н
study of the U.S. direct investment in China from 1980 to 1994 and Н
pointed out its characteristics as follows: the rapid increase, the Н
wide distribution in both geographical and professional terms, the big Н
scale, and with advanced techniques. They further concluded that to Н
attract more American investment it is necessary for China to make Н
more efforts in the following aspects: first, China's policy should be Н
stable; second,the investment in industries with high and new Н
techniques should get more preferential treatment; third, China's Н
market should be more open to foreigners; fourth, the intellectual Н
property right should be properly protected.$
   In the cultural aspect a number of papers examined the role of Н
American missionaries in China. The western missionaries, on one hand, Н
were part of the western colonial army, and they were able to get to Н
China and do their work here thanks to the privileges accorded by the Н
unequal treaties; on the other, under the particular conditions of the Н
late Qing Dynasty they played a rather important part in the Н
introduction of western knowledge into China, and their activities НКhelped  the coming into being and  development of modern education, Н
journalism and publishing industry in China. Nevertheless, the western Н
knowledge introduced by them was mixed with religious doctrines, and Н
they misled China's  modernization in the late Qing in some degree.$
   -- Prof. Liang Biying from the Zhongshan University studied John Н
Glasgow Kerr, a missionary doctor, who lived in Guangzhou from 1854 to Н
1907 when he died there. Dr. Kerr opened a clinic and a medical school Н
in Guangzhou, trained Chinese doctors and nurses, translated medical Н
books and published a medical journal. He certainly made his Н
contributions to the spread of western  medical science in China.$
   -- Prof. Zi Zhongyun  examined  the Rockefeller Foundation's Н
activities in China, such as  establishing the Peking Union Medical Н
College, providing financial support to the development of natural  Н
and social sciences in China, initiating the movement for rural Н
construction and  common people's education.  She asserted that the Н
dynamics of the foundation lay in the American idealism with American Н
elite as its guiding force and the western centrist, or even American Н
centrist. Although the foundation's activities were objectively in Н
accord with the pursuit of advanced Chinese intellectuals and the Н
progressive trends then in China, American centrist was incompatible Н
with the ever growing upsurge of national consciousness.$#E