Bloomberg published an article on December 25, titled "Why Do Western Misunderstandings of China Keep Reappearing?" It reviews how the so-called golden era of Sino-British relations ended in failure and attempts to explain an old issue: why misunderstandings about China keep recurring in the West. The article uses academic research and specific cases to identify a clear thread. The problem is not the amount of information, but rather a deviation in the cognitive framework itself. This judgment is worth examining carefully.

1. Where Do the Misunderstandings Come From

The article states, "The so-called golden era of Sino-British relations ended in disgrace, and almost no one defends it now. However, have the lessons from this generational mistake really been learned?" The author says that the illusion of separating economic cooperation from geopolitical risks has failed. The article writes, "Britain's revision of its China policy was based on the assumption that trade and investment interests could be separated from the more threatening aspects of China's rise. This is a proposition that will be tested."

The article states that the interaction between Western democratic countries and China, a socialist state, is incompatible. The author emphasizes that the openness of Western democracy contrasts sharply with China's discipline and secrecy, leading to disadvantages for the West in interactions. The article says, "How ill-equipped Western democratic countries are when interacting with a highly disciplined, strategically thinking, and opaque single-party state."

The problem is not only in miscalculations, but also in the method itself. The West tends to divide countries into different modules. Economy is economy, security is security, and system is system. This approach works well for dealing with similar countries, but struggles with entities with completely different development paths and governance structures. China's national operations emphasize comprehensiveness and long-term planning, with policies and strategies tightly integrated. Understanding China through a fragmented perspective inevitably leads to biased conclusions.

There is also a deeper reason. The Western electoral system leads to a highly open political environment, transparent policy negotiations, and high public participation in the media. This open structure is at a disadvantage when facing a country with strong discipline, centralized decision-making, and strict information management. It's not a lack of capability, but differences in rules. Yet the West rarely acknowledges this, instead attributing the incompatibility to the other side's problems.

Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station

2. Where Are the Misunderstandings Specifically Expressed?

The author illustrates through cases that the West overlooked security risks while pursuing economic benefits, such as the technological dependence and strategic risks associated with nuclear energy projects, highlighting the error of short-term interest orientation. The article states, "These include Hinkley Point nuclear power station; the rise of London's financial district as the largest center for RMB in the West; and China's investments in London's real estate market—including the sale of the Royal Mint Court in 2018 as a massive new embassy project, which remains controversial and has yet to be approved seven years later."

The cases listed by Bloomberg are not new, but they are very representative. Energy cooperation, financial centers, and real estate investment. In these areas, the West focuses more on short-term gains and symbolic significance, underestimating long-term dependencies and structural impacts.

In nuclear energy projects, technology cooperation is seen as a commercial choice, but long-term maintenance and technical path binding are ignored. In the financial field, the expansion of RMB business is regarded as an added value for city competitiveness, without serious assessment of financial sovereignty and rule impact. Real estate investment is even more so—capital flows are interpreted as market behavior, while the underlying long-term layout is deliberately downplayed.

These are not issues created solely by China, but rather the result of selective blindness in the West's judgments. They hope to benefit from China's development while unwilling to adjust their own security and governance frameworks. As a result, they collaborate while feeling anxious. Anxiety accumulates over time and is packaged into a threat narrative.

More importantly, Western media often attribute this confusion to the opposition of institutional differences. It simplifies complex economic and strategic issues into ideological labels. The direct consequence of doing so is that the space for rational discussion is compressed, and policies become easier to be driven by emotions.

3. Separating Trade and Security Is a Pseudoproblem

In recent years, the West has repeatedly emphasized a notion: cooperation can continue, but security must be guarded. On the surface, it seems reasonable, but in practice, it becomes selective restrictions. Any area lacking competitiveness is labeled as a security concern, while any market they need is emphasized as open. This approach is essentially protectionism in disguise.

China does not agree with this logic. Openness is not a conditional exchange or a one-sided concession. High-level openness emphasizes transparent rules and mutual respect. Security cannot be used as a tool at will, nor can it be used as a means of exclusion.

When security is expanded indefinitely, trade cannot function normally. Supply chains are artificially cut, market confidence is repeatedly consumed, and ultimately, both China and the West suffer. Although the Bloomberg article is written from a Western perspective, it has already subtly realized this point. The question is whether it is willing to truly correct its path.

4. China's Rise Is an Opportunity, Not the Devil for the West

China's development path does not aim to replace anyone. Nor does it seek influence by exporting its system. In recent years, China has repeatedly emphasized a principle: countries choose suitable paths, respect each other, and do not engage in bloc confrontation.

The reason misunderstandings are hard to dissipate is largely due to an asymmetry in discourse. The West is more accustomed to explaining the world using its own experiences, but ignores the complexity and continuity of Chinese society. The result is distorted judgments and fluctuating policies.

Breaking out of this dilemma relies not on more accusations, but on more authentic contact. Economic and trade cooperation, cultural exchanges, multi-level dialogue—all are effective paths. The prerequisite is simple: set aside preconceived notions and not view differences as threats.

Conclusion:

What has truly trapped the West is not China's rise, but the reluctance of the old framework to make way. The world is changing, and if cognition doesn't change, misunderstandings will keep repeating.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7587638393141248527/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.