By Sanxuan

The times have changed. In the past, it was Chinese people who needed to learn English from a young age, but now it's Americans who need to start learning Chinese from childhood.

Recently, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China released a report, which included the following statement: It is recommended that Congress increase funding and open more Chinese courses in American primary and secondary schools.

U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China

As the name suggests, this so-called Executive Commission on China is clearly aimed at China. Indeed, they spend their time studying how to deal with China.

A little-known fact: When the current U.S. Secretary of State Rubio was sanctioned by China, he was serving on this commission. It's no exaggeration to say that this is a notorious anti-China organization, gathering the most anti-China people in the U.S. Congress.

So the question arises, if this organization's main responsibility is to be anti-China, why does it propose vigorously promoting Chinese education in American primary and secondary schools?

The reason is simple. These anti-China legislators see China as their biggest enemy, and the most basic prerequisite for defeating an enemy is to understand it thoroughly.

A Chinese teacher teaching Chinese to American children

U.S. politicians have been studying China for days, starting from the Obama era. At that time, China had already shown its strength, but the United States had not yet lost its power, so the U.S. study of China was more out of caution, unlike today's confrontational approach.

During the Obama era, there was also a brief wave of learning Chinese in American schools, because China was on the rise at that time, and Sino-U.S. relations could be considered friendly. Many Americans came to China to make money and develop the market. For them, Chinese was a very useful foreign language, just like we started learning English.

Later events are well known. Since Trump first took office, Sino-U.S. relations deteriorated rapidly. It wasn't that Trump was more anti-China than Obama, but rather because China had become very strong at that time, making the U.S. unable to sit idle while China continued to rise. So Trump tried every means to contain China's development.

Trump and Rubio

Under Biden, the U.S. increased its sanctions against China, and the Democrats were better at stoking public opinion, demonizing China. It was during this period that the Chinese people truly felt that U.S. politicians couldn't speak without China.

Under the deliberate guidance of the U.S. government, even though many Americans didn't know where China was on the map, they still inevitably developed a negative impression of China.

At the same time, the political environment and social atmosphere in the U.S. made cultural and academic exchanges between the two countries increasingly difficult. Offering Chinese education in the U.S. became a politically incorrect act.

This is also why the U.S. Congress specifically proposed in its annual report to increase Chinese courses, not only to give a show of improving Sino-U.S. relations, but the real reason is to cultivate a group of local "China experts" in the U.S., so that they can study China more thoroughly and target their strategies against China more effectively.

Compared to English, Chinese is much more difficult

No wonder U.S. politicians have such ideas. After all, the so-called "China experts" previously hired by the U.S. were basically just eating their salary, being active in anti-China efforts, but lacking genuine expertise. Moreover, due to being away from China for too long, they don't understand China well, and are easily identified by Chinese netizens.

In desperation, the U.S. has to cultivate a group of native talent who are proficient in Chinese, aiming to "learn from the Chinese to control the Chinese." As for the effect, it's hard to tell in the short term. Whether this project can be implemented before Trump leaves office is itself a problem.



Original: toutiao.com/article/7583246260774191626/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.