Who is Jin Canrong?Public figures in China seem to be domestically coming around to this perspective.
Coincidentally, an interview with Jin Canrong today talked around this subject:
We must avoid a hot war, this is a principle; at the same time, we must do our best to avoid a new cold war that will greatly harm the interests of both sides, but there are objective contradictions between the two sides, so I emphasize playing the clear card.
To play the clear card, we must first change the thinking of keeping a low profile.
Keeping a low profile at the moment is a kind of thinking that avoids reality. It has a logical error in thinking that as long as China doesn't say it, the US doesn't know. In fact, the strategic capabilities of the United States are still very good. It makes no difference whether you say it or not. It knows all about it. As I have said repeatedly, strategic research is particularly taboo to assume that you are smarter than your opponents, that you can deceive others, and you are easy to lose. Thinking of yourself as smart, always thinking about hiding and hiding things, this is not acceptable.
Keeping a low profile and keeping a low profile is regarded by many scholars and decision-makers as a permanent policy. In fact, it is only a product of a very special background. It has played some roles under very special conditions. Now that those conditions are gone, this strategic thinking will naturally change. .
On diplomatic rhetoric:
I am still thinking about this question, so the answer may not be mature. At the strategic level, we need to change the thinking of keeping a low profile and keep a low profile. At the technical level, we should be transparent. For example, military capabilities, industrial science and technology forces should be more transparent, and some diplomatic intentions should be clearer.
Some of the diplomacy we have launched is definitely based on China's national interests, but we need to be more transparent. In the exchanges between China and foreign countries, we have a problem, that is, there are too many clichés. Some of the words we say now are relatively empty, and people don’t believe them very much.
Scholars should also reflect on this point. Scholars today have several problems, one of which is that they always speak big words and clichés, and repeat the official language repeatedly. This is not acceptable. Scholars have to speak in their own words, otherwise there will be no convincing both internally and externally.
In addition, some vernacular or issues that can be explained clearly are deliberately described in a particularly obscure and advanced manner; and only by speaking such obscure words can one enter certain small groups, which is actually a kind of academic corruption. These are all things that need to change.
(Machine translated, full interview here: )
