What a Debate on Systems Has Left for Thinkers

By Li Fangfang

A recent debate held by two conservative- leaning education nonprofit organizations， in Cambridge， Massachusetts， the U.S.， drew an audience from around the state and beyond on April 5. The subject of the debate： “Is the Chinese system better than the American/ European one at providing stability， prosperity and freedom？” The debate pitted Adrian Zenz， who claims to be an “independent researcher”with a particular interest in China—especially Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region， against French entrepreneur and Twitter influencer Arnaud Bertrand.

In introducing the context for the debate， the moderator said American and Western supremacy is in doubt today as the peaceful rise of China has launched a great power competitor onto the world stage. “As antagonisms between the systems increase， we must ask which will forge a better future for its people and the world.”

Having lived and worked in China for seven years， new generation China-watcher Bertrand has amassed more than 100，000 followers on Twitter， largely due to his timely and in-depth insights on China and international affairs. Having a good grounding in Chinese philosophy， he provides the Chinese cultural and historical context necessary to accurately understand the country， which allows him to offer informed and nuanced responses to China critics.

A vote by the audience at the conclusion of the debate decided that the Chinese system is better than the American/European system at providing stability， prosperity and freedom.

In a post-debate discussion with Beijing Review on April 18 （scan the QR code on this page to watch）， John Pang， a former Malaysian government official and a senior fellow with the Perak Academy， said he found it unusual that Bertrand， who has pro-China viewpoints， was given a voice in U.S. academic circles.

“I drove three hours plus， and the reason was： ‘Wow！ Are they willing to put someone like Arnaud on？ And he was given a good hearing and， of course， as it turned out， he won the debate，” Pang told Beijing Review.

During the post-debate discussion， Bertrand said he thought the reason he was approached was that the organizers wanted to focus more on philosophical discussion， given there have been so many geopolitical debates on China.

“This was actually an unusual crowd， an interesting crowd. And it was striking that people were listening despite the horrendous anti-China rhetoric and propaganda that weve undergone，” Pang said.

“The very fact of the debate was extremely striking. That is， its unusual to have debates in the U.S. where a representative of the pro-China position is given an equal platform with figures like Adrian Zenz，” said Adrian Vermeule， professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School， who also joined the post-debate discussion.

“Its interesting that theres a small but growing reality on， especially， the American right， surprisingly， in which people are open to hearing Chinese perspectives，” Vermeule said.

Responses to the debate

Bertrand started his speech with the disclaimer that political systems cannot be universally compared since each system uniquely grows from the countrys own history and the economic and geopolitical context it is in. He then presented his argument by elaborating on Chinas practice of freedom， stability and prosperity based on rich quotation of international statistics and his experience on the ground （scan the QR code on the following page to read a transcript）.

Prior to and during the debate， it was expected Zenz would champion Americas system of governance and point out its virtues， but instead， he focused his efforts on attempting to discredit communism and the Chinese Government.

“He focused his entire side of the debate on the long litany of beefs he has with China， either drawn from his own reports that he himself wrote， or whatever he wrote in Western media， so it was like ‘China is bad because of… but that wasnt the point of the debate at all，” Bertrand told Beijing Review.

Pang found it no surprise that Zenzs arguments closely matched the all-too-familiar anti-China rhetoric： “Theyre fairly generic in the group of people I like to call ‘China watchers and they were sort of all-purpose. They could have been brought out at any time for any occasion and these are your standard set of arguments.”

What bewildered Bertrand and the audience was that sometimes Zenzs opinions seemed contradictory to his role in this debate.

“Many people told me after the debate that Adrian Zenz didnt even defend his side of the debate，” Bertrand said. “What he had to do is explain why the U.S. and European system had even bigger merits for their own populations. And he didnt even touch on that at all.”

In the brief moments when Zenz did appear to defend Western governance， his arguments were self-contradictory. For example， he said， “The United States at the moment is a particular case where this resilience [of the system] is to some extent in danger and so it may not be the best case of liberal democracy.”

“He [Zenz] said nothing at all about comparisons to the American system or the Western European system， perhaps because he realized that， at least in 2023， that wasnt his strongest terrain，” Vermeule said.

Beyond Zenz

Pang said that while Zenzs ideas may not have academic merit， they do influence U.S. opinions on China. “I dont know that Zenzs research is taken seriously in American academia，” Pang said. “But it is taken seriously in the entire complex... a sort of national security complex， so discourse on China.”

“Just a reminder that the foundation he works for was actually created by an act of Congress in 1993. So it stems from the American Government and produces seemingly independent ‘research which the government uses as justification for hostile acts against China.”

Vermeule provided further context for the phenomenon of Zenzs fame.“The complex pushes a very particular project. Its a universalist， liberal and democratic human rights project that tries to impose a very particular model on every society and every people around the globe.”

“This debate that Arnaud participated in is in a kind of semi-dissident space. Its on whats called the so-called ‘new right in America， which is a movement， a set of groups， that are somewhat skeptical of this liberal， democratic human rights project， skeptical of liberalism， skeptical that there needs to be one model imposed on every society around the globe. And that feels that the Chinese model is something that we can learn from，” Vermeule said.

“I just want to emphasize ‘new right is maybe a misnomer， because its as much ‘old left as‘new right. Its an outlook that is favorable to a social state of welfare state that is skeptical of liberal imperialism and foreign policy. Its the sort of thing that you might have seen on the British or American lefts in the 1930s for example. So its the reappearance in American public life， of an older view that was more or less stamped out under neoliberalism and neo-conservatism， but its making a kind of return，” Vermeule said.

“So in that sense， the growth of the American‘new right is opening up a kind of space for internal dissent in American academia and public life. And its a fascinating development to me，”Vermeule said.

One debate will probably change nothing on the path to the truth， but it brings hope to people who know that many U.S. mainstream views on China are inaccurate and who believe facts speak louder than words.

“As a serious， intellectually honest person， you need to be neutral and say ‘I dont have any preconceived view. Let me see what the truth， what the data says，”Bertrand said. BR