Bertrand: China Beyond Communism, Preparing for a Post-CCP Era

A Deep Dive into the Hudson Institute's Controversial Report

The recent publication by the Hudson Institute, titled China after Communism: Preparing for a Post-CCP China, has sparked intense debate due to its radical and controversial approach. This 128-page document, edited by Miles Yu, director of the Institute's China Centre, outlines a detailed plan aimed at dismantling the Chinese regime through various means, including information operations, financial warfare, and covert influence campaigns. It even goes as far as suggesting post-collapse management strategies such as military occupation, territorial reorganization, and the establishment of a political system aligned with U.S. interests.

This report is not just an academic exercise; it reflects a broader mindset within certain circles of American strategic thinking. The arrogance displayed in the document is staggering, especially considering the global economic significance of China. As the world’s largest economy and a major economic lifeline for much of the planet, China represents a complex and formidable challenge. Yet, the report seems to treat this reality with a casual disregard that is both alarming and bewildering.

The Sick Soul of the American Empire

What makes this report particularly fascinating is how it exposes the inner workings of what some might call the "sick soul" of the American empire. It reveals a deep-seated detachment from reality, an inability to learn from past failures, and a zero-sum worldview that continues to shape American foreign policy. The report also highlights a denial of sovereignty in other nations, which is a recurring theme in U.S. geopolitical strategy.

Political sociologists have long observed a pattern where groups facing existential threats often exhibit compensatory extremism. This phenomenon can be seen in historical examples like the Southern Confederacy before the Civil War, which became more fanatically committed to slavery as a response to growing abolitionist pressure. In a similar vein, the Hudson Institute report reads like a grotesque caricature of American imperial ambitions, amplifying toxic aspects of U.S. foreign policy to absurd extremes.

Core Criticisms of the Report

One of the most glaring issues with the report is its misreading of Chinese history and national identity. It assumes that Chinese citizens are eager for U.S.-led 'liberation' from the Communist Party, which is a complete misunderstanding of the Chinese national psyche. The idea that the Chinese people are waiting for the collapse of the Communist Party is not only incorrect but also insulting.

Another major criticism is the report’s advocacy of hyper-colonialism. The proposed measures go beyond traditional colonial practices, suggesting a form of colonialism on steroids. This approach is not only ethically questionable but also historically regressive, as it echoes the worst aspects of 19th-century imperialism.

The document also instrumentalizes ethnic tensions by suggesting the use of separatist movements for American geopolitical gain. This approach reduces complex social dynamics to mere tools for achieving strategic objectives, ignoring the potential consequences for the region.

Vision of 'Controlled Fragmentation'

The report’s vision of 'controlled fragmentation' is equally troubling. It aims to create an 'ideal point' of permanent subordination for China, which is a clear indication of the report’s imperialistic ambitions. This vision is rooted in a technocratic blueprint for rebuilding Chinese society, which is seen as hubris of the highest order. The notion that a relatively young nation like the United States could teach governance to a civilization with a 5,000-year history is not only arrogant but also unrealistic.

The author points out the failures of U.S. nation-building efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as evidence of the folly of such approaches. These failures highlight the challenges of imposing foreign systems on diverse and complex societies.

Projection and Delusion

The report’s accusations against China—such as coercion, corruption, and economic fragility—seem to mirror the very traits that the U.S. itself exhibits. This projection is a classic example of delusion, where the accuser becomes the accused. The report describes a "rogue world state" as China, yet it is the U.S. that often embodies these characteristics.

In contrast, China’s approach to international relations is based on principles of mutual respect and non-interference, which stands in stark contrast to the interventionist policies outlined in the report.

Final Judgment

Ultimately, the author sees the report as a reflection of imperial nostalgia and delusion. It serves as evidence that American strategists struggle to accept decline and continue to pursue imperial ambitions without pretense. The report may have accidentally produced the most honest document ever written about the American empire, revealing its true nature in all its complexity.

Arnaud Bertrand, an entrepreneur and China analyst, brings a unique perspective to this discussion. He is the founder of HouseTrip, a leading European vacation rental marketplace, and the founder and CEO of Me & Qi, a premier English-language platform for Traditional Chinese Medicine. Bertrand is also a graduate and honorary professor of Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne in Switzerland. His insights into the complexities of China and U.S. relations offer a valuable counterpoint to the simplistic narratives often found in reports like this one.