Michael Pillsbury

Listened to about 2 hours of this. There are two key problems with the book.

The first is that it seems like almost all of the content depends on just one source, the author. There are a bunch of red flags in the text that point to this, like the conspiratorial language that's used, the author's insistence that other China experts don't understand Chinese nearly as well as he does (and so should be ignored), or claims that others have been successfully 'duped' by China's public statements but show more that Pillsbury has spoken to former USSR operatives and knows what's really going on. Having a single source doesn't always mean a book is problematic; philosophical or autobiographical texts tend to have this same attribute and can work fine. But when you make a bunch of claims about a nation of over a billion people based on only personal experience and a claimed better understanding of Mandarin, I think it's fair to cry foul.

The second deals with the thesis of the book. Throughout the beginning chapters, Pillsbury keeps talking about how China wants to overtake the US, how they're not OK playing second-fiddle, how China has tried to deceive the US into thinking they don't have world leader ambitions, etc. The language and tone in which the author presents these ideas is meant to evoke fear, concern, and surprise on the side of the reader. But this is totally unsurprising to me: wouldn't it make sense that China intends to be #1, especially when it has the greatest population? Becoming the world's leading power is a very reasonable long-term goal for any nation-state. Pillsbury's presentation is akin a basketball coach telling his players things like "the other team wants to beat us!" and "you don't get it, they want to be the champions, they're not OK taking second place!" I think most people would be confused that the coach would think players need to be reminded of this key attribute of any competition.

Not recommended. show less

This was a early reviewer selection. Over time, I have read and pretty much accepted traditional ideas on the philosophical difference between the Eastern and the Western mindset. Namely those ideas of the West favoring the individual and the East placing society in the favored spot. Thus I had always been skeptical of the notion that the Chinese would be able to adapt, as U. S. leaders hoped, to a Western societal/cultural model based on free enterprise and capitalism in the hands of show more independent free thinkers. This book seems to fortify my inner skeptic. Written by an American diplomatic insider, the thrust of the argument is that the Chinese Government has long regarded the U. S. Government an adversary and has never intended to emulate its model of society. Rather it intends, over the very long haul to overtake and displace the U. S. I don't have a lot of trouble agreeing with this assessment out of hand but the book makes a very good, historically backed, argument for its acceptance. show less

A very interesting read from someone who clearly knows his stuff. His main thesis is that America has been fooled by China, who has been on a path to overtake the US since the time of Nixon. And he has convincing insider information from his time as a "spy" to bring to bear. So much so that you become convinced that it may be too late for the US to do anything about it.

But there is something about how he tells his story that makes you think that perhaps he's overcompensating for the times he show more feels he was duped by China to now thinking China can do no wrong. And then you wonder if perhaps his judgment may be wrong now just as it was wrong before, and perhaps there is hope for the US. I am not convinced that present US leadership has the skills to meet the challenge. But this book has certainly made me rethink what I thought I knew about America's relations with China. show less

Michael Pillsbury has worked as a defense policy advisor since the Nixon presidency. He may even have had some responsibility for the “opening” of China and the restoration of diplomatic relations with the U.S. However, his view of China today has moved about 180 degrees and now can be considered a voice of the neo-cons and their view of China as a threat to the U.S. role as the global superpower. It is not necessarily an unwarranted view. While U.S. interests want to believe that China show more is turning into both a capitalist and democratic society, Pillsbury argues that the Politburo is controlled by the hard-right military intent on securing world domination by 2050. We are, in part, responsible for China’s resurgence as an economic power. Our consumer interests of wanting inexpensive TVs, smartphones, and other products sold cheaply at Wal-Mart have limited our ability to view China’s secret strategy. Providing new translations for Chinese language he paints a dark picture of the future. It certainly does not appear that China is any closer to democracy than it was in 1989 and its control of the Internet within its borders shows that the Chinese government continues to fear transparency and dissent. While I remained concerned about the author’s conversion, his book provides an important starting point for a discussion on our continued relations with China. show less