When Two American Analysts Lecture The Economist About China
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations
11 min read
Peter Mattis directly references CICIR as an example of think tanks he believes are fronts for intelligence services. Understanding CICIR's actual structure, history, and relationship with China's Ministry of State Security provides essential context for evaluating his claims about Chinese analysts.
-
Lu Xun
1 min read
The article quotes Lu Xun's famous satirical passage to illustrate reflexive suspicion. Understanding Lu Xun's role as China's most celebrated modern writer and social critic helps readers appreciate why this particular metaphor resonates so deeply in Chinese intellectual discourse.
-
China–United States trade war
13 min read
The article's central discussion concerns Chinese assessments that Trump 'bungled his trade war.' Understanding the actual timeline, tariffs, and economic outcomes of the 2018-2020 trade war provides necessary context for evaluating whether this Chinese assessment constitutes 'spin' or informed analysis.
David Rennie, the former Beijing bureau chief of The Economist and founding writer of its Chaguan column from May 2018 to September 2024, tweeted earlier today on his latest story:
Just spent week in Beijing talking to officials, scholars. Their msg: 2nd term Trump=opportunity for China. He’s not ideological, sees Xi as a peer, bungled his trade war and can stare down DC China hawks. But he’s unreliable, so a debate on how to use him https://www.economist.com/international/2025/11/11/beijing-insiders-plan-to-play-donald-trump
Dennis Wilder, “Sinologist, Professor Georgetown University & Texas A&M Bush School, former senior US official, former editor of the President’s Daily Brief (PDB)” quote-retweeted:
Why are Western reporters so quick to believe Chinese spin when they get “unique” access to a very few people in Beijing. Could it be that they are now only allowed to talk to those who parrot the party line?
David Rennie replied:
The column reports a line being delivered. Take it with all the salt you like, but messages are worth hearing, just as party newspapers are worth reading and speeches worth studying. I lived and worked in China for ten years in all so I am aware of the existence of a party line
Peter Mattis, President of The Jamestown Foundation and previously a long-time U.S. congressional staffer, injected himself into the discussion:
Dennis Wilder can speak for himself, but my concern is that that is nowhere in the article. These aren’t just analysts, academics, or scholars having a conversation with a reporter. You know it; I know it. But the avg Economist reader does not. It is important context often omitted. This is not to pick on you, because authors & editors the world over cut this kind of context (including in gov’t). If an analyst is from CICIR, shouldn’t we just write that they are an MSS officer with a job to influence? Same for a CFISS/CIISS “analyst” as PLA intelligence?
Before going further, it’s worth acknowledging the limits of Twitter/X as a medium. Posts there are short, reactive, and often written in the heat of the moment. People don’t always think through every implication in 280 characters, and nuance inevitably gets lost. So any interpretation of what was said should come with that important caveat.
And I may well be making a mountain out of a molehill — and may be tarred and feathered for it — but ...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.