RadioEd co-host Jordyn Reiland chats with Assistant Professor Ajenai Clemmons about community policing and what people need to both be safe and feel safe. Listen to their interview here.

What makes you feel safe? Is it a familiar voice on the phone, a particular place, friends or family by your side, your spiritual beliefs or even a favorite blanket?

What about a person outside your personal circle, like a paramedic, a lifeguard, a firefighter or a police officer?

20-year-old Joseph said that people should feel safe around police officers, but that isn’t always the case in Durham, North Carolina—where he lives—and elsewhere.

He says, “I think that police officers almost have to have a—not necessarily nurturing aspect, but kind of like a—sense of safety about them. Because you should feel safe around police officers, you know? I don’t necessarily know how to put that in a word, but I think that you should definitely just feel safe around police officers.”

So how can police departments increase safety and earn trust in the communities where they work?

University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons’ research answers these questions that can extend beyond North Carolina.

On this episode of RadioEd, co-host Jordyn Reiland chats with Clemmons about how the men she interviewed made sense of policing in their neighborhood—and what they needed to both be safe and feel safe.

Clemmons is an assistant professor of public policy at the Scrivner Institute. She researches the policing of marginalized communities in democratic contexts, particularly the United States and Europe. She teaches courses on the politics of the policymaking process, intersectional inequality, as well as state violence and local security.

More Information:

What the Durham Police Department Can Do to Enhance Safety and Earn Trust

Transcript

RadioEd S5E3: 

Guest: Ajenai Clemmons, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Scrivner Institute

Jordyn Reiland (00:04)

You're listening to RadioEd, the University of Denver podcast. I'm your host Jordyn Reiland.

What makes you feel safe? Is it a familiar voice on the phone, a particular place, friends or family by your side, your spiritual beliefs or even a favorite blanket?

What about a person outside your personal circle, like a paramedic, a lifeguard, a firefighter or a police officer?

20-year-old Joseph said that people should feel safe around police officers, but that isn’t always the case in Durham, North Carolina — where he lives — and elsewhere.

He says, “I think that police officers almost have to have a—not necessarily nurturing aspect, but kind of like a—sense of safety about them. Because you should feel safe around police officers, you know? I don’t necessarily know how to put that in a word, but I think that you should definitely just feel safe around police officers.”

So how can police departments increase safety and earn trust in the communities where they work?

University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons’ research answers these questions that can extend beyond North Carolina.

Clemmons’ work around policing began in 2004 when she worked as a Community Relations Ombudsman in Denver. During that time Clemmons helped create a new government agency called the Office of the Independent Monitor.

Ajenai Clemmons (01:24) 

This was in response to some very high-profile incidents, some officer-involved deaths of civilians in Denver and so the city, the citizens rose up. The city came together across all agencies and volunteers from the community as well, to study new systems of civilian oversight that could improve transparency and accountability for public safety in Denver.

Jordyn Reiland (01:49)

The role of the Office of the Independent Monitor allows for an outside party to ensure law enforcement investigations are fair, thorough and timely and that any discipline is reasonable and appropriate.

Civilian oversight of law enforcement is something that's been around for some decades now, but it looks different in every city. Civilian commissions or boards exist in cities throughout the country including Los Angeles, Chicago, Kansas City, Missouri and Detroit.

Clemmons also spent time in Washington, D.C. between 2010 and 2015, where she was the policy director for a national professional association of Black state legislators.

At that time there were a series of high-profile shootings across the country, including Travyon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and Freddie Gray.

Clemmons’ interest in policing of marginalized communities only grew from there.

In 2018 until just before the onset of the pandemic, she conducted in-depth interviews with 18- to 29-year-old African American men—like 20-year-old Joseph, who we heard from earlier. These men lived in the most economically distressed, high violent crime areas in Durham.

Clemmons’ work sought to understand how they made sense of policing in their neighborhood — and what they needed to both be safe and feel safe.

She acknowledged the challenges of conducting this type of research in the community and wanted to find ways to ensure people felt the most comfortable sharing their thoughts — positive or negative.

Ajenai Clemmons (03:10)

I went out on foot into these neighborhoods and recruited them. I was in barber shops, I was on basketball courts talking to young men during halftime and trying to pull them aside to see if they were interested in my study. I was hitting the streets. So we did these interviews in a private location. I wanted them to be confidential so that people could be candid. These are very complex feelings that people have, and I wanted them to feel that they could be vulnerable, that they could feel comfortable to be fully honest about whether their experiences were negative, whether they were positive or whether they were neutral, that they would have the full range to discuss whatever they wanted. I was very honored that they were so forthcoming. And they didn't sugar coat anything, and they didn't hold back. And it wasn't just..they were also self-reflective. They talked about what their experiences were like as kids, as youth, as teenagers, you know, being angry, whether they had a chip on their shoulder or not, or whether they were trying to stay out of trouble, and the kinds of ways that they... the kinds of things that they did to keep themselves safe.

Interlude

Jordyn Reiland (04:44)

Why don't people trust the police?

Ajenai Clemmons (04:46)

Yeah, this is a very big question. It's simple, but it's actually complex in a lot of ways. So in a nutshell, people don't trust police when they feel like they're not doing their jobs. They trust police when they feel under policed, when they feel that police are not competent, and I'll talk about that in a second. And they also feel they don't trust police. When they feel that police are being abusive and they're harming them. So they're sort of over policed, right? So these are the neighborhoods that I study. I literally study neighborhoods that are considered by their residents to be over policed and under policed. So in these communities, there's this intense police presence. Residents are stopped on foot or in their vehicles in a way they describe as constant, intrusive and harassing. They describe many officers as quick to accuse them of wrongdoing, right to curse at them and to use unnecessary and excessive force. Yet in these same neighborhoods, in spite of all the police activity going on, they still face high levels of crime, right? And that includes violent crime, and so this causes stress and insecurity on their part. So there's this sense that you know there are all these police around, but they're not there when you need them, right, or they're not in the right spots or focused on the right priorities, or they don't care about us.

When people feel abandoned and neglected, sometimes they distance themselves in return. And so it goes beyond this sense of trust or mistrust, it can breed legal cynicism. And cynicism is this orientation in which the law and agents of its enforcement, like the police and courts, are viewed as illegitimate. They're viewed as unresponsive and ill-equipped to ensure public safety, and that's a definition from Kirk and Papachristos. So it is very much a sense of feeling alienated. And that can go beyond police. It can extend to the judicial system writ large. But when this happens, when people don't trust police anymore and they are cynical toward them, it's rational from the perspective of looking at an individual, but it actually harms the community as a whole, because what happens is that people won't report crime as much, right? They won't cooperate with investigations, they won't serve as witnesses in the court of law as readily, and this can make it very hard to bring people who commit crimes to justice, and I'm not talking about, you know, unserious crimes. I'm talking about serious crimes. And so, you know, these folks are not held accountable, and they are, in fact, making the community less safe. And then this further breeds the cynicism. It's a vicious cycle, because then people see folks running around who are threatening the community, and so then they even feel further alienated, as they feel that the police don't care about them.

Jordyn Reiland (07:55)

Wow, that must be so challenging, and it kind of alludes to what you were talking about with the different meanings and thoughts about safety. And I think you said feeling safe and being safe, if that's correct. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Ajenai Clemmons (08:11)

So in general, a lot of people assume that if crime numbers go down, then they will feel more safe, and that's actually not true. The perception of safety is completely independent of whether or not you are safe or your risk level. So crime went down for years, decades even, and people's assessment of the risk of crime really hasn't changed. And sometimes it went up, even though the crime was going down, depending on where you were. So those are two different things, and it actually makes police, their job tougher, because they do have that accountability of bringing down the crime levels. But then people can feel that way regardless. And so then they have to dedicate some considerable resources to making people feel safer.

In this context, though, there really is unacceptable levels of violent crime and so even though it's a tiny proportion of the population that's carrying it out, it is significant. And in a lot of it, there are innocent bystanders that get caught in the middle. And in fact, out of the men that I interviewed, eight had been shot at least once, and four of those were folks who were caught in the crossfire who didn't have any idea who the shooter was or were mistaken by the shooter for someone else. And then additional men that I interviewed who literally were at a bus stop, waiting for their bus to arrive to go to work, and ended up having to dive for cover as bullets whizzed past them, because somebody saw somebody that they had been looking for, and then, just without regard to the circumstances, just opened fire. So there really is an extraordinary level of risk in these particular neighborhoods, and so it is important for people to both be safer and to feel safer, and so I wanted to make sure that I was being intentional in pulling out those two things in the interviews.

Jordyn Reiland (10:36)

One question that you asked stood out to me, and you said, “If you had a magic wand and could make a perfect interaction happen between an officer and a civilian, what would you do?” And you said you can choose any scenario. Did any of those answers surprise you?

Ajenai Clemmons (10:52)

On the whole, most answers tried to find some sort of win-win. They tried to find some sort of reconciliation between both parties and ensure that that was a positive interaction. And so it wasn't the case that most people's first thought was to just take care of the needs of the civilian. That in that perfect scenario, they really did seek a win-win. And so I was struck by that. A lot of the men did use their wishes to also undo the deaths of the men who had been killed that we talked about earlier, those high-profile deaths that had happened across the country, there was a recognition of that. And it was something that all but one interview we related to on some level, that they could see themselves in those men who had died, or in those people who had died. We certainly want to take into account the women who have been killed as well. So they actually use their magic wand to undo those deaths and to undo the harms that have happened.

Jordyn Reiland (12:10)

You highlight five themes that emerged as the most desired characteristics for officers, including those who are just communicative, invested composed and discerning and adaptive in their decision making. Can you paint a picture for me of the ideal police officer?

Ajenai Clemmons (12:30)

There is not one person that I spoke with who thought that being a police officer was an easy job. Folks were very quick to say it is a hard job. Not everybody should be a police officer, there are a lot of things to manage. It was about being constitutional. People were clear about that. It was making sure that you're observing people's rights, that people are innocent until proven guilty—that officers are truly just in how they enforce the law.

But it goes beyond that. Really, they wanted officers to have integrity. They wanted officers to be good people. And I think this is because this is really the most powerful person in their lives. They're the only person who can literally take life. And so it is important then that people who hold the most amount of power are actually good and righteous, and because you don't have the opportunity to see officers outside of these sort of emergency situations, or time pressure situations, you need other opportunities to observe their behavior, to know if they're trustworthy, right? To know if you can bring confidential information to them, to know whether they will keep confidence and so this is where you know they wanted to see officers' character on display. How do you do that? Well, they got to get in the community. They’ve got to get involved.

Jordyn Reiland (14:14)

Clemmons said that what surprised her about her research in Durham was people’s inherent desire to have a connection and a relationship with law enforcement.

Ajenai Clemmons (14:22) 

Now maybe because they can't tell who's a safe officer and who's not a safe officer, and because there's so much unpredictability that is possible in those interactions, having positive encounters and having incredibly scary negative encounters, the safer thing to do could be to avoid police. To try to minimize the possibility of an experience, right? To keep a low profile.

But that ideally in their heart of hearts, many wished that they could just casually walk up to a police officer, say hi, chat, check in, or have that police officer do the same. That in their ideal world, that's what the general relationship would be between the police and the community. That you would see officers jumping in and playing double dutch, or joining in a pickup game of basketball or guiding a young person and talking to them about healthy life choices that those officers would be leading by example, that they would be a fabric of the community, that they would be rolling up their sleeves, and serving food and soup kitchens. And so there were so many ways that they saw police as able to be a force for good that I didn't expect. I didn't expect that level of specificity and of richness and of desire in elevating, actually, the importance and the impact that officers could have.

I also want to add a quote that I think exemplifies this desire for a better relationship and what it would take in order for officers to build trust in the community. So I named this interviewee, Marcus, and he's 25. This is what he says:

“Get police to come out here in these neighborhoods where a lot of these people are getting shot and killed and do something. Make a difference. Go drop off flowers at some of these people's graves. Act like a human being. You want the community to trust you? Do something for the community. Communication. Do a fundraiser. Do a get together, throw a police parade, you know? How many cops are out here, genuinely just to protect and serve? If, instead of judging us, officers would be more prone to trying to get to know the people they see every day, we wouldn't have so many problems with law enforcement and young black men in the communities. Pull up to the basketball court, play some ball with us. Throw a football with us. They're all frisbee for all I care. But do something."

Jordyn Reiland (17:15)

Yeah that really gets to the heart of that aspect of trust building and community involvement and really harkens back to just wanting to have that dual interaction.

Ajenai Clemmons (17:28)

You know, sometimes we can overthink what it would take for officers to create connections. But the desire is already there. It just needs an opportunity to be tapped into. And so it can be so many simple little things that officers can do to connect with folks in a way that's authentic, in a way that's joyful, to have that organic experience. And so those are the things that I'll be researching in the future and working on – like matching officers, even, with opportunities to connect and in activities like anything from this basketball or something sports, to arts and crafts and music, and all sorts of things that young people and officers could take a joint interest in.

Jordyn Reiland (18:24)

Clemmons posed a question that went beyond policing and asked participants if they could have the full attention and concern of anyone in power to fix or improve anything in their life, what would it be?

Here’s one response that really stuck with her.

Ajenai Clemmons (18:37)

This is a quote that really moved me. This is from a young man, Joseph, who's 20 years old, and he said:

“I would tell politicians to more so hear the letter, not the law, of what's being said, and to try to understand people's feelings, not just what they're saying. What comes out of their mouth is ultimately influenced by how they feel. So, if you can understand how someone feels, then you're more so to meet their expectations, not just do what they tell you to do. To say it in other words, when you understand how someone feels, you're more so to not necessarily make the same mistake again, if they understand how we feel when they're reading the analysis and not just see what we're saying, but see in what we are saying, like how we feel, it would help them to make better decisions about how to accommodate what we're saying.”

This is at the heart of what I am trying to do as a researcher, is certainly capture their words, but also pair that with their underlying emotions to capture how they feel, so that when I'm sharing my findings and evidence with policy makers, that they're able to see both. That they're able to see the words, read the words, hear the words, but also understand what's behind that, what's underlying that, that subtext, so that they can properly receive that, understand it and then try to address it in the most appropriate way.

Interlude

Jordyn Reiland (20:29) 

Now you write that, in addition to the work that you've done in Durham, at least hundreds, if not thousands of jurisdictions across the country would also be well served by participants' insights and calls for action. How does your work translate beyond North Carolina?

Ajenai Clemmons (20:44)

In terms of the policy recommendations that come out of this report, it is the relationship building. It's also the transparency. It's also the accountability. I mean, if you're not cleaning up things and making it better, if you're not resolving the problems that you know exist in your department, then you're not going to improve that relationship. So, there are many... the hiring, the recruitment, the policies that are in place, the accountability to make sure that those policies are being adhered to, the training and that follow up with the relationship building are all key.

And in Denver, we're fortunate that Police Chief Ron Thomas has taken an interest in this work as well, and so he has already taken many steps in his short—he just recently took over, was appointed relatively recently, and has already started implementing more community outreach programs. And so has asked me to advise on what implementation would look like. And so my colleague Kate Sims and I are working on that with the police department. So, we'll be rolling out a program and evaluating that and measuring and seeing what works, what doesn't work and how to improve upon that. And I think it's commendable, to see a chief that is deeply interested in the evidence base and being a willing partner in the research process to see what can work and how to improve and make things better.

Jordyn Reiland (22:37) 

This report is based on interviews that concluded in March 2020 and a lot has happened in the United States as it relates to policing since that time. How do you think about these findings in 2024?

Ajenai Clemmons (22:49)

I believe the findings are still very much relevant in 2024. In the interviews, which ended in March, which ended at the at the onset of the pandemic, the men were very vocal about the deaths that preceded George Floyd, which happened three months after I ended the interviews And so they related very much to the men that they had seen, the people that they had seen in the media. They were concerned about that, they used their magic wand and one of my questions to undo their deaths. So, this was at the forefront. It was something that they thought about when they got pulled over by police. So, George Floyd was not new, in other words, sadly. It was not new to them at all. And so in that sense, I think that the findings still stand.

There have been some researchers that have found in terms of behaviors, like, for example, calling the police to report a crime, that those can be temporarily affected by high profile, very disturbing incidents, but that with time, the behaviors return to normal. And so there's a sort of eventual kind of snap back effect, for lack of a better term, that happens. So whether it's reporting crime, whether it's their likelihood of cooperating with investigations, or avoiding police – whatever police behaviors they had before, whether they were avoiding them, whether they were cooperating with them, all of that, I think, is still relevant. There haven't been a ton of reforms that have happened across the country, not in any kind of systematic way. And so the concerns that they have are still very much present in most jurisdictions, and to the extent that some things were done, not nearly enough, as far as they would be concerned, so the problem is still there. The concerns are still there, and what they were calling for still remains. So yeah, I mean taking all that into account, would say that the findings still stand.

Jordyn Reiland (25:33)

A big thanks to our guest, University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons. More information on her work can be found in our show notes. If you enjoyed this episode, I encourage you to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Music or Spotify, and if you really liked it, leave us a review and rate our work. It really helps us reach a larger audience and grow the pod.

Joy Hamilton is our Managing Editor, Madeleine Lebovic is our production assistant and musical genius, and James Swearingin arranged our theme. I'm Jordyn Reiland and this is RadioEd.

Article written by Jordyn Reiland.

RadioEd is a biweekly podcast created by the DU Newsroom that taps into the University of Denver’s deep pool of bright brains to explore new takes on today’s top stories. See below for a transcript of this episode.

Lions and tigers and panda bears, oh my! By the end of the year, all of the United States’ giant pandas will be returned to China. But why?

In this episode, Emma tackles the current state of U.S.-China relations with the help of Suisheng Zhao, a University of Denver professor and the executive director of the Center for China-U.S. Cooperation in the Korbel School of International Studies. Emma also examines the future of the relationship between the two world powers with Collin Meisel, the associate director of Geopolitical Analysis at the Pardee Center for International Futures.

Show Notes:

Suisheng Zhao is a professor and Director of the Center for China-U.S. Cooperation at Josef Korbel School of International Studies. He is a founding editor of the Journal of Contemporary China, and a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Committee of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific. Zhao received his Ph.D. degree in political science from the University of California-San Diego, M.A. degree in Sociology from the University of Missouri and BA and M.A. degrees in economics from Peking University. He is the author and editor of more than ten books and his articles have appeared in Political Science Quarterly, The Wilson Quarterly, Washington Quarterly and more.

Collin Meisel is the Associate Director of Geopolitical Analysis at the Pardee Center. He is also a subject matter expert at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and a Nonresident Fellow with the Strategic Foresight Hub at the Stimson Center. Meisel’s research focuses on international interactions and the measurement of the depth and breadth of political, diplomatic, economic, and security ties between countries as they have and are projected to evolve across long time horizons. Meisel is a U.S. Air Force veteran. He holds a Master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University. His research has been published in the Journal of Contemporary China, Journal of Peace Research, and Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, and his commentary has been published by Defense One, The Hill, the Modern War Institute at West Point, and War on the Rocks, among other outlets.

More Information:

“Say goodbye to the pandas: All black-and-white bears on US soil set to return to China”

“Smithsonian’s National Zoo Hosts Panda Palooza: A Giant Farewell, Sept. 23 to Oct. 1”

Council on Foreign Relations: “U.S.-China Relations Timeline”

Council on Foreign Relations: “Why China-Taiwan Relations Are So Tense”

Listen and Subscribe

iTunes

Spotify

Stitcher

PlayerFM

Transcript

Emma Atkinson:

You're listening to RadioEd, the University of Denver podcast. I’m your host, Emma Atkinson.

It’s a bear bummer. A mammal misfortune. A panda predicament.

You know what I’m talking about? By the end of this year, all of the giant panda bears loaned to U.S. zoos by the Chinese government will return to China.

The move will leave the U.S. panda-less for the first time since 1972.

And people are pissed! They’re sad to see the sweet, bumbling bears go. Who wouldn’t be? The National Zoo in Washington, D.C. hosted a “panda-palooza” event last month, a goodbye party of sorts for their three pandas.

According to the Smithsonian, the study of giant pandas at the National Zoo has produced invaluable information about panda nutrition, behavior, genetics and more. The care of pandas by zookeepers there has even served as a model for the management of other endangered species.

So why is this happening? Why now? It might be overkill to call the pandas pawns in the chess game that is U.S.-China relations, but it is fair to say that “Panda-gate” is a symptom of the deteriorating relationship between the two world powers.

In this episode, I’ll speak with two experts from the University of Denver—Suisheng Zhao and Collin Meisel—about the Chinese-American relationship and what the future holds for the two countries.

The story of the U.S. and China is a long and complicated one. The People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, and since then, China and the U.S. have gone through periods of both peaceful reciprocity and downright discord.

The University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies has long been interested in studying the complexities of U.S.-China relations. SWEE-sun Tsao is a professor in the Korbel school and the executive director of DU’s Center for China-U.S. Cooperation. He’s also the Editor of the Journal for Contemporary China, “the only English language journal edited in North America that provides exclusive information about contemporary Chinese affairs for scholars, businesspeople and government policymakers.”

With an expert right on campus, I talked with Zhao to get a better understanding of what the pandas signify. He says, in recent history, we’ve seen the Chinese-American relationship yo-yo between both ends of the spectrum.

Suisheng Zhao (02:12):

I came to the US almost 40 years ago and have witnessed the dramatic changes in the relationship. In fact, I will say I benefited from that relationship, because for many years, the engagement on the U.S. side and cooperation on the China side really kept the relationship in a very healthy [state] to benefit both China and the U.S.

Emma Atkinson (02:47):

Zhao says he believes the current breakdown in the U.S-China relationship began in the second term of the Obama administration and was only worsened by President Donald Trump’s policies toward China, including a set of tariffs worth at least $50 billion in March 2018. China imposed retaliatory measures, thus setting off a trade war of sorts, with the two countries exchanging tariffs on goods from Chinese clothing and electronics to U.S. agricultural exports.

He says that communications between the two countries broke down during the Trump administration, leading to misperceptions and misjudgment. And now, under Biden, we’re seeing efforts to reopen those channels.

Suisheng Zhao (03:23):

These communications basically started in the summer. This summer, we saw four U.S. Cabinet members visit Beijing since June, starting with Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and then we had Treasury Secretary Yellen, and then we had John Kerry, the Climate Special Envoy, and then we had the Secretary of Commerce. And we now currently have the Senate delegation led by the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and Chuck Schumer, he just met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and this morning and met with the Chinese foreign minister, and simply had some kind of very candid, and I will say also constructive meetings.

Emma Atkinson (04:24):

But Zhao says despite the two countries talking the diplomatic talk, he has yet to see them walk the walk when it comes to concrete policies.

And the problem with U.S.-China relations, he says, can be attributed to three factors. The first is a fundamental difference in political ideology.

Suisheng Zhao (04:41):

China has become increasingly authoritarian, totalitarian in my lifetime. In fact, I came to the U.S. almost 40 years ago, when China began to open up to reform and gradually tried to integrate into the international economy, and also to open up even the political peripheries of the system. And so I could travel back and very frequently; I met my colleagues in China, talking about how to help them to understand international society and to work with the international community. But I found this has been changed dramatically, reduced dramatically. China has gradually closed up, closed down.

Emma Atkinson (05:29):

The second issue causing friction between the U.S. and China is the unavoidable tension between an incumbent global power—the United States—and a rising power—China. Zhao says since its rise to international dominance following World War II, the U.S. has been reluctant to void any of its global influence to other countries—and that includes China. And China, on the other hand, will do anything in its power to claw its way up the global leadership ladder.

Suisheng Zhao (05:53):

USA will do everything to keep its promising American words, global leadership, and will not allow China to repress it. And China, on the other hand, on the rising side, for many years, China would think that the U.S. would do everything, to suppress China. And so it will do everything to keep America at bay try to do everything to keep its rising momentum. So this can have structural conflict.

Emma Atkinson (06:29):

And the third issue, of course, is the problem of Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China. Taiwan was transferred from Japan to the Republic of China after World War II, and though it has been governed independently since then, China, known as the People’s Republic of China, views the island as part of its territory.

The idea that Taiwan is part of China is called the “One-China Principle,” and the U.S. recognizes this as its official policy on Taiwan. However, the U.S. has committed to selling arms to Taiwan for self-defense, which could ostensibly be used against China in the event of an invasion. The Council on Foreign Relations calls the United States’ position on Taiwan one of “strategic ambiguity.”

But President Joe Biden has said multiple times that the U.S. would, in fact, come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of an attack by China. Some experts say that the Taiwan issue could be a major factor in—and perhaps the catalyst for—a war between the U.S. and China.

Zhao says this is perhaps the most difficult sticking point between the two countries and agrees that the Taiwan issue is one that could cause them to come to blows.

Suisheng Zhao (07:35):

Well, for China, this is a commitment to war and is clearly giving up of the so-called “strategic ambiguity…” U.S. will defend Taiwan. Then, a nuclear power—China—and a nuclear power—U.S.—could possibly come to a war directly over Taiwan. This is the only issue, in fact, that could potentially bring these two nuclear powers into military conflict, and neither side has any intention to accommodate, to compromise on this issue.

Emma Atkinson (08:23):

Some experts and commentators have called the state of U.S.-China relations the “new Cold War.” Zhao disagrees with this—he says there are too many other countries with significant influence, like Japan and Australia, that haven’t explicitly taken sides in the U.S.-China brouhaha. He says this perception of “Cold War”-like relations comes from people’s misunderstanding of the situation—and from an overreaction.

Suisheng Zhao (08:46):

China is more afraid of American liberal democracy than America is afraid of China. Think about that.

Emma Atkinson (09:03):

So what’s next? We’ve got three issues that the U.S. and China refuse to budge on. How might this affect their relationship moving forward—and what does it mean for the rest of the world?

To find out, I spoke with Collin Meisel, associate director of Geopolitical Analysis at the Pardee Center for International Futures. The Pardee Center, among other things, uses the International Futures model to make forecasts about what will happen among global powers in the coming years.

Collin Meisel (09:29):

So in the work that we do, we have a global focus, right. So when we gather data, often we're gathering data on 180 895 200 plus countries over long time horizons. And so we think that it's important to have just as good of an understanding of Zambia as a country like China. That said, given its presence in sort of diplomatic relations worldwide, economically security, security related interactions, increasingly, China's very, very important, obviously. And so while we have a global focus, often the conclusions that we draw, or the analysis that we conduct gravitates toward China. And so one thing that has been of particular interest to our funders, but also to us, in general, is sort of what is China's role in the international system? How has that changed in the past? And how do we expect that to change in the future? And what does that mean for the US role in the world? Are we moving toward a new Cold War, bipolar international system? Are we moving to towards something new, maybe a multipolar international system where the US and China are just too important powers among many? Those are the questions that we're interested in and asking and doing our best to answer, although there are no perfect answers.

Emma Atkinson (10:42):

So how have you applied that model to what's going on with China? And you know, if you could give me some of those predictions?

Collin Meisel (10:48):

So one, one qualification, we often use the word forecast instead of prediction. Prediction sometimes implies to some that you're trying to make a specific point prediction about what the future will be. So an example would be in the year 2050, US global gross domestic product will be you know, X trillion dollars. And while our tool the international futures tool does have a current path prediction, we call it a forecast because we're interested in general trends and then we also conduct alternative scenario analysis where we say what if something else happens. So forecasting is more about understanding general pressures and and trends across various categories and how they interact various various things like human development and growth and and conflict and climate change and all of these things together. And so forecasting is more about understanding systems and relationships than it is about making sort of crystal ball assessments about exactly what will happen.

Emma Atkinson (11:47):

Much of Meisel’s work looks at the balance of power between the U.S. and China and attempts to forecast what that relationship will look like over the next century. He says that in 80% of the 29 theoretical scenarios the Pardee Center team ran, China ended up overtaking the United States as the leading global power.

Collin Meisel (12:06):

one thing I'd like to add to that is that whether China passes the US doesn't actually matter. And it gets to prediction versus forecasting. One thing that is consistent across all scenarios, is that the gap and relative power in the world between the US and China is shrinking. And we expect it to continue to shrink. And so China will be important. And because that gap and power is shrinking, it probably unfortunately means that there will continue to be US China tensions because China is going to want to likely continue to assert its its own policy preferences and the international system just as the US did when its power rose, and the US is unlikely to want to sort of give up the mantle of being the world leader, you know, that we've had for most of my lifetime.

Emma Atkinson (12:51):

And even if Meisel’s forecast is wrong, even if China doesn’t end up passing the U.S. as the world’s leading power, he says that the relative gap in power between the two countries likely will continue to close.

Emma Atkinson (13:04):

What are you pretty sure is not going to happen?

Collin Meisel (13:06):

What I am pretty sure is not going to happen is I do not think, barring exceptional, highly unexpected events, that we will return to a unilateral unipolar world system that we saw with the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there really was no rival power, and the US could sort of do mostly what it wanted. I don't see that happening again, in my lifetime, neither for the US nor China. Right. As China's power rises, our forecasts show that we don't expect China to reach the point that the US reached in early 1990s. Right, so it's not like, we're just going to see a shift from one pole to the next. I think that's one thing I'm fairly certain about now.

You know, predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Right. That's the famous quote. And so, of course, there are things that could happen. A, an endemic disease that disproportionately affects, you know, the US, but for some reason doesn't escape our borders. Right? I don't think that that's likely, I guess it's possible. They're probably sci fi books about it. The collapse of the Chinese Communist Party is that's what some people have predicted time and, again, wrongly so far. If that were to happen, and China were to sort of go into disarray. Meanwhile, somehow Russia and Ukraine tensions decrease, and Russia sort of is happy with its own sphere and doesn't try to expand its global influence.

I mean, there's potentially a world where, yes, that the US has this relative rise. And we could go back to that moment. But I just, I don't see that happening. And I don't think that's a world that we want, right? I don't think we want a country of 1.4 billion people failing to the point where all of its people are suffering, and you're seeing de-development.

Emma Atkinson (14:53):

That's, that's a very good point. And I think something that is often forgotten in discussions like this is the humanization of, of what it means for a country to be powerful or to fall from power. Right? So I'm really glad you brought that up. we've been over this in a more academic sense, but let's just say I'm a regular Joe, don't really watch the news, you know, have a basic understanding of what's going on, just like hearsay like, ‘Oh, I know, things between China and the US aren't very good.’ Explain to me, in the most simplistic of terms, what your forecast is for the next 25 years?

Collin Meisel (15:28):

Yes. So I would say I would start with the world is changing. And that's okay. The the US has, for my lifetime, been the world's leading power. And we've sort of been the star of the show. And that appears to be changing. I think we've already seen it in our everyday lives. And we're likely to see it more and more, right where the US is not necessarily going to be able to step in and get his way anywhere in the world at any point in time.

Increasingly, we're going to see other countries, China in particular, act in ways that maybe we from an American perspective might find upsetting. And in some ways, we will be able to shave and shove and influence that behavior and other words we want. In some ways, that's going to be a challenge that we will need to rise to and figure out how to do that right, cooperating more with other countries that maybe we would have ignored And in other ways, we might just have to accept it. Right? Especially if it's a question of competing preferences, but not necessarily core values. Is it a problem that, you know, Chinese telecommunication networks, you know, our dominate the Southeast Asia, right? I mean, if they're not being used to spy in those populations and harm people, we probably shouldn't care.

Those are the types of things that we're going to need to think about, right? The world is going to change, we're going to need to change with it. We don't have to accept everything, but we're going to need to accept some things. I think the final thing that I would say, would be that US China competition that they will hear about our news does not have to turn into conflict, if we don't let it. We can seek areas for cooperation. We shouldn't demonize one another, we should seek to understand one another, and, and cooperate where we can and have reasonable disagreements where we can.

Emma Atkinson (17:25):

A big thanks to our guests, Korbel professor Suisheng Zhao and Collin Meisel from the Pardee Center, for sharing their expertise with us on this week’s episode. More information on their work is available in the show notes. If you enjoyed this episode, I encourage you to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Music or Spotify—and if you really liked it, leave us a review and rate our work. Joy Hamilton is our managing editor, and James Swearingen arranged our theme. I'm Emma Atkinson, and this is RadioEd.