This topic is very serious and difficult to discuss simply. No matter who you are, you cannot describe this topic in a few words. If you are a scholar, starting from the theory, you will think about how a government is formed, what its ideology is, how leaders are produced, what policies are proposed, and what problems are solved, but there are many issuess in a country no matter how big or small IT is. The complex domestic social issues and the intrigue of foreign relations cannot be explained clearly in a few words. If you are an ordinary citizen, you will directly and subjectively think of whether a government is good or bad for you, and the answer will come to your mind quickly depending on the time, place, and mood. But if you want to tell how you measure a government, you cannot explain it clearly in a few words. You don't have enough information to compare different governments, and there is no systematic long-term record of a government's administrative achievements (scholars may find them), on the contrary, what an ordinary person gets is mostly official PR documents and media news, let alone compare the governments of different countries. Unless you are an immigrant, ordinary people do not have the experience of living in two or more countries for a long time. So, the challenge of this article is to talk about how to measure a government fairly within the column space.
 
There is no perfect government in this world (Xanadu is a fantasy story). The quality of a government can only be determined by history. Both ideology and political ideas are theories that must have practical proof (experiments or real results). However, in a changing world and human society, any government system must respond to changes. So, the measurement of a government must have a time factor that includes historical influences and geographical factors that include natural and man-made effects. Therefore, people's evaluation of the government at a certain time and place is mostly a subjective judgment. This subjective view is usually influenced by the government's propaganda and the media, so a citizen’s evaluation of the government should be mindful of the government/media influences and find some objective measurement factors that can be used as a standard in measuring different government systems. To give a simple example, public opinion surveys are often affected by two factors, one is that big capital influences polls (US capital almost controls all global media including opinion polls), and the other is the legacy of colonialism (colonies after independence are still strongly influenced by colonial powers. (Effects include news). Whether the current government can get rid of the above-mentioned influences is something that a citizen must recognize when measuring their own government and/or other governments, such as the former ruling country.
 
Let's discuss with practical examples how objective factors can be found to measure government. There are many domestic and international polling research companies in the United States that often conduct polls to measure the effectiveness of the government. These results cannot be trusted blindly, let alone fully believed in it. For example, when the US government suppresses the Chinese government in trade, technology, etc., it is not credible to measure the American people's favorability of the Chinese government. Even if the statistics are duly collected, the questionnaire/method and the time/place of the interviews are not objectively carried out. American people’s impression of China can be seen from the adoption of Chinese orphans by Americans. To adopt a Chinese orphan, they have to travel to China, so they understand the stability and peace of the huge Chinese society, the efficiency of their government, the progress of their infrastructure, and the staff’s prudence and carefulness in handling the adoption procedure, all admirable. If you said that those who adopted Chinese children had a bias towards China, you could also look at the views of the world tourism industry about China and Chinese people. From the feeling that Chinese tourists were uncultured (in the last century, many didn’t understand Western civilization and etiquette) to this century, they had become the world's largest sophisticated tourist body who loved high-end consumer products. Many countries are afraid that Chinese tourists will not come to their countries. They can see, through Chinese tourists, how efficient the Chinese government behind them is, how the policies benefit the people, and how the people get rich. No wonder Europeans, Asians, Africans, and Russians are so envious of China. I want to ask why the American people still believe in propaganda that smashes bad news about China? Can America's deterioration be blamed only on China and not on the American people's own government?
 
In fact, an ordinary citizen can find a fair measure of the government, or even compare two governments, without being a scholar or an expert in China and the United States. (Many scholars who speak badly about Sino-US relations are often wrong and not credible.) We can give some real examples. It is best to be able to compare the two countries. Otherwise, the data of one country can at least measure the strengths and weaknesses of its government. Let’s look at the country’s infrastructure. The United States was envied by the world in the 1960s. Today, China’s high-speed railways, highways, ports, and airports are all world-class. Let’s look at housing. China has grown from one of the poorest countries in the world to a country with its third-tier city more beautiful and functional than the world’s metropolises, ahead in transportation, environmental protection and energy management. The number of homeless people in the United States is increasing, not only an eyesore, and an economic burden, but also an inhumane phenomenon. Promoting the economy is the heavy responsibility of every government. Yet, the national debt of the United States has increased to 31 trillion ($97,000 in debt per American). Isn’t this a fiscal mistake of the government? While the U.S. government is paying attention to trying to suppress China's development (using national security as a fig leaf to cover up the shame of suppressing the Chinese private enterprise Huawei), China's BYD has become the world's number one seller of electric vehicles. Can negative suppression replace positive cooperation? There are more factors for measuring government efficacy that we ordinary people can check. How many students are there in China and the United States? What are the high school and college graduation rates for each country? What are the average personal savings of a Chinese and American citizen? These are numbers that are a fair measure of the government. Do American people really want to live their lives with their heads buried in the sand?
 
Nearly 200 countries around the world have different governments, which can be divided into democratic condominium-like governments and centralized corporate-style governments, varied in size, according to the broad classification by scholars, In fact, from the perspective of ordinary people, what kind of system a government adopts is not important, but to be able to improve, innovate, and put people's welfare first is critical. Ordinary citizens should ask why the annual salaries, benefits, and pensions of U.S. senators, congressmen, and government officials are so high, while the government’s efficiency and effectiveness are so low. Before asking for improvement, citizens can use the above mentioned factors to create a list to measure their own government fairly. But, we must know and admit that our government is not good enough, and then we can ask for improvement. The American people cannot let the incompetent government continue forever!

​

 
The U.S.-China Forum has been established for ten years. Thomas Fan was the key originator of the idea of establishing a forum to express the opinions and concerns of Chinese Americans on U.S.-China Relations. Hence there were arrangements with seven Chinese language newspapers (Chinese Daily (LA), Washington Chinese Daily News (DC), Dallas Chinese Daily, Southern Chinese Daily News (Houston), Chicago Chinese News, Las Vegas Chinese News Network, and The Xin Times (Atlanta)) to offer the forum one full page of newspaper space weekly to publish its members’ thoughts on US-China relations which inevitably extends to broad international problems and issues. The founders of the forum had the wisdom to carve out a quarter of page space to accommodate opinions and concerns expressed in English so that these newspapers could draw both Chinese and English readers and encourage their exchanges of views. Dr. Wordman’s English column was hence designated for that purpose. Wordman is the pen name of one forum member, but the column space is open to anyone who wishes to publish an English opinion essay.
 
The forum also has two websites, U.S.-Chinaforum.org and U.S.-Chinaforum.com, where the former is principally in Chinese and the latter in both English and Chinese language. Their principal goals are 1. A permanent medium for publishing and safekeeping of the Forum’s publications. 2. A website for accommodating author-reader interactions and other forum-sponsored activities such as conferences and other news or social media activities involving the forum members, such as interviews and essays transformed into a potcast or video cast. This year, the forum celebrated its tenth anniversary with a cruise journey from Southern California to Mexico. We look forward to seeing a photo report of such an event. Dr. Wordman humbly writes this piece here to commemorate the forum’s tenth anniversary and his personal reflections and wishes.
 
Ten years is a long time for any volunteer project. U.S.-China Forum has made to the ten-year milestone with only volunteers donating their own time, energy, and resources. In this column, this author wishes to discuss another Forum activity that has never been revealed publicly; that is the Forum’s biweekly Friday night ‘Zoom Meeting’ starting 10 PM (Pacific 7 PM) to midnight or later with the participation of Forum members and invited speakers and audience. This Zoom meeting was typically run with an open agenda that might have a few suggested topics but inevitably loaded with spontaneously raised issues with international and national importance. Of course news and current events are the main sources of inputs, the U.S.-China trade war, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the space exploration and U.S.-China naval development, the presidential elections, the summit meetings like G7, BRICS, ASEAN, G20, …. and forthcoming APEC to be held in San Francisco, etc.
 
However, invariably economics always surfaces up in the Forum Zoom Meeting, trade imbalance, inflation, infrastructure, currency matters, unemployment, drug abuse, healthcare and elderly care, homelessness, etc. These discussions keep our brains energized; the exchanges are informative but frustrating as well. We recognize that many of the world's problems seem to be rooted in economics and how each nation’s economy is managed. The frustration is that with all the bright economists we have in the world, we have few solutions for the problems except bickering about which economic system is better and who is to blame for our problems.
 
The U.S.-China competition, the current most intense international issue, really boils down to economics as well. China‘s economy (currently no. 2 in the world) has been growing faster than the U.S. economy (no. 1) causing it to compete by pulling all tricks to slow down China’s growth. However, military competition is a waste of money for the two nuclear powers, since both have enough stock-pile of nuclear arsenal to destroy each other and more. Both sides will have too much to lose if ever engaged in war, leading to a nuclear war destroying the entire human race. Thus, political and diplomatic confrontations will only serve the purpose of enhancing one’s economic power or influence. Ideology or philosophy on values advocating any superior political and/or economic system has essentially lost credibility since historical facts have proven that there is no perfect political or economic system in human history.
 
People on earth have experienced enough throughout history to realize that the humans are too sophisticated to be governed by a rigid and static system (calls for open mind and collaboration) and humans are living on a complex planet still with many uncontrollable surprises, such as pandemics and natural disasters. What really matters to humanity is their economic status; every human being desires to have a good standard of living. Liberalism, capitalism, socialism, colonialism, communism or whatever ism adopted by any government on earth have never been able to produce a perfect governing system to produce a sustainable prosperous economic system for its subject citizens. My ten-year observation on issues of US-China relations has convinced me (more so with each of the US-China Forum Zoom meetings I had), that we must think deeper than taking our politicians’ promising words: We have a better system! We must hold our values! Our economic problems are caused by someone else! And we must compete and win by stopping others who want to reform, innovate and advance! No, we don’t. Genuine collaboration (not under colonialism) produces a win-win outcome, it has been shown in the third world by their advances in living standards as well as between developed countries, for example in the EU.
 
Every Zoom meeting gets me excited and also frustrated. The frustration comes from the fact that the ever-increasing number of world problems and some domestic issues in the U.S. and China are caused by their mutual mistrust, which is the result of misunderstanding leading to hostile policies. The excitation comes from my realization that the poor U.S.-China relations can be improved by focusing on economics, and understanding how each is pursuing its goal of giving its citizens a better standard of living. The zero-sum theory (this principal culprit of world economic problems was propelled by the oil-dominated world economy) can be proven wrong. In dealing with future global and domestic issues, collaboration indeed can produce win-win results (Saudi Arabia’s changing foreign and domestic policies show its foresight). In some areas, such as climate change and sustainable energy development, the U.S., China, and the world (including the Middle East oil-producing countries, Venezuela, and Russia) are abandoning the zero-sum theory. In other areas, such as infrastructure, healthcare and elder care, environmental protection, pandemic prevention, and space exploration, one can easily argue from the economic point of view for collaboration rather than maintaining a zero-sum competitive attitude.
 
Hence, I have a dream. I would like to encourage my colleagues and friends to engage in any academic institution or think tank focusing on understanding the economic development model of the U.S. and China, not to critique which is better or worse, but to articulate how to construct collaboration to enhance their common goal - raising their citizens’ standard of living. Obama’s worry that the Chinese population achieving middle-class living standards would deteriorate the U.S. living standard is an antiquated, illogical, non-scientific, and false conclusion from the zero-sum mentality. (Would any state accept the theory it should stop other 49 states‘ economic development to keep its standard of living?) In fact, by closer collaboration, both the U.S. and China’s economies will benefit, for example, energy costs, cell phone prices, even electric vehicles, food price, and public transportation costs will all be much lower for the citizens of each country. By collaboration, the living standard of both countries (and the world) will improve not deteriorate. Perhaps, the world will have fewer number of ultra-rich billionaires but a more even wealth distribution curve. Shouldn't the goal of elevating a nation’s standard of living be THE real worthy goal to keep? Dr. Sun Yet Sen used to say: “There is no peace if there is no fair economic development opportunity.” Personally, I would like to pursue my dream; I wish to be a graduate student again to enroll in a renown university to study economics. My thesis would be to prove that the collaborative economic development model will produce win-win results for the world. I will pay for my own tuition as not to be funded by any money institution which finances economists (even Nobel laureate) to produce biased economic theories discouraging global collaboration.

 
The United States, Japan, and South Korea's Camp David Summit (8/15-18/2023) can be regarded as a major diplomatic event in today's tense world situation. After following the three-day meeting, it was found that there were more thunders than real raindrops. Reviewing the whole matter, it can be said that it is a big move in the US ‘anti-CRNK strategy’, expecting to create a long-term military alliance like a little NATO in Asia to contain China, Russia, and North Korea (CRNK). However, although both the bilateral military alliances of the U.S. with Japan and South Korea have a ‘master-servant’ relationship, they cannot be arbitrarily expanded to multilateral structures. Therefore, the U.S. cannot easily create a trilateral military alliance. The origin of historical hatred between Japan and South Korea, the different interests of the three countries, and the different definitions of their imaginary enemies are the basic reasons why they could not reach an alliance treaty. Below we will analyze the Trilateral Summit at Camp David from every nation’s perspective and why many people worried and cried out why the U.S. want to pursue such a trilateral summit which essentially petered out in the end.
 
First, let’s start from the perspective of the U.S. The U.S. is eager to maintain its hegemony position, but its national power is gradually weakening relative to other rising powers, facing the economic recession, debt and currency crisis, and military spending burden. Take the recent fire in Hawaii as an example, the death toll has exceeded 100 and is still increasing. Public opinion voices that the President of the U.S. is indifferent and shows no sympathy. There are 80,000 U.S. troops in Hawaii (air forces, navy, and marines all have their own fire departments), but all sitting idly by, letting the Maui fire burn like hell. President Biden did nothing (his vacation was the most important thing), not only no action but also no words. In the end, the federal government allotted $700 for each fire victim which caused the Americans to sigh and cry. Biden was at Camp David's trilateral summit from August 15th to 18th, having no time for Hawaii to inspect the fire disaster or to comfort the victims. He was not planning any world peace plan at Camp David but planning to set up a small NATO military organization in Asia, premeditating a proxy war with Japan and South Korea as the pawns fighting far away from North America. The wishful thinking is that Japan and South Korea would cooperate and fight for the interests of the U.S. against its imaginary enemies. No wonder many Americans are worrying and crying, especially the Hawaiians, who are in the third island chain. If a war was provoked in Asia, the military bases in Hawaii would inevitably be attacked and destroyed. Americans who remember the Pearl Harbor incident would shed tears of sadness. Why doesn't the American government system put the well-being of the people first? Why did the Biden administration engage in a trilateral military alliance agreement at Camp David, which has a history of making peace not war? Don’t they know that preparations for war will eventually lead to war? Are the lives of the Hawaiians, Japanese, and Koreans not lives?
 
From South Korea’s point of view, its new president, Yoon Suk Yeol, was elected with a pro-American position but low support. After taking office, he countered the peace-seeking policy of the previous president, Moon Jae-in, and almost fully cooperated with Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Although he was invited to visit the U.S. with high-level courtesy, his approval rating in domestic polls was less than 30%. The president of South Korea cannot be re-elected, he must worry about public opinion forcing him to step down or go to jail after he leaves office. He is now facing three major problems. The first is to support the US sanctions against China's semiconductor supply chain, products, and manufacturing technology. South Korea has exported a large number of semiconductor products to China and has invested in and set up factories in China. Therefore, responding to US sanctions against China will inevitably damage South Korea's trade and domestic economy. The second is to support the U.S. military confrontation with North Korea, which tends to increase the crisis on the Korean peninsula and anger China, Russia, and North Korea. It does not reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, at most, it helps the U.S. buy a little time to react to a missile attack. Yoon had the stupid idea of ​​inviting the U.S. to station nuclear weapons in South Korea, but neither the U.S. nor Japan would agree. Korean citizens will be even more unwilling to pay the price of having any nuclear weapon installation. The third is to support the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral security alliance mechanism (The little NATO) that the U.S. wants. Fortunately, the trilateral summit meeting only produced an empty principle and spirit - the three parties agreed that if there was a crisis, the three parties should negotiate and deal with it. The outcome at Camp David not only disappointed the U.S. but also made the people of South Korea and Japan realize that the defense alliance with the U.S. is an unequal treaty. Everything is based on the interests of the U.S. The U.S. holds all the cards. Japan and South Korea are just pawns. The reason why the three nations cannot sign a meaningful Trilateral Alliance Treaty is that the U.S. cannot make the two pawns completely give up their respective ideas and interests. Yoon Suk Yoel’s 92 years old father passed away on August 15th, and Yoon still had to go to Camp David. He had to show his pro-American policy but he also was worried about Korean people’s crying and scolding. The Korean citizens would not consider his Camp David trip as an act of sacrificing filial piety for patriotism.
 
Finally, looking at Japan, Fumio Kishida is also a pawn of the U.S. The Liberal Democratic Party is a pro-American political party cultivated by the U.S. after World War II. Although Japanese politicians hope to turn Japan from a defeated country into a normal state, Japan has never been able to get rid of the control of the U.S. after the post-war governance and infiltration of the U.S. in Japan. Especially in defense, Japan relies heavily on the US-Japan security treaty. Japan's constitution stipulates that it cannot build an army or start a war, and the US-Japan security treaty provides Japan with a national defense under U.S. command. The Japanese people don't want a war and don’t mind that the U.S. can offer protection. But if Japan is asked to fight for the Americans, or for Koreans, that is definitely not in line with the Japanese public opinion. Kishida also faces several problems. Participating in the U.S. sanctions against the Chinese semiconductor industry will hurt the Japanese economy. Unless the U.S. provides economic subsidies and guaranteed market shares, it will inevitably force Japan to compete with South Korea. Japan’s release of nuclear polluted water into the Pacific Ocean is another problem that tests Japan’s moral values. Japan's neighbors, including China and South Korea, are against it. Japan will have to consider its own interests above that of South Korea and the United States in a trilateral alliance treaty. Therefore, the biggest substantive achievement of the Camp David Summit, from the standpoint of the United States, is the establishment of a telephone hotline among the three countries and the agreement to hold annual summit meeting and joint military exercises. This is an acceptable agreement for all since it gives them a window to continue to hype the military alliance issue with no specific binding commitments. However, the trilateral agreement also has a military expenditure that all three must pay for. From the military point of view, the effect of this agreement is minimum, but the waste of resources will make the clear minded citizens cry and ask why we have to do this?!



​