The War for Chinese Talent in America

– Interview with Professor David Zweig

September 24th, 2024, the Editor-in-Chief of China Focus, Yuxuan Wu, interviewed Professor David Zweig to discuss the challenges faced by Chinese talents in America and  the politics of technology and knowledge in Sino-U.S. relations. Dr. David Zweig is Professor Emeritus at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Distinguished Visiting Professor at National Tsinghua University in Taiwan, and the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing. He has authored or edited ten books, including “Internationalizing China” and “China’s Brain Drain to the U.S.” We talked to him during his visit to San Diego in September for his lecture on his new book “The War for Chinese Talent in America”.

Q: How would you describe the landscape of the U.S.’s immigration policy in recent years, especially in terms of attracting talents from other countries?

A: One of the key aspects of the immigration policies that Trump had imposed, which  many people haven’t focused on, is the implementation of a merit-based or points system, similar to those in Canada and Australia. This system prioritizes individuals with certain skills or investments, allowing them to gain permanent residency. For example, some countries, like Canada and Portugal, offer residency to those who invest a certain amount of money. The U.S. has had similar policies to some extent, and it is a useful policy approach for bringing in high-quality talent through such methods. 

This type of policy is based on the idea that it is in the U.S.’s national interest to attract top talent from around the world; however, counterarguments say it takes the best talent from developing countries without offering opportunities to the most disadvantaged. However, many countries operate this way, and one could argue that it’s foolish for the U.S. not to do the same.

Q: What’s your opinion on China’s talent programs like Tongzhan (“统战”)?

A: I have my criticisms about talent programs like Tongzhan aimed at overseas individuals, but I don’t necessarily oppose efforts to encourage people to return to China full-time. The reality is that countries can’t completely control the flow of talent. For example, someone might come to the U.S. to get a PhD, build their skills, and then return to China to leverage that knowledge. There’s not much we can do about that. For example, Canada has a program called Canada Research Chairs which offers competitive salaries and substantial research funding funded by the Foreign Ministry. Many countries have similar initiatives to attract talent back home, and these programs align with their national interests.

However, I do take issue with programs that hire part-time talent based in other countries while utilizing those countries’ resources. This is especially concerning when it happens covertly. Since 2012, when Xi Jinping came into power, China has shifted its focus to aggressively promote initiatives like “Made in China 2025,” which aims to advance their technology. They have become more strategic in acquiring technology and have likely made tech transfer a secretive process. In 2015, Xi Jinping discussed the Thousand Talents Plan, and around the same time, the FBI began warning U.S. scholars about Chinese efforts to obtain sensitive knowledge. This shift signals a conscious effort by China to strengthen its technological capabilities by tapping into talent abroad.

Q: In addition to Trump’s “China Initiative,” which involved investigations into Chinese scientists in the U.S., there are other barriers affecting the ability of high-quality Chinese scholars to come to the U.S. Given the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming presidential election and the bipartisan consensus on anti-China policies, do you foresee these measures continuing in the medium to long term?

A: If Trump wins, his policies toward Chinese talent and students are likely to continue. Just last week, the Republicans had “China week” in the House of Representatives, and one of the things that some people have been pushing for is a reintroduction of the China Initiative. As for Harris, there is a lot of uncertainty about what her specific policies towards Chinese talent would be. As Vice President, Harris largely followed Biden’s lead, so it’s unclear if she would take a different approach. But overall, these restrictive measures against Chinese scholars are expected to remain in place regardless of who wins the election — whether it’s Trump or Harris — as they are not seen as high-priority issues. There is a level of bipartisan consensus on maintaining these policies. 

Additionally, a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which received funding from the Department of Defense, critiques the China Initiative. This report may indicate the direction of future U.S. policy, as the Department of Defense is concerned about retaining talent in light of Chinese competition.

Q: Do you have any suggestions or insights on how to develop a policy that strikes a balance between attracting Chinese or, in general, foreign talent to the U.S. while also safeguarding sensitive fields? 

A: To create a balanced policy regarding sensitive fields, it’s crucial to clearly define what constitutes “dual-use technology” — technologies that have both civilian and military applications. The focus should be on preventing the transfer of such technologies to ensure national security. And it is also reasonable to do a visa check on students from Seven Sons of National Defense* since they are closely related to China’s national defense system. However, the definition should be narrow and exclude certain fields, particularly biomedicine and biotech, which can benefit both the U.S. and China. For example, collaboration in cancer research is essential since both countries rank highest in cancer-related deaths.

When establishing standards, the U.S. government should prevent individuals from sensitive government departments, like the Departments of Defense or Energy, from participating in talent programs. Collaboration can come out in areas like medical research and non-military-related technology, as these do not pose significant national security risks and can address global food needs. Agriculture is also important. The world needs more food, and China can contribute to that.

Regarding energy, collaboration could be acceptable in areas like green technology and greenhouse gas reduction, but should avoid sensitive sectors like nuclear technology. Concerns also exist around Chinese electric vehicles and potential security risks, such as the fear of a “kill switch” that could disable cars remotely. While the U.S. needs to be wary of China’s civil-military fusion policy — where military and civilian sectors are integrated — it’s important to recognize that the U.S. has its own forms of dual-use technology, such as Boeing’s satellite programs.

Q: What effects do these security policies targeting Chinese talents have on the U.S.’s attractiveness to global talents?

A: This heightened security focus has affected Chinese students in the U.S., which has led to a decrease in their numbers while increasing the enrollment of Indian students. As Chinese students leave more room in universities, this may create opportunities for talent from other countries, potentially benefiting nations like India, Canada, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and even Mexico and Brazil. While the U.S. may lose some top-tier Chinese scholars, the ability to attract high-quality talent from other countries may mitigate the impact. However, it’s crucial to note that U.S.-China collaborative research has been a leading force globally, and the reduction in Chinese students could hinder American research capabilities in the short term.

Q: What suggestions do you have for Chinese scholars who are feeling anxious or concerned about policies targeting them in the U.S.? How can they effectively protect their rights?

A: Go out and vote. They have the right to vote. Vote for Harris. Those “海外学者”(foreign scholars) who are citizens should vote, as they have a direct interest in Trump not winning. For Chinese scholars who are U.S. citizens, particularly those in swing states, voting is one of the most powerful ways to influence policy and protect their interests. For non-citizens, there are still numerous ways to contribute. They can donate to political campaigns, join scholar organizations that lobby for better policies, get organized, and advocate for their rights. Many Chinese professors already work with institutions like the NIH, NSF, and Congress to push for fair treatment. We are a democratic country, and it’s essential to exercise your democratic rights. They can support political causes, lobby, go on TV, and express themselves. The key is to leverage these opportunities to advocate for positive change.