How 'hawkish' translations skew China-US understanding

Last month, the RAND Corporation, one of America's most influential think tanks, released a report titled "Stabilizing U.S.-China Rivalry." Spanning nearly a hundred pages, the report devotes a substantial section to a rarely discussed but crucial issue: how Western scholars often misinterpret or mistranslate Chinese political discourse. 

In U.S. academic and policy circles, fluency in Chinese is a prized asset. Scholars who can read original documents are able to bypass secondhand translations and engage directly with official texts and academic writings. However, this linguistic edge can be a double-edged sword. Limited sampling, selective citation and context-stripping are not uncommon. Additionally, many analyses remain anchored in Western political science frameworks, often missing the historical depth, cultural nuance and purposeful ambiguity that characterize Chinese political discourse.

The RAND report does not shy away from naming names. It critiques prominent China watchers fluent in Chinese, including Kevin Rudd, the former prime minister of Australia, and Matthew Pottinger, deputy national security advisor under the first Trump administration. 

One line stands out:

"Several of the authors have also translated Chinese terms with more hawkish English alternatives than the original Chinese language sources may imply."

Indeed, in the context of China-U.S. relations, it is not only policymakers and analysts who can be "hawks" or "doves" — translators can be, too. 

Consider the phrase "下好先手棋" (xiahao xianshouqi), which literally means "to make a good first move on the chessboard." Rush Doshi, a senior China advisor in the Biden administration, once rendered it as "China should make more offensive moves," according to the report. 

That version packs a punch, but perhaps more than the original intended. It swaps subtle strategy for saber-rattling, turning a chess metaphor into a call to arms. It is a textbook case of "position first, language second," where the translator's worldview elbows its way into the sentence, and nuance gets lost in the crossfire.

In Chinese usage, "下好先手棋" emphasizes a proactive or forward-looking approach. The RAND report therefore recommends translating it as "preemptive moves" or "taking the initiative," which more accurately capture the sense of proactive engagement without implying hostility.

Context is key. In practice, the phrase "先手棋" appears across a wide range of settings and should not be translated mechanically. Take, for example, a Chinese government spokesperson who once said, "把优化营商环境作为先手棋." A natural rendering would be: "We will prioritize optimizing the business environment." This version retains the strategic flavor of the chess metaphor, emphasizing foresight and initiative without introducing an unnecessarily combative tone.

It is worth noting that while many Western scholars engage deeply with Chinese texts, relatively few have advanced fluency in the language. As a result, some translations may reflect a more surface-level understanding, making it challenging to fully capture the subtle nuances embedded in the original. 

Official translations from China used to set the tone, but now are just part of the chorus. The stakes, meanwhile, have never been higher. A widening array of interpreters, such as think tanks, academics, journalists and even AI tools, offer competing translations and analyses. Each brings its own lens, shaped by distinct frameworks and ideological leanings. Together, they form the prism through which China's political language is refracted, reshaped and ultimately received by the world.

In this landscape, translators are not just linguistic intermediaries — they are cultural mediators and narrative architects. Whether a translation leans hawkish or measured can subtly, yet meaningfully, steer the tone of China-U.S. discourse. And in geopolitics, tone is never just tone, it's trajectory.

So, perhaps the next time we read a phrase translated from Chinese bristling with confrontation, it is worth asking: Is this China speaking? Or is it the translator's worldview echoing back? After all, diplomacy may begin with dialogue, but it survives on nuance.

This article was originally published on Waixuan Weiji. It has been translated and is republished here with permission.