"Professional sinologists" ought to be more idea logical than ideological for the sake of all. Those "academic disciplines" in China stink, when taught outside China at some Confusious center they reek of nationalistic pride. Our academic institutions are more people oriented, communicative and scientific than the traditional Chinese ones are. No matter when, where or with whom you have studied your logical "academic disciplines" however, I bet the missing booksellers would happily look up to you for your screaming Resume and say; "Can we go back to our lives, we're not worth it?"

One of my PhDs is in Sinology. [edited] Sinology is a study of a certain area including its language (both classical (=ancient) and modern), the history, culture, past and contemporary society of the area under study across various academic disciplines including Linguistics, Literature, Medicine, History, Sociology, Politics and others. Therefore, it's a multi-disciplinary approach, and a sinologist may be more or less knoweledgeable in most or all of these areas. For me, all these areas of study were mandatory when I was a student and before I was ready to graduate.

What you post is system criticism regarding China based on typical Western perception. That's a matter of personal opinion that I personally can share to some extent. As a professional sinologist, however, it is good academic practice to post less "ideological". I hope you won't be offended when I say that the Secretaty of Foreign Affairs of any government with an approach like yours (ideologiocal rather than analytic) could turn out to be a catastrophe for the the government and nation in question. The crucial point is to tell how the world is and not how it should be. It's the former academic researchers and government leader must follow - and that's Realpolitik that both academic researchers and government officials must follow.