With reports on China flooding headlines across the country, the Middle Kingdom fills the limelight as the largest threat to American national security. In line with that concern, the Congressional Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) held a hearing last week debating the administration’s China strategy, making multiple comparisons to WWII during the debate.
Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) expressed concerns about the loss of America’s industrial base, reminding the committee that America won World War II by outproducing the Axis powers. With that capacity gone, domestic strength has decreased. He also raised the connected issue that since the U.S. currently trades more with China than vice versa, the net cashflow goes in Beijing’s direction, creating a trade deficit. (READ MORE: Is the NBA in Bed With the CCP?)
Witnesses from the State and Commerce departments responded by saying that the trade deficit and lack of an industrial base could be improved by addressing unfair trade policies with China, and through recent legislation like the Chips Act.
Representatives from both parties characterized the Chips Act as woefully insufficient to the task.
Not all of the assembled Congressmen saw the trade deficit as inherently bad however. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) made the point that he had a trade deficit with his local grocery store, but that does not make him weaker than it. (READ MORE: Honduras Heralds Growth of Chinese Influence in the Western Hemisphere)
Auchincloss continued, saying that access to the Chinese market provides an avenue for America to exercise influence in the country, though what exactly the U.S. trades with Beijing should be closely monitored by export controls to prevent certain technologies from going to the CCP.
Some Congressmen did not see limited export restrictions as sufficient, with Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Miss.) saying, “We have to stop everything from going to China.”
The current administration has no plans to enact those comprehensive restrictions, as Ms. Thea Kendler, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration, explained there were no plans for “economic decoupling from China.”
Concerns about China’s economic advances extended beyond American shores into the South Pacific, with Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.) saying, “The CCP has infiltrated our friends in the Pacific … they are just as valuable to the CCP as they were to Imperial Japan.”
Dunn continued, saying that America had largely forgotten those crucial countries after World War II, despite Micronesian leaders requesting help against Chinese economic incursion. (READ MORE: Countering China: Japan, America, and Australia Build $95M Pacific Cable)
The discussion on diplomacy also highlighted several successes. Committee Chair Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) praised the administration’s efforts in the Pacific in his opening remarks, citing a defense cooperation agreement with Papua New Guinea as a specific example.
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr. Daniel Kritenbrink, also provided the Committee with specific successful examples of diplomacy in the Pacific, citing strengthened alliances with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, and the Philippines, as well as working with several specific international coalitions.
Diplomacy with China itself however was not seen as quite so effective. Kritenbrink described meetings with Chinese diplomats as, “tense and rarely pleasant.”
Rep. Gimenez (R-Fla.) asked Kritenbrink when the last time China initiated a diplomatic meeting with the U.S. was. Kritenbrink was unable to point to a specific instance.
Gallagher saw our diplomatic position with China as demonstrating weakness, asking why American diplomats were acting like “they have something to apologize for” by chasing their Chinese counterparts.
Others disagreed with that characterization. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) reminded the Committee that President Reagan conducted arms agreements with the Soviets as part of his foreign policy, and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said diplomacy should not be equated with weakness, citing the importance of communication channels during the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example.
Though the topics of diplomacy and trade were debated by the assembled witnesses and Representatives, the overall worry about the threat posed by the CCP was unanimous. While the proper China strategy will continue to be debated, the committee’s end goal was clearly summarized by Rep Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill), “We don’t want a cold war or a hot war … but we also don’t want to see a continuation of the CCP’s aggressive behavior.”
Halfway through earning a master’s in national security at the Institute of World Politics, Mason Stauffer is part of The American Spectator’s 2023 intern class. When he isn’t preparing for his future career in the national security sector, Mason can usually be found hiking through the National Park System or playing his trumpet.
READ MORE:
Are We Officially in Cold War II?
G7 and China-Central Asia Summits Show Two Opposing Directions for the World
