Abuse of National Security Harms China Without Benefiting U.S.

The view U.S. political leaders have of China at the moment is rather simplistic: Corporations and high-end products made in that country can be deemed a threat to America’s national security.

The problem with such “logic” is that it places Washington in a bind: If every entity and technology-related item in China is a danger to national security, then by extension the United States ought to cut itself off from the most sophisticated technologies produced by that country. Anything less means putting the U.S. at risk.

The economic, cultural, educational and scientific ramifications of such ridiculous thought processes are incalculable. To borrow a cliche, operating without China is equivalent to intentionally tying one hand behind your back. Efficient operations will suffer. Productivity will suffer. Growth will suffer. Personal friendships will suffer. Therefore, Washington has no choice but to rethink its national security rationale as it evaluates Chinese-produced technologies.

Will it?

The latest China-is-a-national-security-threat moment occurred a few days ago when the U.S. government blacklisted Tencent and CATL; the former is a global powerhouse in social media technologies, perhaps best known for its internationally popular WeChat app, and the latter is a world leader in battery manufacturing. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, which authorized the ban, the department claims both Tencent and CATL have ties to the Chinese military.

According to the Associated Press, there are now 134 Chinese companies denied access to the U.S. market, for the claimed connections to the country’s military.

Needless to say, the decision to blacklist Tencent and CATL prompted a strong reaction inside China. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, “China stands firmly against the U.S.’s practice of overstretching the concept of national security.” He added: “We urge the U.S. to immediately correct its wrongdoings, and end the illegal unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction on Chinese companies. China will take all measures necessary to firmly defend the lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies and uphold its legitimate right to development.”

Both companies also indicated their disappointment at the ban, and they are examining all remedies that might be available to them. As an example, Tencent noted that because it is “neither a Chinese military company nor a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base,” it should not face any U.S. sanctions. The company added that it hopes conversations with the U.S. military will lead to lift of the ban, but it is open to considering legal challenges should that not happen.

U.S. President Joe Biden will leave office on January 20, and part of his legacy will be ratcheting up the tension between the U.S. and Chinese business, political and military communities. By expanding the tariffs initiated by Donald Trump, who succeeds him as president, and by endorsing the blacklisting of many Chinese entities, President Biden has remained stuck in a Cold War mindset, one that does not work well in the 21st century. The modern-day linkages between the U.S. and China run deep, with relationships built in areas as diverse as business and education, culture and science. Attempts to undermine these connections damage many U.S. industries and hamper desperately needed open lines of communication between Washington and Beijing. They could also place open-minded people in a precarious situation: Seeking to expand ties with China could place them under scrutiny by any number of government agencies. America’s legacy of unfairly tarring private citizens with the label “pro-Communist” represents a stain on its history. One must hope that clear-headed thinking trumps fear mongering.

What will President-elect Trump do once he returns to the Oval Office? If he follows through on his campaign promises, then four more years of aggressive policies from Washington are certain. Such actions could include even higher tariffs on Chinese-produced goods and additional blacklisting of Chinese companies. Gains made in the reopening of communication between the Chinese and U.S. military could be thwarted. Educational opportunities for scholars and students in both countries could be hampered. Cultural and people-to-people exchanges could be reconsidered. None of these reflects well on mutual respect between societies. No reasonable person should be in favor of these ideas. They are flawed and dangerous.

Leading government and military officials announced the blacklist of more Chinese companies in the same week they celebrated the life of America’s 39th president Jimmy Carter, who was laid to rest on January 9. Mr. Carter was responsible for re-establishing full bilateral relations with China. In announcing that decision, he said, “Both sides wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict. … Both believe that normalization of Sino-American relations is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples, but also contributes to the cause of peace in Asia and in the world.”