When I saw that Americans were dubbing this week as “China week”, my immediate response was a positive one. At last, I thought, after years of demonizing China, the United States is finally offering an olive branch. “China week” would surely involve a celebration of Chinese culture and achievements, not least in leading the world in sustainable energy technology. The long-awaited reset in US-China relations would herald a new era of international cooperation, not just in economic and cultural matters but on the key issues of climate change, nonproliferation of armaments, and world peace.
Sadly, it took me only a few seconds to realize that I was living in cloud cuckoo land. Far from marking a sea change in US attitudes, “China week” is in fact a doubling down of American anti-China paranoia. It involves the US House of Representatives introducing up to 28 bills targeting China in a wide range of areas, including trade, farm ownership, electric vehicles and Hong Kong. The hostile purpose of “China week” was made abundantly clear by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called it “our sanctions package” and spoke of the intention to “punish the Chinese military firms that provide material support to Russia and Iran”. (This in spite of the fact that, unlike US exports to Ukraine and Israel, China’s exports to Russia are nonmilitary in nature.) The House majority leader, Republican Steve Scalise, reinforced the hostile message, speaking of the “need to be aggressive in confronting the threat that China poses”.
Such rhetoric is reminiscent of the terminology of the Cold War when the constant demonization of perceived enemies was the norm. China has a different political ideology to the US but is certainly not its enemy. Beijing has repeatedly made clear its desire for closer ties with the US in the interests of mutual prosperity, peace and international cooperation. America’s determination to do the exact opposite is a reflection of its continuing paranoia that US interests are somehow threatened by a rising China in what it seems to see as a zero-sum game for world hegemony. Maybe in an election year we shouldn’t be surprised by such posturing, but at a time when international cooperation is more important than ever, the American stance is disappointing, to say the least.
The US determination to portray China as a threat not only serves as a justification to weaken it and preserve American geopolitical supremacy, but also reflects an American desire to subjugate free trade ideals to narrow protectionism. This approach is diametrically opposed to the broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth while free trade has a positive effect. It also goes against the widespread belief that free trade promotes peace. Not only does it improve relations between trading partners, it also reduces the incentive for countries to extend their borders or seize new territory in order to secure more resources. This was acknowledged in the post-World War I peace-treaty thinking of Woodrow Wilson, president of the US from 1913-21. He recognized that free trade was one of the key elements in preserving future peace, declaring the need to remove “all economic barriers” and establish “equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace”.
The US determination to portray China as a threat not only serves as a justification to weaken it and preserve American geopolitical supremacy, but also reflects an American desire to subjugate free trade ideals to narrow protectionism
Unfortunately, Wilson’s enlightened approach has now been ditched for protectionism and narrow political interests, with the concocted threat from “communist China” being conveniently blamed. In response to questions about what matters in elections, James Carville, who was a political adviser of then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton, famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is an important element in the rationale for the current bout of China bashing. The widespread concerns in the US about the state of the economy are central in the current presidential election campaign. The simplistic solution to economic woes, adopted by both Democrats and Republicans, is to offer American businesses and workers protection from Chinese competition. Of course, such a populist stunt isn’t a real solution for the economy, and its long-term effects will be negative, but in an election year it plays well with the public, especially when dressed up patriotically in the American flag.
For Hong Kong, the ramifications of America’s hostile approach to China have been felt for some time, but it appears that things are now going to get worse. As a pawn in the game, Hong Kong is an easy, high-profile target for the US in its latest anti-China push. As part of “China week”, the House of Representatives has passed the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act. This would enable the president to close Hong Kong’s economic and trade offices in the US on the grounds that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region no longer enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the Chinese mainland. As with US protectionism against the whole of China, the policy is all about the optics. Closing the offices will only harm the interests of both Hong Kong and the more than 1,200 US companies investing and operating in the city, including all major US financial companies. It appears that this reality is of less importance to the US government than populist anti-China posturing and a false narrative that Hong Kong has lost its high degree of autonomy.
There are approximately 80,000 Americans living in Hong Kong. They know that the US narrative on the city is wrong, that the “one country, two systems” constitutional formula is intact, that the rule of law is strong, and that Hong Kong remains one of the most free, liberal, law-abiding, safe and civilized cities in Asia. They need to spread the word to all Americans that neither Hong Kong nor the Chinese mainland is their enemy nor a threat. They have an authentic voice in their home country and have a duty to debunk American posturing.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
