This year marks the election year in the United States, with the issue of China (Communist Party of China) becoming a serious topic that both parties cannot avoid. The American society is witnessing intense debates on this matter. Experts have analyzed and interpreted this situation, pointing out the differences and directions of the two parties’ policies towards China.
The US government is adopting an increasingly tough stance towards the CCP. Following visits to China by US Treasury Secretary Yellen and Secretary of State Blinken, the US government imposed sanctions on nearly 300 companies and individuals on May 1, including over twenty companies located in China and Hong Kong.
Previously, Blinken issued a stern warning to the CCP to reduce support for the Russian defense industry, while Yellen has become a vanguard in blocking CCP industrial policies, explicitly stating that President Biden and she will no longer accept China’s excess production capacity.
Yao Yuan Ye, a professor of international studies at the University of St. Thomas in the United States, expressed in an interview with Dajiyuan that both parties have a complete consensus on the need to continue countering and competing with China (the CCP) to ensure that China does not threaten US national interests. Their policies towards China are actually tough.
“It’s just that their strategies are different. Democratic governments are more accustomed to using diplomatic means to balance, and if it doesn’t work, they resort to sanctions anyway. Republican governments may act faster, represented by Trump, and are more likely to directly take unilateral actions. So, I think the difference lies in the execution of the strategy, not in the direction,” he said.
In an article published on April 10 by the US international affairs magazine “Foreign Affairs,” authors Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallagher argued that the Biden team’s “competition management” policy with Beijing is a counterproductive measure, initially intended for cooperation but resulting in actions that only bring about complacent diplomatic actions.
Drawing parallels to the US-Soviet Cold War, the authors believe that the current situation bears incredible similarities to the 1970s. Nixon and Kissinger adopted a policy of relaxation, reducing defense budgets, downplaying ideological differences, and inducing Russia into a stable global power equilibrium. Reagan focused on winning the Cold War and bluntly revealed the truth of the Soviet threat.
The authors reviewed Washington’s dismissive attitude towards Beijing’s provocations in the 2023 balloon incident, stating that CCP leaders have already initiated a cold war with the US, and an authoritarian regime that commits genocide, incites conflict, and threatens to wage war can never be a reliable partner.
The article concludes by stating that Washington should not fear the ultimate outcome desired by more and more Chinese people – a China free from Communist Party dictatorship, able to autonomously plan its development path. The significant outflow of Chinese people from their homeland indicates their desire to live in a country that respects human rights, follows the rule of law, and provides ample opportunities. Just like Taiwan has demonstrated, China has the potential to become such a place.
Opponents, however, see this as a dangerous new call for Beijing’s regime change.
On May 3, columnist Fareed Zakaria of The Washington Post expressed in a commentary that continued confrontation could disrupt the global economy, isolate the US, and increase the risk of a world war triggered by tensions in the Taiwan Strait. He believes that adopting strategies of containment and subversion will lead the US down an extremely dangerous path. “Before stepping onto this path, we need to engage in some thoughtful reflection.”
Zakaria notes that Pottinger was a senior advisor on China policy under Trump, and Gallagher, as an outgoing congressman, also chaired the House China Caucus. Their viewpoints are likely to shape the policy direction of the next Republican government.
Chinese economist Li Hengqing, in an interview with Dajiyuan, stated that in actuality, the first to take action on the issue of China (the CCP) was President Trump. The first to extend an olive branch to the CCP regime were Nixon and Kissinger, who were also Republicans. Thus, it is difficult to divide the parties on this issue.
He pointed out that after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US in 1972, there was a keen interest in understanding the ancient and mysterious eastern culture with thousands of years of history. There was no clear division between hawks and doves. A crucial turning point came after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, in the late 1990s and early 21st century, during China’s accession to most-favored-nation status, when the West began scrutinizing China’s human rights issues more rigorously.
He explained that at that time, divisions started to form. Some believed that the CCP’s one-party dictatorship system was anti-human, denying people basic freedoms, leading to disapproval and opposition, eventually escalating to sanctions. These individuals were considered hawks by CCP media.
There was also a group known as doves who sought engagement with China, believing that as China’s economy developed, a large middle class would emerge, advocating for freedom and democracy to protect their interests, ultimately aligning with Western ideologies.
“This is the concept of different political views engaging in discourse. Most US politicians are ordinary people, and many have undergone changes in their thinking or have made political choices, switching parties. Whether dovish or hawkish, in the US, their views are evolving, not solely defined by party lines,” Li Hengqing explained.
He cited the example of the prominent former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who strongly opposes dictatorship. Working alongside Pelosi in the past was Republican congressman Frank Wolf, a strong advocate for human rights, leading to substantial cooperation between them, showcasing their strong friendship.
Li Hengqing stressed the importance of understanding the viewpoints of these figures on China’s future development direction and the challenges posed to the camp of freedom and democracy. Their policy directions and actions are crucial differentiating factors.
He highlighted that the perspective presented in The Washington Post’s article is essentially a minority view, as the US is a society of free speech and press freedom where non-mainstream views can be discussed. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have passed numerous bills related to China (the CCP) recently, and they have been overwhelmingly supported, with only a few objections or refusals, reflecting the current mainstream stance.
A survey released in April by the Pew Research Center revealed that 81% of people hold negative views of China, with about half of respondents believing that limiting the CCP should be the US’s top diplomatic priority. The cognitive gap between the two parties on this issue is narrowing. Only 6% of people consider China to be a partner for the US.
Li Hengqing stated that this being an election year, the scale and breadth of discussions on the China issue are extensive, happening at all levels. It is a very serious and crucial topic at the state level across Washington and various state governments. No one speaks positively about the policy towards China; everyone is using fairly strong language. For instance, Trump mentioned that if elected, he would impose a 60% tariff on all goods from China, which would lead to a complete disconnection.
“Of course, Pottinger’s ideas are relatively radical; they are a unique force in the Washington political circle and have considerable influence. If Trump wins the election in November, Pottinger and others are likely to return to the White House; if Biden wins reelection, this article by Pottinger will still have a significant impact on the current Democratic government, prompting adjustments in that direction,” he noted.
Yao Yuan Ye stated, “Unlike the past Cold War with the Soviet Union, the US and Russia had little cooperation to begin with, so transitioning to a full-scale decisive conflict was easier. China, to some extent, is a part of the global supply chain; severing ties directly with China would be a 100-to-50 self-harm ratio. This has been a dilemma for Democratic figures or dovish individuals.”
“Those like Pottinger, who belong to the hawkish camp, believe that the current competition with China (the CCP) is not strong enough. Delaying further would give China (the CCP) too much time, and once China (the CCP) has the time to consolidate its power, America may lose to China in competition. So, they are more urgent, not necessarily more radical, just faster. They want most to sever ties and do so at a faster pace. Of course, this also carries risks; it will have a significant and dramatic impact on the US domestic market,” he continued.
He suggested that both hawks and doves understand the importance of not cornering the enemy too swiftly. If pressured too harshly, Xi Jinping might feel as if the economy is already collapsing and resort to war to shift the focus. Such situations have historically arisen many times.
According to Li Hengqing, the US’s policy towards China will become increasingly professional and precise over time. The significant shift in US-China relations occurred in 2018, during President Trump’s term when the US-China trade war escalated. Not only did the US change, but the entire Western camp underwent transformations. From the US-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral Dialogue, the US-UK-Australia Tripartite Security Mechanism, to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), along with the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, a bloc has essentially formed to contain authoritarian and dictatorial nations. However, if this bloc is dismantled, all previous efforts might go in vain.
As an example, he mentioned Xi Jinping’s current visit to Europe, lobbying in Serbia and Hungary. Whether Western democratic countries can unite is a critical factor in the future world political landscape.
“It’s about whether there is determination to stand united and ultimately triumph; this is the greatest challenge faced by the US and the camp of the free world. Moreover, perseverance is essential; don’t flip-flop, and don’t try to backtrack. Just perseverance at this point may lead to victory,” he emphasized.
Yao Yuan Ye believes that the direction of the US policy towards China will not change; competition remains constant. Regarding differences, the outcome will depend on the November election—whether to use multilateral containment against the CCP or unilateral containment—which would differentiate between a Biden or Trump victory; the overarching direction will remain.
“The most effective way is to ask the CCP; do they think Biden is backtracking? Biden seems willing to engage in talks, but in the end, there were no tangible results, and foreign capital flows out of China unabated. From a conservative perspective, some feel that Biden is not acting assertively enough, but from the CCP’s perspective, it’s like ‘America has always been pressuring us,’ indicating that the direction has not changed,” he concluded.