Connect with us

Politics

A More Hawkish China Policy? 5 Takeaways From House Committee's Inaugural Hearing On Confronting Beijing

Published

on

a-more-hawkish-china-policy?-5-takeaways-from-house-committee's-inaugural-hearing-on-confronting-beijing
Bipartisan committee with Beijing in its sights. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Republican and Democratic House members put on a united front as they probed how to respond to the perceived growing threat of China.

The inaugural hearing of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party comes at a delicate time – amid concerns in the U.S. over Chinese espionage and tensions over Taiwan and China’s position on the Ukraine war.

Michael Beckley, an expert on U.S.-China relations at Tufts University, was among those watching on as witnesses gave evidence during the committee’s prime-time session. Here are his takeaways from what was discussed.

1. The days of engagement are over

What was abundantly clear from the lawmakers was the message that the era of engagement with China is long past its sell-by date.

Engagement had been the policy of successive government from Nixon’s landmark visit to China in 1972 onward. But there was a general acceptance among committee members that the policy is outdated and that it is time to adopt if not outright containment then certainly a more competitive policy. This would include “selective decoupling” – that is, the disentangling – of technology and economic interests, along with a more robust stance on confronting China’s military and providing a barrier to Chinese conquest in East Asia.

This proposed hardening of the U.S. policy is driven by internal developments in China as well as any perceived external threat. President Xi Jinping is viewed as having installed himself as “dictator for life” and created an Orwellian internal control system, complete with concentration camps and hundreds of millions of security cameras all over the country; this is a regime that is only becoming more authoritarian as the years go by. It has dispelled any idea that with its economic opening China would also become a more open society.

And the committee appears to want to set course for the long term, not just for the near future. The general idea is U.S. policy over the next 10 years could determine the relationship between the U.S. and China for the next century. Rep. Mike Gallagher, the panel’s Republican chair, said as much in his opening comments: “This is an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century – and the most fundamental freedoms are at stake.”

2. Reframing the debate

As Gallagher’s remarks suggest, the panel implied that U.S. issues with China do not boil down to just disagreement over a few issues. Rather, it was framed as a battle between two very different visions of society.

The committee is clearly modeled on the Jan. 6 House panel – for example, by airing hearings in prime time and with dramatic testimony from witnesses. The idea seems to be that the issue is of such importance that to pursue it successfully the U.S. public needs to be educated, invested and mobilized. To that end, the inaugural session had testimony from an activist jailed for two years for supporting pro-democracy movements. The point was to get across the idea that the way of life that the U.S. is trying to promote – both at home and abroad – is antithetical to that of the Chinese Communist Party.

President Joe Biden has similarly framed his administration’s policy around the idea that this is an epic struggle between democracy and autocracy. Indeed, in some ways Biden has been more hawkish than previous presidents on China. In terms of tightening economic restrictions on China and stressing U.S. concerns over China’s human rights record, Biden has picked up the baton from his predecessors and run with it.

But the panel was keen to stress this as a bipartisan push for a more hawkish policy. And this is important. It gives the panel’s recommendations more heft, especially as the U.S. heads into the 2024 presidential race, during which both parties will be looking to stress how tough they are on the U.S.‘s adversaries.

3. Confronting China’s leaders, not its people

Although framed as a battle between democracy and autocracy, the panel appears conscious that the debate shouldn’t be framed as a clash of Western and Asian civilizations.

With anti-Asian sentiment having risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. lawmakers are walking a fine line here – they will need to focus any criticism on Chinese leaders rather than its people. Gallagher made this point, noting: “We must constantly distinguish between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people themselves, who have always been the party’s primary victims.”

This balancing act may be more difficult in future hearings when issues of Chinese students at U.S. universities, immigration and cooperation with China on certain scientific issues come up. That is when they will need to weigh concerns over Chinese espionage against not coming across as anti-Chinese visitors and immigrants.

4. Reshaping policy on three fronts

Although this first hearing was very much a table-setter, there were three broad policy recommendations implicit in the testimony:

  • Taiwan – The panel heard evidence suggesting that the U.S. needs to mobilize for the potential of a hot war with China over the island of Taiwan, the status of which is contested. Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told the panel that in regards to China, the next two years would be a particularly “dangerous” period. He suggested that U.S. capabilities to deter an invasion of Taiwan were not adequate. Meanwhile, there were mentions of a backlog in weapon sales to Taiwan. And as the war in Ukraine has underscored, there is an imperative to get weapons on the ground before any shooting starts.

  • Economic competitiveness – The panel heard evidence from the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers pointing out how China had stacked global trade in its favor through unfair subsidies and corporate espionage. To improve America’s competitiveness, the panel could look at recommending the expansion of export controls or tax reforms to make U.S. products more competitive. The U.S. is also eyeing a strategic decoupling with China on the economic front, which is encouraging U.S. businesses to divest from Chinese operations and restricting Chinese businesses operating in the U.S., such as the social media platform TikTok.

  • Human rights – The committee made it clear that human rights should be front and center in the U.S. China policy going forward. The hearing repeatedly stressed that this was not just an economic and security disagreement but a clash of values.

5. A boilerplate response from Beijing

China’s response to the committee’s inaugural hearing was standard.

In a statement, the foreign ministry in Beijing said it rejected Washington’s attempt to engage in what it called a “Cold War” mindset. Chinese media also tried to make it sound as if anti-China policy is driven by special interests, including defense contractors and members of the Taiwanese diaspora.

The narrative that the U.S. is warmongering was aided by the interjection of two protesters from the Code Pink activist group, who held up a sign during the hearing stating that “China is not our enemy.”

The Conversation

Michael Beckley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Moscow Terror Attack Showed Growing Reach Of ISIS-K – Could The US Be Next?

Published

on

By

moscow-terror-attack-showed-growing-reach-of-isis-k-–-could-the-us-be-next?
More than 140 people died in the Crocus City Hall assualt in Moscow on March 22, 2023. AFP via Getty Images

A deadly attack in Moscow on March 22, 2024, exposed the vulnerability of the Russian capital to the threat of the Islamic State group and its affiliate ISIS-K. But it also displayed the reach of the network, leading some terror experts to ponder: Could a U.S. city be next?

There has not been a mass casualty assault in the U.S. carried out in the name of the Islamic State group since 2017, when a truck mowed down cyclists and pedestrians on a New York City bikeway, leaving eight dead.

Yet five years after the Islamic State group’s territorial defeat in Baghuz, Syria, had prompted hopes that the terrorist network was in terminal decline, a recent spate of attacks has thrust the group back into the spotlight. On the same day as the Moscow atrocity, an ISIS-K suicide bombing in Kandahar, Afghanistan, resulted in the deaths of at least 21 people.

As a terrorism expert and a scholar specializing in radical Islamist militant groups and the geographical scope of their attacks, I believe these incidents underscore the growing threat of ISIS-K both within the region it draws support from and on an international scale.

Amplifying influence

A successful terror attack on a Western capital is certainly something ISIS-K, or Islamic State Khorasan Province, aspires to. The intent behind the group’s activities is to bolster its position among jihadist factions by means of audacious and sophisticated attacks.

A man sits looking at screens with Tome, Madrid and London on.
An image released by pro-Islamic State media outlet Al Battar Foundation reads ‘After Moscow, who is next?’
Al-Battar Foundation

It is a strategy that showcases ISIS-K’s capabilities for spectacular operations, distinguishing it from potential rival groups. But it also enhances ISIS-K’s appeal, attracting both supporters and resources in the shape of funding and fighters.

By establishing a unique identity in a crowded extremist landscape, ISIS-K aims to undercut its competitors’ influence and assert its dominance in the jihadist sphere of the Khorasan region it targets, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other Central Asian countries.

ISIS-K’s ambition extends beyond territorial control, engaging in a broader contest for ideological supremacy and resource acquisition globally.

An expanding threat

This global reach and ambition are evident in ISIS-K’s recent planned operations.

These include a suicide bombing in Iran in January 2024 and thwarted attacks across Europe, notably the foiled plots in Germany and the Netherlands in July 2023.

And without a doubt, a successful attack in the United States is seen within ISIS-K’s hierarchy as a major goal.

Since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, officials in the Biden administration have repeatedly warned of ISIS-K’s escalating danger to American interests, both at home and abroad.

ISIS-K’s propaganda has persistently framed the U.S. as its principal enemy – a narrative that is fueled by America’s extensive military and economic efforts to dismantle Islamic State operations since 2014.

The United States’ involvement, especially in collaboration with the Taliban — ISIS-K’s primary regional adversary — has placed America firmly in the group’s crosshairs.

Employing tactics refined during the period that the Islamic State group was most active, ISIS-K seeks to inspire lone-wolf attacks and radicalize individuals in the U.S.

The 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, which left 14 dead, and the 2016 shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that resulted in at least 49 deaths, were both attacks inspired by the Islamic State group.

Targeting major powers

Taking its lead from the Islamic State group, ISIS-K in 2022 publicly condemned America, calling it an enemy of Islam.

Of course, ISIS-K had by then already demonstrated its intention to harm U.S. interests, notably in a 2021 Kabul airport attack in which 13 U.S. service members and 170 Afghans were killed.

ISIS-K views the U.S. in much the same way as it does Russia: both as a military and an ideological foe.

Russia became a prime target due in part to its partnering with the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria in operations against Islamic State group affiliates. Similarly, Washington has worked with the Taliban in Afghanistan in countering ISIS-K operations.

While it is easier for ISIS-K to penetrate Russian territory, given the country’s geographical proximity to major Islamist recruitment centers, such as Tajikistan, the potential for strikes in the United States remains significant.

In 2023, U.S. authorities investigated a group of Uzbek nationals suspected of entering the country from Mexico with the assistance of traffickers linked to the Islamic State group, underscoring the group’s threat.

The wreckage of a truck under a blue sheet is seen being towed away.
Eight people died in a truck attack in New York City in 2017.
AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

Targeting American interests serve multiple purposes for ISIS-K. By striking against the U.S., ISIS-K not only retaliates against Washington’s counterterrorism efforts but also aims to deter U.S. involvement in regions of interest to ISIS-K.

It also taps into historical grievances against the U.S. and Western interventions in Muslim countries – from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to the stationing of U.S. troops in significant Islamic centers in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia.

Countering a persistent threat

In response to the growing threat of Islamic State group affiliates, the United States has adopted a comprehensive strategy combining military, intelligence and law enforcement efforts.

Military operations have targeted ISIS-K leaders and infrastructure in Afghanistan, while security cooperation with regional and international partners such as Uzbekistan continues to monitor and counter the group’s activities.

On the home front, law enforcement and homeland security agencies remain vigilant, working to identify and thwart potential ISIS-K plots.

But as many experts had warned, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 has posed new challenges, inadvertently transforming that country once again into a safe haven and operational base for terrorist groups.

This retreat has also resulted in a significant loss of on-the-ground intelligence amid doubts over the efficacy of relying on the Taliban for counterterrorism operations.

Meanwhile, the Taliban are struggling to prevent or counteract ISIS-K attacks within their own borders.

The successful ISIS-K plots against Iran and Russia also reveal another vulnerability: When a country is distracted or preoccupied with other security concerns or conflicts, it can potentially compromise the effectiveness of its counterterrorism efforts.

Recent years have witnessed a decrease in high-profile attacks by groups like the Islamic State, leading many to conclude that the threat was waning. As a result, global attention — and with it, intelligence and security resources — has shifted toward escalating power rivalries and conflicts across the Pacific, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Yet, this shift risks underestimating the enduring threat terrorist groups pose, laying bare the dangers of complacency.

The Moscow attack emphasizes ISIS-K’s resolve to expand its influence, raising concerns about the potential threat to Western nations, including the United States. Considering ISIS-K’s track record and clear aspirations, it would be naive to dismiss the possibility of an attack on American soil.

The Conversation

Sara Harmouch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tweaking US Trade Policy Could Hold The Key To Reducing Migration From Central America

Published

on

By

tweaking-us-trade-policy-could-hold-the-key-to-reducing-migration-from-central-america
Employees at the K.P. Textil textile plant in Guatemala City. Johan Ordonez/AFP via Getty Images)

Small changes to U.S. trade policy could significantly reduce the number of migrants arriving at the southern border, according to our peer-reviewed study, which was recently published in The World Economy.

Our research delved into the effectiveness of existing trade agreements in creating jobs in migrant-sending countries, with a focus on Central America. We analyzed the impact that the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA-DR, has had on apparel exports and jobs since being ratified by the U.S. and six countries – Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – from 2005 to 2009.

CAFTA-DR was aimed at encouraging trade and investment ties. But restrictive provisions, particularly its rules of origin, have hindered the region’s ability to benefit fully from the agreement. Under a “triple transformation” clause, only garments assembled in one of the countries from fabrics and constituent fibers originating from the region qualify for free-trade benefits.

This significantly limits the scope for trade expansion because of the limited range of fabrics produced in the region compared with the global market. For example, it means that many modern fabrics, like the kinds used in some stretchy jeans, do not qualify.

Loosening the rules to allow for new fabrics would not only attract investment and create more jobs for Central Americans, it could also reduce immigration from the region by as much as 67%, according to our estimates.

At present, about 500,000 people work in the apparel industry in Central America. It is labor-intensive, and expanding exports would increase employment. Our research shows that loosening the rules of origin to include new fabrics from outside the region would create about 120,000 direct jobs.

If a stronger relationship between exports and employment is assumed, this figure could even rise to about 257,500 jobs, our figures show.

And these jobs would be boosted by additional indirect employment around the expanding factories in Central America needed to accommodate the increased trade.

If would-be migrants in Central America instead chose the new apparel jobs in their home countries, we estimate that migration from Central America to the U.S. could fall by 30% to 67%.

Why it matters

The migration crisis has taken center stage in U.S. political discourse, with Republicans in Congress holding up legislation, including aid to Ukraine, over their demands that tougher border security measures be included as part of any package.

In December 2023, the number of U.S. Border Patrol encounters with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border hit a record high of almost 250,000, and it remained high during the first few months of 2024.

While human rights violations, security issues and corruption in migrant-sending countries are often cited as driving factors, in many cases, immigrants are seeking job opportunities that are unavailable in their home countries.

But despite the increased political attention on immigration, trade policy – which could be used to address the scarcity of secure, well-paying jobs in Central American countries with heavy migrant outflows – has largely been absent from either party’s strategy to address the “root causes” of migration.

We believe addressing the root causes of the current border crisis requires creating good jobs in migrant-sending countries.

What still isn’t known

We looked only at one industry – apparel – in Central America and the Dominican Republic, a Caribbean nation.

Academic reviews suggest that as many as half of all trade agreements have no significant effect on trade flows, and only about one-quarter of them increase trade. In fact, trade agreements may even create barriers to trade by adding additional clauses that are complicated or too restrictive.

The key question is how to make all trade agreements more effective at creating jobs in migrant-sending countries. Identifying and relaxing barriers within trade agreements is, we believe, an important first step toward reducing emigration.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

The Conversation

In 2021, the Mosbacher Institute received funding for Bush School student research from the American Apparel and Footwear Association while Raymond Robertson was the director. The AAFA provided neither funding nor any other form of support, including any direct or indirect support, for the research described in this article.

Kaleb Girma Abreha does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Amazing Story Of The Man Who Created The Latest Narco-State In The Americas, And How The United States Helped Him Every Step Of The Way − Until Now

Published

on

By

the-amazing-story-of-the-man-who-created-the-latest-narco-state-in-the-americas,-and-how-the-united-states-helped-him-every-step-of-the-way-−-until-now

When Juan Orlando Hernández was convicted by a federal jury in Manhattan in early March 2024, it marked a spectacular fall from grace: from being courted in the U.S. as a friendly head of state to facing the rest of his life behind bars, convicted of cocaine importation and weapons offenses.

“Juan Orlando Hernández abused his position as President of Honduras to operate the country as a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed with virtual impunity,” said U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland following the jury conviction. Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, added: “When the leader of Honduras and the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel work hand-in-hand to send deadly drugs into the United States, both deserve to be accountable.”

The conviction was a victory for the Justice Department and the DEA. During Hernández’s two terms in office, from 2014 to 2022, he and his acolytes transported more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States, according to U.S. prosecutors. The former head of state now faces a mandatory sentence of up to 40 years in prison; sentencing is scheduled for June 26.

But there’s more to this story.

As I explore in the book “21st Century Democracy Promotion in the Americas: Standing Up for the Polity,” written in collaboration with the Open University’s Britta Weiffen, Honduras is a tragic example of what happens when a country becomes a narco-state. While its people suffer the consequences – the World Bank reports that about half the country currently lives under poverty – its leaders grow rich through the drugs trade.

Furthermore, the way Hernández came to power and maintained that position for so long could provide “Exhibit A” in any indictment of U.S. policy toward Central America – and Latin America more generally – over the past few decades.

Growing ties with cartels

Up to Hernández’s arrest in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, and extradition to the United States in January 2022, his biggest enabler had been none other than the U.S. government itself.

Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden all backed Hernández and allowed him to inflict enormous harm to Honduras and to the United States in the process.

How so? To answer this question, some background is needed.

On June 28, 2009, a classic military coup took place in Honduras. In the wee hours of the morning, while still in his pajamas, President Manuel “Mel” Zelaya was unceremoniously escorted by armed soldiers from his home and flown to a neighboring country. The coup leaders alleged that, by calling for a referendum on reforming the Honduran Constitution, the government was moving toward removing the one-term presidential term limit enshrined in the country’s charter and opening the door to authoritarianism.

Initially, then-President Barack Obama protested the coup and took measures against those responsible – the right-wing opponents of Zelaya.

But the administration eventually relented and allowed the coup leaders to prevail, largely due to pressure from Republicans, who saw Zelaya as being too close to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, whose leftist agenda was deemed by the GOP as a threat to U.S. interests.

The coup-makers simply ran the clock against the upcoming election date and installed their own candidate in the presidency, Porfirio Lobo of the National party, whose son Fabio was also later convicted of cocaine trafficking.

Washington looks the other way

Lobo laid the foundations of Honduras as the new century’s first narco-state, allowing drug cartels to infiltrate the highest echelons of government and the security apparatus as cocaine trade became an increasingly central plank of the country’s economy.

All the while, the U.S. pumped tens of millions of dollars into building up Honduras’ police and military, despite widespread allegations of being engaged in corruption, complicit in the drugs trade and engaged in human rights abuses.

The dollars continued to flow when Lobo was succeeded in 2013 by his buddy and fellow National party member, Juan Orlando Hernández.

In 2017, Hernández – an ardent supporter of the 2009 coup – ran for a second term after the Supreme Court of Honduras pronounced this to be perfectly legal.

Many Hondurans believe Hernández stole the November 2017 elections. The vote count was suspended in the middle of the night as Hernández was running behind, and when the polls opened in the morning, he miraculously emerged as a winner.

Despite widespread allegations of election fraud, the U.S. quickly recognized the result, congratulating Hernández on his win.

Emboldened by his success, Hernández continued to build up Honduras as the new century’s first narco-state of the Americas.

In 2018, the president’s brother, Juan Antonio “Tony” Hernández, a former member of the Honduran Parliament, was arrested in the United States for his association with the Cartel de Sinaloa, the Mexican drug cartel. This entity valued his services so much that they named a particular strain of cocaine after him, stamping the bags as “TH.” Tony Hernández was convicted on four charges in 2019, sentenced to 30 years in prison, and has been in U.S. federal prison ever since.

President Hernández denied any association with the cartel, but the evidence pointed to the contrary. As reported in The Economist, in a New York City trial, one accused drug trafficker alleged that Hernández took bribes for “helping cocaine reach the United States.” Another witness testified that the president had taken two bribes in 2013, before being elected; a former cartel leader testified that the president had been paid $250,000 to protect him from being arrested.

‘Complicit or gullible’

Given Hernández’s history in Honduras, the repeated claims of U.S. government officials that they simply didn’t know of his crimes ring hollow.

Honduras became a narco-state, in part, because U.S. policymakers looked the other way as it did so. They embraced Hernández because he was ideologically more palatable and subservient to Washington’s wishes compared with his rival, Zelaya. But as the trial verdict in Manhattan makes clear, it was a decision with disastrous consequences.

As one State Department official put it, “Today’s verdict makes all of us who collaborated with (Hernández) look either complicit or gullible.”

The latter may be the more charitable assessment. But the truth is more uncomfortable.

The Conversation

I am a member of the Party for Democracy in Chile and and affiliated with the Foro de Political Exterior, a Chilean foreign policy think tank.

Continue Reading

Trending