China - What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do PDF

6/2/2020 China: What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do
China: What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do

by Gordon G. Chang
June 1, 2020 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16082/china-what-we-must-do
The truth is that the United States is defending more than just its
position in the international system. We are defending the international
system itself, the system of treaties, conventions, rules, and norms.
Unfortunately, Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, does not believe in that

system. He is trying to impose China's imperial‑era notions of the
world.
In short, Chinese rulers believed that they had the mandate of heaven
over tianxia, meaning "all under heaven." Recently, his
pronouncements have become unmistakable.
In the last few months, Xi Jinping has seen an historic opportunity

because the United States has been stricken by the disease that China
itself has pushed out... What must we do? First, let us talk about what
we must not do. We must not save Chinese communism again. In the
past, American presidents, when China has been stressed, had ridden to
the rescue of the Chinese state.
On May 13 of last year, Beijing declared a "people's war" on the

United States. This means the contest with China is existential. There is
going to be one survivor. It is either going to be the Peoples' Republic
of China or the United States of America, but not both.
What should we do? In my call for action, there are eight items. First,
we need to cut off trade with China. Now, I know a lot of people think
we should not do this, or this would be unfortunate. Yes, this is
unfortunate, but the point is that China's communism cannot be
reformed, so the only way we can protect American society and
Americans is to reduce our exposure to China and our great exposure,
of course, is trade... we should not be enriching a hostile state with the
proceeds
This website oftocommerce
uses cookies with
provide you with betterthe United States.
services.
OK
To find out more, please review our Privacy and Cookies Policy.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16082/china-what-we-must-do 1/21
China's Communist Party does not have sovereign immunity.... We

have the Global Magnitsky Act.
We need to "rip and replace" all the equipment in our telecom

backbone that has been supplied by Huawei Technologies... China has
been using that company's equipment to spy on others. We should have
no Huawei equipment in our backbone
Also, we should be turfing out even more Chinese journalists. Those

"journalists"... work for China's intelligence services.
Unfortunately, China does not believe in comparative advantage, it

does not believe in being a responsible member of the international
community. Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is what many
people think is unthinkable, and that is to cut our ties with China.... We
cut our ties until... the Communist Party no longer rules [and] the
Chinese people govern themselves.... I believe the Chinese people
eventually will get this right.
The truth is that the United States is defending more than just its position in the international
system. We are defending the international system itself, the system of treaties, conventions,
This website uses cookies to provide you with better services.
rules,
To find outand norms.
more, pleaseUnfortunately, Xi Jinping,
review our Privacy thePolicy.
and Cookies Chinese ruler, does not believe in that OK
system. He is trying to impose China's imperial‑era notions of the world. (Photo by Kevin
Frayer/Getty Images)
China has attacked America with coronavirus. At this moment, more than 100,000
Americans have been killed. We brace ourselves for the deaths to come.
Today, I'll do two things. First, I'll talk about the nature of that attack. The second
thing, what we must do to protect ourselves.
First of all, China is not, as many people will tell you, just a competitor. It is an
enemy. China is trying to overthrow the international system, and in that process, it
is trying to make you subject to modern-day Chinese emperors.
I know this sounds as if it cannot be true, but we must listen to what Chinese
leaders say. When we do that, we realize that to defend the American republic and
defend our way of life, we are going to have to decouple from China.
On May 6, President Donald J. Trump said that China's attack was worse than Pearl
Harbor, worse than the World Trade Center. "There's never been an attack like this,"
he said, and he is right.
Most critically, Chinese leaders publicly admitted that the novel coronavirus, the
pathogen causing COVID-19, could be transmitted from one human to another on
January 20.
Yet doctors in Wuhan, the epicenter, were noticing the contagiousness of this virus
no later than the second week in December. Beijing knew a few days after that. If
Chinese leaders had said nothing during that five‑week period, that would have
been grossly irresponsible.
What they tried to do, however, was deceive the world into believing that this was
not transmissible human-to-human. As a result of that campaign, the World Health
Organization (WHO) propagated China's false narrative, especially with that
infamous January 14 tweet:
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have

found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel
#coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China."
At the same time, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China
Tosince
find out2012, pressured
more, please countries
review our not
Privacy and to impose OK on
travel restrictions or quarantines
Cookies Policy.
arrivals from China. Again, WHO helped China, this time with its January 10
statement opposing these restrictions.
What happened was arrivals from China -- when Chinese officials knew this virus
was human-to human-transmissible -- turned what should have been an epidemic
contained to China into a global pandemic.
I don't know what Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, was thinking, but if after having
seen what the coronavirus did to cripple China, he decided to cripple other societies
to get even, he would have done exactly what in fact he did do.
That means there is only one inescapable conclusion. This conclusion is that China
maliciously spread this virus around the world, sickening people, killing others.
This is the first time in history that one nation has attacked all the others.
That is not all. After admitting the human-to-human contagiousness of this disease,
Beijing then downplayed it.
On January 21, the day after formally admitting the disease's human-to-human
transmissibility, Beijing got its propaganda machine in full gear to tell the world
that this was less dangerous than SARS.
SARS is the 2002‑2003 epidemic that according to the World Health Organization
infected 8,096 people across the world, killing 744. By then, on January 21,
Chinese officials knew it was much worse than SARS.
According to Der Spiegel, Germany's intelligence agency, the BND, believes that
on January 21 ‑‑ this is the day after China formally admitted human‑to‑human
transmissibility of the disease ‑‑ Xi Jinping spoke to Dr. Tedros, the director-general
of WHO, and tried to get the organization to hold back information on
human‑to‑human transmissibility, as well as to delay declaring a pandemic.
Now, WHO denies that this phone conversation between Xi and Tedros took place,
but it fits known facts. It also fits what the US intelligence community has been
saying, according to various reports.
China's actions had consequences. Beijing lulled public health officials around the
world, including those in the United States, into not taking actions that they
otherwise
This website useswould
cookies have adopted.
to provide you with better services.
To find out more, please review our Privacy and Cookies Policy. OK
Democrats and Chinese communists have criticized President Trump for acting too
slowly after he imposed the travel restrictions on China on January 31. If that is
true, it is only because people on his coronavirus task force were actually listening
to what Beijing was saying and making judgments on what they had heard.
For instance, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus task force
coordinator, in her March 31 press briefing said she had seen the data from China
and decided that this was no more dangerous than SARS, but realized, after the
infections ripped through both Italy and Spain, that she had been deceived by the
Chinese. She is not the only one. Dr. Anthony Fauci has also talked in public about
how the Chinese misled him.
We must impose costs on China. We must impose costs because, first of all, what
China did was a crime against all of humanity. We must also impose costs because
we need to deter China. This is not going to be the last pathogen generated on
Chinese soil. We got to make sure the Chinese leaders do not believe that they can
maliciously spread another disease.
This means there is going to be friction between China and the United States as we
Americans take steps to protect ourselves in the future. Those steps are going to
cause arrogant and belligerent Chinese to move against us.
We should take a look about how the arrogant and belligerent Chinese indeed view
the international system, how they view the world order. You will hear many
analysts say that the friction between the United States and China is just another
one of these boys-will-be-boys contests in history.
The notion is that the United States is jealously protecting its position in the
international system fits in with Beijing's narrative that their rise is inevitable and
that we are in terminal decline.
The truth is that the United States is defending more than just its position in the
international system. We are defending the international system itself, the system of
treaties, conventions, rules, and norms.
Unfortunately, Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, does not believe in that system. He is
trying to impose China's imperial‑era notions of the world. In other words, he
believes that everyone around the world must acknowledge Chinese rule.
In short, Chinese rulers believed that they had
the mandate of heaven overOK
To find out more, please review our Privacy and Cookies Policy.
tianxia,
meaning "all under heaven." Xi Jinping has used tianxia‑like language for more
than a decade. Recently, his pronouncements have become unmistakable.
For instance, in his 2017 New Year's message he said, and I quote, "The Chinese
have always held that the world is united and all under heaven" -- all under heaven
-- "are one family."
If this were not enough, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, in September of 2017 wrote
an article in Study Times, the Central Party School's influential newspaper. Wang Yi
wrote that "Xi Jinping thought" ‑‑ "thought" in Communist Party lingo is an
important body of ideological work -- "made innovations on and transcended the
traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years."
If you take 2017 and subtract 300 years, you almost get to 1648. Wang, with his
time reference of 300 years, was almost certainly pointing to the Treaty of
Westphalia of 1648, which established the current international system. That
system recognizes the sovereignty of different states.
Also, when Wang Yi used the word "transcended," he was saying that Xi Jinping
does not believe that there should be sovereign states, or at least no more sovereign
states than China itself. The trend of Xi Jinping's recent comments is that he doesn't
want to live within the international system. He does not even want to adjust it. He
wants to overthrow it altogether.
This means China once again is a revolutionary state. Now, Xi Jinping, of course,
has not had the power to compel others to accept this audacious vision of
worldwide Chinese rule.
Nonetheless, in the last few months, he has seen an historic opportunity because the
United States has been stricken by the disease that China itself has pushed out
beyond its borders.
What must we do? First, let us talk about what we must not do.
We must not save Chinese communism again. In the past, American presidents,
when China had been stressed, have ridden to the rescue of the Chinese state. In
1972, for instance, Richard Nixon went to a Beijing that had been weakened by
more than a half decade of the Cultural Revolution, signaling America's support for
China's communism. That is how people in China took that visit.
The
This second
website time, to1989,
uses cookies provideGeorge
you with H. W.services.
better Bush sent
Brent Scowcroft, his secret
emissary, to Deng Xiaoping in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre. Again,
America was telling the Chinese, "Don't worry about American sanctions, don't
worry about what we say in public, we have your back."
The third time, 1999, President William Jefferson Clinton signed a trade deal with
China – at a time when the Chinese economy, in reality, was contracting. Certainly,
China was suffering geopolitical setbacks. That deal was the basis of China's entry
into the World Trade Organization.
Despite all these saves of Chinese communism, China's communist leaders have
remained hostile. We have seen this hostility, especially since the first week of
February of this year when the Global Times, which is a Communist Party
newspaper, and the Chinese foreign ministry have engaged in an inflammatory
disinformation campaign against the United States in an attempt to tar the US with
all sorts of disease‑related sins.
This campaign culminated, reached a high point -- although this campaign is still
continuing today -- on March 12th when the foreign ministry went on a Twitter
storm. As a part of that Twitter storm, foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said
that coronavirus patient zero was in the United States.
In other words, the disease started here. He also suggested that the US Army
carried the disease to Wuhan. We were seeing daily stories about how the United
States had been spreading the disease around the world.
Now, Americans, of course, were taken by surprise by this Twitter storm, but we
really should not be -- because on May 13 of last year Beijing declared a "people's
war" on the United States. This means the contest with China is existential. There is
going to be one survivor. It is going to be either the Peoples' Republic of China or
the United States of America, not both.
We have just heard about what we should not be doing. We should not be rescuing
Chinese communism.
What should we do? In my call for action, there are eight items.
First, we need to cut off trade with China. Now, I know a lot of people think we
should not do this, or this would be unfortunate.
Yes, this is unfortunate, but the point is that China's communism cannot be
reformed,
This website usesso the only
cookies wayyouwewith
to provide can protect
better American society and Americans is to
services.
reduce our exposure to China and our great exposure, of course, is trade. In any
event, we should not be enriching a hostile state with the proceeds of commerce
with the United States.
This means, of course, that we need to get our factories off Chinese soil, but
especially our pharmaceutical factories. China has been threatening to throw the
United States into what it calls "a mighty sea of coronavirus," and it has not been
kidding.
For instance, we know the Chinese have turned around at least one ship carrying
personal protective equipment -- masks, gowns, gloves -- that were on their way to
New York hospitals. Moreover, Peter Navarro has said China has even nationalized
one American factory in China producing those N‑95 masks.
China's leadership always talks about how it is not possible for the US and China to
"decouple." Now, it is possible. Our job is to make it inevitable.
Second thing that we need to do: The administration is well on the way to making
sure federal pension money is not invested in China's markets. We also need to
make sure that state pension money, and money from individuals, is not put into
China's markets. We should not be enriching China with our investments into its
equity markets.
Third thing, we need to make China pay. Now, many people have sued the Chinese
central government. There are class‑action suits in the federal district courts in
Florida, Texas, and Nevada. Of course, the Chinese Central Government has
sovereign immunity, but there are a number of bills in Congress, including one
sponsored by Senator Blackburn and Representative Lance Gooden.
There is also another bill sponsored by Tom Cotton and Dan Crenshaw, and these
would strip China of sovereign immunity. I believe Josh Hawley, the Senator from
Missouri, also has a bill.
The State of Missouri, by the way, has sued the Communist Party of China, which
is far more important and far richer than the Chinese central government. Guess
what? China's Communist Party does not have sovereign immunity.
People have also been talking about seizing China's holdings of US Treasury
obligations. According to official records, it holds more than a trillion dollars. In
reality, it is probably a bit higher than that because China holds US Treasuries
through nominees.
Of course, China would engage in a vociferous propaganda campaign if we did

that. Beijing would say we are repudiating our debt. They would also say we are
not responsible members and stewards of the global financial system. They would
be wrong, they would be incorrect, but the US might suffer reputational damage.
That is why I think we should seize Treasuries, but we should be doing this in
connection with the holders and issuers of other major currencies. For instance, the
Canadian dollar, the British pound, the European Union's euro, the Swiss franc, the
Japanese yen, maybe the Singapore dollar
When we act with others, this becomes not a China-versus-US issue but an issue of
China versus the world. No one country is going to suffer reputational damage.
Of course, Beijing could nationalize American factories in China, but I'm not so
sure they're going to do that because China would be hurt far more than we would
by that.
Remember that China's economy is still in a contraction phase and it is still

export‑dominated, which means it needs those factories on its soil.
Fourth, with the possibility of the coronavirus escaping from the Wuhan Institute of
Virology, we are now thinking about whether China has a biological weapons
program in contravention of its obligations under the Biological Weapons
Convention.
Right now, we have seen all sorts of circumstantial evidence suggesting lab leak,
and we have seen all sorts of circumstantial evidence that the Chinese military has
been involved in the cleanup.
The Biological Weapons Convention does not have an inspections regime.
The item on my action list is that the United States should insist on inspections of
China's labs, and if we cannot get inspections we should withdraw from the
Convention. I am not saying that the novel coronavirus was a biological weapon.
We really do not know.
The one thing we do know is that in China's labs, they have been engineering
coronaviruses in the past. They have issued scientific papers on this, and what they
are doing is extremely risky.
Fifth, we should make sure that China does not mess in our elections. China was
extremely active in the 2018 midterms. They were concerned about President
Trump's tariffs, and they actually did have an effect in electing Democrats to the
House of Representatives.
We know they are going to do that, or something like that, this time. The New York
Times a few weeks ago said they are trying to sow chaos in the American public
square by disseminating false rumors.
Sixth, we need to stop China from using its nationals to systematically gather
information on our soil. Unfortunately, we have had a series of American presidents
who have, for various reasons, either done nothing about China's intelligence
operations here, or the actions they took were deliberately ineffective.
We know that China's diplomats operate on our soil, sometimes spying, other times
in a manner inconsistent with the diplomatic status they have. Also, China's
Ministry of State Security agents operate here, freely.
We need to "rip and replace" all the equipment in our telecom backbone that has
been supplied by Huawei Technologies, China's telecom equipment manufacturer.
China has been using that company's equipment to spy on others. We should have
no Huawei equipment in our backbone.
Also, we should be turfing out even more Chinese journalists. Those "journalists,"
we know, work for China's intelligence services. We have allowed them to stay on
our soil for far too long. Secretary of State Pompeo has expelled many of them, and
we need to complete the job.
We have to remember that China's 2017 National Intelligence Law requires every
Chinese citizen and every Chinese entity to spy if demanded, which means that
Chinese nationals on our soil can be under a compulsion to engage in intelligence
collection.
Seventh, let's remove China from our cable networks and our newsstands. We
should not be allowing China to exploit the openness of our system to try to end it.
Eighth, and the last, we have to deter China, which right now is engaging in what
people in Beijing call "wolf warrior" diplomacy. For instance, we see Xi Jinping,
with these threats to invade Taiwan.
Since the middle of February, there have been these boat-bumping and other
provocative engagements in the South China and East China Seas against almost all
of China's sea neighbors. A Chinese diplomat laid the groundwork for taking over
Kazakhstan, in Central Asia, and also China has moved to end the autonomy in
Hong Kong.
China is lashing out, challenging everybody at the same time. This is a Maoist
tactic, and it suggests problems inside the Chinese political system. In any event,
we know that this is an incredibly dangerous moment for everyone.
One final note. Pushed by China, the Trump Administration is moving to an

historic rupture with the People's Republic of China. Because of this, we are seeing
changes in the five‑decade‑old engagement policy.
Those changes are absolutely essential for us because, without them, we cannot be
self‑reliant.
Q: As an attorney, do you feel there is any way to hold China accountable,

liable for financial compensation to devastated nations ravaged by their
actions?
If so, as a practical matter, exactly how? Are there US companies that were
collaborating with Wuhan labs via research responsible for this corona strain?
Chang: Great. I should say I haven't practiced law for two decades, and I've given
up my bar memberships. I'm more than happy to answer that question, however.
First of all, as I mentioned, China does have sovereign immunity.
Now, a lot of people will tell you, and this is not an unreasonable argument, that
sovereign immunity benefits the US more than any other nation. I do believe the
fight with China is existential. To me, it's important that we make China pay.
As I said, we can avoid this sovereign immunity issue ‑‑ and which would have
some blowback for the US ‑‑ if the plaintiffs sue the Communist Party. Because the
Communist Party is not sovereign.
In China, there's a clear distinction between the party and the state. The state has
sovereign immunity like other countries and other states have, but the party does
not. We can go after the party.
By the way, the party actually has more control over China's enterprises, which
means it should be considered to be the owner of those enterprises. So, it has assets
to seize.
We talk about China's military. Actually, it is not a state army. It is an army of the
Communist Party, which means that if we can find a Chinese plane, or a ship, or
whatever, that would be subject to a successful suit in US Court because there's no
sovereign immunity and it's a party army.
Having said all that, I think where we are going to seize assets will be the
Treasuries. We should be working, as mentioned, with our allies and friends so that
all countries in the world seize China's assets. That, I think, will work.
Q. Are there US companies that were collaborating with Wuhan labs via
research responsible for this corona strain?
Chang: I don't think so. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was built with French
companies, not American, as far as I know. Of course, the issue here is not
corporate support but is US government support.
The US has chipped in, most famously, $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of
Virology for research on bats. Many people think that the novel coronavirus is
derived from a bat. I think part of the reason for the contribution is that the United
States thought that experimenting on bat viruses was really too risky to be done in
the US, so it decided to let the Chinese do it.
That is crazy. If it is too dangerous for us to do it, it's too dangerous for the Chinese
to do it, especially because we know that in China's labs ‑‑ although the Wuhan
Institute of Virology has a P4 biosafety lab, that is the highest level of safety
standards ‑‑ we know that the Chinese do not adhere to those standards.
In 2018, State Department teams that visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology came
away appalled -- actually I should say alarmed -- because they saw that Chinese
technicians were not adhering to safety standards and protocols.
Also, we had those China Daily pictures. China Daily is an official state media
publication. They tried to convince the world how safe the Wuhan Institute was so
they posted these pictures, and those pictures actually documented broken or bent
seals on refrigerators, a real safety problem.
We know that that lab was a walking disaster and something was going to happen.
Unfortunately, it looks as if it did. Probably the coronavirus was an accidental lab
release.
Q: How would you advise key US allies?
Chang: I advise every country to cut their trade relations with China because of the
danger China poses.
The general view I have is that the world just needs to cut relations with China. If it
were possible to reform Chinese communism, maybe that would be a worthwhile
experiment, but we Americans have tried that for almost a half‑century and it has
not worked.
As a matter of fact, our engagement of China has produced the opposite of what we
wanted. We now have a richer and stronger China, more belligerent, more
provocative, more aggressive, and much more dangerous. We have got to reverse
what was clearly then, and is certainly clearly now, a misguided policy.
Q: What can we do now to try and protect us from more of these viral attacks?
Chang: The less trade and travel we have with China, then the better we are going
to be. If there is no Chinese traveler, there would be no global pandemic. There
would be no infections outside China. What we are going to have to do is to
severely restrict travel from China.
We have to do this at least until we get our hands around this issue. Clearly, we
have not been able to manage this. We have this notion, and everybody accepts it,
at least implicitly, about globalization, comparative advantage, all of these things
that have underpinned our modern world.
Unfortunately, China does not believe in comparative advantage, it does not believe
in being a responsible member of the international community. Unfortunately, the
only thing we can do is what many people think is unthinkable, and that is to cut
our ties with China.
We cut our ties until we feel comfortable dealing with China, which in my mind
means that the Communist Party no longer rules, that the Chinese people govern
themselves, and then we can get along with them. I believe the Chinese people
eventually
This website useswill getto this
cookies right.
provide you with better services.
At least at the moment, until they get it right, we have an obligation to our own
citizens to cut those links. Because without those links, we are not going to have
the next disease. Remember, China produces, especially in southern China, a lot of
disease. Most of the world's diseases do come from southern China.
This is not some academic question. Unfortunately, the remedy is severe, but I do
not know how else we do this because you just cannot cooperate with China. You
have got to cut your links.
Q: What might be possible in the way of the US government exposing details

on high‑ranking members of the CCP's overseas bank accounts, family
dealings, and for instance, how Xi, on a government salary, paid for his
daughter's attendance at Harvard.
The press has covered some of these things, but that is different from official
confirmation and surely greater access to such things as bank records.
Chang: I think we should just publicize it, and seize the assets of Chinese leaders
in the United States. We have the Global Magnitsky Act.
These guys, even before the coronavirus episode, were engaging in a crime against
humanity with the detention of somewhere between 1.3 and 3 million Uyghurs,
Kazakhs, and other peoples of Turkic backgrounds in what China calls Xinjiang,
the northwestern part of China.
We know that people were dying in those camps because China has been building
crematoria. We know that this is an attempt to eliminate a religion, to eliminate
ethnic identity. This is very close to genocide. If it is not genocide, it is as bad as
what the Third Reich did before the mass extermination of what, 1941?
That alone should give us justification for applying the Global Magnitsky Act and
just seizing all their assets in this country. As I mentioned, I believe this was a
deliberate spread of the coronavirus. More than 100,000 Americans have died. We
have the right to do everything we can within our power to protect ourselves and to
punish wrongdoers.
We may not be able to bring Xi Jinping to The Hague. We may not be able to put
him in that prison we have in Florence, Colorado, otherwise known as the
Supermax. We may not be able to put him in Guantanamo, but we sure can seize
his assets.
Q: Please discuss what we need to do to regain the technology commanding

heights, national industrial plan, whole of government, whole of economy,
society, Sputnik‑like program.
Chang: It is a whole-of-society approach. You go back maybe 10 years, China was

not considered to be a tech competitor. Right now, it is ahead in crucial
technologies such as, for instance, 5G, the fifth generation of wireless
communications, and in quantum communications it has at least a half‑decade lead
on us.
This is really stunning because this whole theoretical notion of quantum

communications was developed by an American, Albert Einstein. For us, this is just
Americans not paying attention.
It is also, of course, China's stealing. China steals somewhere between $150 to

$600 billion of US intellectual property each year, and now, the FBI is warning that
it is trying to steal vaccines and medical‑related information.
What China has been able to do, and it is more than just that, it has had determined
programs to develop technology. For instance, China has its 13th Five‑Year Plan,
which is just about finished. It has the Made in China 2025 Initiative, where
medicines and medical equipment comprise one of the 10 sectors that China wants
to dominate by the year 2025.
These are, for China, a whole-of-society approach toward developing technology.

We really need to do the same thing, and we can do it. President John F. Kennedy
went to Rice University and said, "We are going to go to the moon." That was a
time when the Soviets were well ahead of us.
Through federal programs, through cooperation with business, just through

everything, we were able to put the first man on the moon. By the way, no other
country has left earth orbit, but the Chinese probably are ahead of us in the race to
get back to the moon.
For us, I think what we are going to have to adopt the whole-of-society approach.
The one thing that we should focus on is our universities. We have Chinese students
and others taking in ways which are sometimes violative of federal law, sometimes
just inconsistent with their status on campus.
They have been stealing, downloading entire databases, doing all the rest of
To find out more, please review our Privacy and Cookies Policy. OKthis.
We need to stop that. I know Chinese students, Chinese professors play a large role
in our campuses, but they have also been taking US technology. We need to end
that.
For me, it means a renewed approach. One of the ways we can stop this is, we have
allowed Chinese diplomats and Ministry of State Security agents to surveil Chinese
students on campus. That means Chinese students feel really under a compulsion to
do what Beijing wants.
We are Americans. This is our country. We can get those diplomats out of those
campuses, get the Chinese agents off our soil. That is up to us. To me, this is
important of course. I'm here because my dad came here as a student in 1945, just
before the end of the war.
I think we have got a long way to go, to solving what I think is actually the most
complex issue we face: what do you do with Chinese students on American
campuses? There are no easy solutions, but we need to address this in a much more
rigorous way than we have been. We must do all of those things, that means we
have a whole-of-society approach.
Q: Pharmaceuticals, how can we best replace the Chinese market? And rare
earth strategic elements. Does the US have adequate resources to produce our
own? How can we best disconnect from the dependence on the Chinese
market?
Chang: On rare earths, we have rare earths in our country and our allies' -- most
notably, Canada and Australia -- have a lot of rare earths. What we do not have is
the refining capacity. Stuff mined in countries other than China is actually shipped
to China to be refined.
That has occurred because we do not want to suffer the environmental damage
caused by refining rare earths, which in the past has really been awful. New
technologies, and those that are coming on-stream now, mitigate much of the
environmental impact. I think we need to start refining rare earths in North
America.
If not here, then in Canada, which has huge deposits of many of the rare earths. It is
a political decision for us to make, that we decide not to be dependent on China.
With regard to pharmaceuticals, Peter Navarro, President Trump's trade adviser, has
been talking for weeks about an executive order that would require the federal
government to not buy pharmaceuticals from China. That EO has yet to be signed.
I think there is intense fighting at the top of the administration: trade groups and
pharmaceutical companies have been fighting that executive order. This is
something the President needs to do. It is in his power.
He can wake up one morning and say to the pharmaceutical companies, "I don't
care what you think. This is a national security issue." You remember that on July
21, 2017, President Trump signed that executive order on supply chain robustness.
We know on March 24 of this year he talked about what is now called his American
independence agenda, which is Americans making things for Americans.
Remember, he has the power under the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act of 1977 to do a lot of stuff, including getting pharmaceutical companies out of
China. It's up to him. We should be, I hope, putting pressure on the White House to
do what should be done because he is getting a lot of pressure on the other side.
President Trump can do this.
Now, one other note. I do not do domestic politics, but I have noticed that there is
an election this year. That is probably going to slow down the reaction of the
president to many of the initiatives I think should be taken, but nonetheless, this is a
really critical one. We cannot allow China to make our pharmaceuticals.
We should not be relying on any single country to the extent that we are relying on
China, but certainly not a hostile regime that threatens to cut off products. Again,
this is a question of American political will.
Q: How do we get other countries to join us in this effort? They are already
getting blackmailed by China. If they criticize China, it punishes them over
trade. Australia dared to join 100 countries asking for an investigation into
coronavirus origin.
China responded by imposing 80% tariffs on Australian agricultural imports.

How can we help other countries to stand up to China?
Chang: At the World Health Assembly, which just concluded, the resolution for an
independent investigation of the origins of the coronavirus actually was sponsored
by 144 countries. It passed without objection.
This is an investigation which China does not want, although China eventually saw
thewebsite
This handwriting
uses cookieson the wall
to provide you and decided
with better not to oppose it. I think we get to this is a
services.
couple of ways. One of them is, the intelligence community, our intelligence
community, has a lot of information which is going to throw a light on what China
actually did, in terms of spreading the coronavirus.
I know that the intelligence community does not like disclosing a lot of this stuff
because it compromises sources and methods. Every once in a while, you get an
intelligence issue which is so critical to the future of our country.
I think that this is one of those where disclosure of information really is important.
Once countries know what China did in terms of deliberately spreading this
coronavirus, I think it is over for China.
With regard to Australia, because Australia was the second country to propose this
investigation after we did, China has decided to punish Australia more than any
other country, especially with those tariffs on barley.
This is one of those cases where we Americans should start buying Australian
barley. We have got to show Beijing that we can out-muscle them. Remember,
China looks fearsome because it has had economic growth.
China right now is in a contraction phase, and it has also got one other huge
problem, and that is a lot of its Belt and Road loans to other countries are coming
due this year. These countries cannot pay China back, which means China's
debt‑trap diplomacy is trapping not just the debtors, but it's trapping China itself.
What we should be doing is making sure these countries do not pay back, because
this is one way to starve the beast. There are many different ways to do it, cutting
off trade, cutting off investments.
Those are things we can do, and we can be working with our allies, our friends, and
countries that normally are not our friends. They now have an interest in opposing
China, so we should be working with them.
Q: To what extent do you consider Xi's position as head of the CCP to be

precarious? Might concerns about his own vulnerability have anything to do
with his renewed aggressiveness?
Chang: That's the question I wish I knew the answer to. There are a number of
things that can be said. Of course, China's political system is not transparent.
Especially at moments like this, it can be very opaque. I think this is one of those
do-or-die
This moments
website uses for Xiyou
cookies to provide Jinping. I mean
with better services.that literally.
You have got to remember, Xi has changed the nature of the Chinese political
system. Under Hu Jintao, his predecessor, it was collective, which means a Chinese
leader really did not get blamed for things that went wrong.
Also, he did not get that much credit: all decisions were essentially made by
consensus, especially at the Politburo Standing Committee, but even in the wider
Politburo. The Chinese leader did not worry too much about things going bad.
Xi Jinping, of course, has taken that consensus system that he inherited at the end
of 2012, and he has made it more or less into a one‑person system where he is the
one person. Which means, of course, he has the greater accountability that goes
along with that great power.
Xi Jinping, even before the coronavirus, was having a pretty bad year, in 2019,
because he had a stumbling economy. He had problems in Hong Kong. He had
some pretty unhappy people in China.
What Xi has done is run roughshod over everybody. As long as he can do that, he is
safe. You have got to remember, though: people have not forgotten what Xi Jinping
has done to them in terms of taking away their power, putting their family members
in jail, all the rest of this.
They are sort of waiting on the sidelines for an opportunity to strike back. When Xi
Jinping stumbles, they will strike back. This is a particularly important time for Xi
because what he is trying to do is intimidate the world with this "wolf warrior"
diplomacy.
If he succeeds, he is golden. If he does not succeed, if the world starts to contain

China, starts to reduce relations with Beijing, all the rest of it, he is gone. By gone,
I mean, he not only loses his position, he also loses perhaps his freedom, his assets,
and maybe even his life.
He has taken what was a consensus-driven system and made it like the Maoist
political system of the first years of the People's Republic. When people lost
political struggles, they not only lost power, they sometimes were executed.
Xi Jinping knows what is at stake right now. There are rumors ‑‑ I don't know how
much weight to give them ‑‑ that he is not going to get a third term as general
secretary at the next Communist Party Congress in 2022. I tend to believe them, but
I think that has not yet been determined.
What is interesting is that people in Beijing are talking about that. Which means
that it probably is an option for the party to ditch Xi Jinping at the next opportunity.
We shall see.
Q: Can we analyze some of the pharmaceuticals or even vitamins that come in

that possibly show pathogens because of their poor oversight and loose
regulations?
Chang: The answer is yes. We have had in the past medicines coming from China
that have been adulterated. For instance, in the middle of this decade, maybe even
earlier, Heparin, the blood thinner, was adulterated.
I do not think China would intentionally try to adulterate their vaccines and stuff.
Nonetheless, they have had these fake vaccines scandals periodically in China. One
not too long ago. We have got to be very concerned.
China can actually get to a vaccine before anybody else does if for no other reason
that they are willing to cut corners. It is important for us to make sure that whatever
China comes up with is not only effective but also safe.
Xi Jinping at the World Health Assembly address that he gave a couple of days ago,
said he was going to share the vaccine with the world. I am happy if that is the case,
but we have to be concerned that what they come up with is probably going to be
ineffective or dangerous.
The Chinese are not going to test. They are not going to adhere to the same safety
protocols that the rest of the world will. We need to be really concerned about what
comes out of China in terms of a vaccine.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and a

Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow.
This article is based on a briefing to Gatestone Institute, given on May

20, 2020.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents
may
This be reproduced,
website uses cookiescopied or modified,
to provide without
you with better the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
services.
Related Topics: China, Coronavirus
Recent Articles by Gordon G. Chang

China's Fake News: Its 'Superior System' Defeats Coronavirus, 2020-04-06
China's Real Disease: Not Coronavirus, 2020-03-17
Coronavirus: Death of Dr. Li Wenliang Rocks China, 2020-02-12
China Is Destroying Multilateralism; Trump Is Creating a New Order, 2020-01-14
The Big Hole in the China Trade Agreement, 2019-12-17
: .


China - What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

China - What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

6/2/2020 China: What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do

China: What We Must Do, What We Must Not Do

Unfortunately, Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, does not believe in that

In the last few months, Xi Jinping has seen an historic opportunity

On May 13 of last year, Beijing declared a "people's war" on the

China's Communist Party does not have sovereign immunity.... We

We need to "rip and replace" all the equipment in our telecom

Also, we should be turfing out even more Chinese journalists. Those

Unfortunately, China does not believe in comparative advantage, it

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have

than a decade. Recently, his pronouncements have become unmistakable.

Of course, China would engage in a vociferous propaganda campaign if we did

Remember that China's economy is still in a contraction phase and it is still

The Biological Weapons Convention does not have an inspections regime.

One final note. Pushed by China, the Trump Administration is moving to an

Q: As an attorney, do you feel there is any way to hold China accountable,

Q: How would you advise key US allies?

Q: What might be possible in the way of the US government exposing details

Q: Please discuss what we need to do to regain the technology commanding

Chang: It is a whole-of-society approach. You go back maybe 10 years, China was

This is really stunning because this whole theoretical notion of quantum

It is also, of course, China's stealing. China steals somewhere between $150 to

These are, for China, a whole-of-society approach toward developing technology.

Through federal programs, through cooperation with business, just through

China responded by imposing 80% tariffs on Australian agricultural imports.

Q: To what extent do you consider Xi's position as head of the CCP to be

If he succeeds, he is golden. If he does not succeed, if the world starts to contain

Q: Can we analyze some of the pharmaceuticals or even vitamins that come in

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and a

This article is based on a briefing to Gatestone Institute, given on May

Related Topics: China, Coronavirus

Recent Articles by Gordon G. Chang

This website uses cookies to provide you with better services.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi