Bipartisan sentiment toward China has hardened over the past year in Congress, scrambling ideological lines as concerns grow more acute over democracy, trade, human rights, and national security, the co-chairs of the House U.S.-China Working Group said.

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA, center) and Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL, left), co-chairs of the House U.S.-China Working Group, participate in a Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue with USIP President and CEO Nancy Lindborg (right).
Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA, center) and Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL, left), co-chairs of the House U.S.-China Working Group, participate in a Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue with USIP President and CEO Nancy Lindborg (right).

Representatives Rick Larsen and Darin LaHood agreed that the U.S. relationship with China is at a low point—and sinking—over a mounting set of converging crises: Beijing’s destruction of the ‘one country, two systems’ framework; perceived security threats to 5G networks from Chinese equipment; the internment of China’s Uyghur minority in labor and “re-education” camps; and uncertainties about China’s compliance with the Phase 1 trade deal, under which China committed to buying $200 billion of U.S. products this year.

Hovering over every issue today, the lawmakers concurred, is collective anger over China’s lack of transparency as the novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan.

“A lot has changed since September,” LaHood, said, referring to the last time he and Larsen appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace for a Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue event. “About 350 resolutions on China have been introduced in Congress since COVID-19 hit the United States,” he said, with bipartisan majorities going after China for its “deception.” As long as China “continues to put its head in the sand” on COVID, the current climate of animosity will not abate, he added.

China Hawks

Larsen said that for years he divided China skeptics in Congress and the executive branch into three groups: national security hawks; hardliners on economy and trade; and those concerned with human rights abuses and China’s extreme policies of social control. Democrats were cool to trade; Republicans focused on national security; and human rights tangled the lines.

Today, he breaks the hawks into “punishers” favoring sanctions, “decouplers” hoping to sever the Chinese and U.S. economies, and “salvagers,” who argue that despite China’s malign conduct, the world’s two largest economies must continue working on areas of mutual concern such as climate change and nuclear proliferation. There is no longer a clear partisan cast to any of the positions, he said, putting himself and LaHood in the salvagers camp.

LaHood suggested that hardline outrage regarding China’s conduct needs to be tempered with a dose of realism. While there’s wide discussion in Congress and the administration about decoupling economies and “onshoring” critical supply chains, implementing such moves would be complicated and difficult, he said. Supply chains of the world’s two largest economies are closely intertwined, and third-party vendors would be implicated in any attempt to sever economic ties. Is the government ready to subsidize U.S. companies as an incentive to abandon China, he asked? Some in the administration argue it can be done with tariffs, which he said he opposes. American companies are in China because it has a middle class of 500 million consumers, LaHood said.

“In the administration there are some real anti-China folks who would like to move to a Cold War, but we are not there yet.”

Need for Allies

Constraining China from any angle cannot be accomplished by just the United States, LaHood said.

“There are consequences to the go-it-alone approach that this administration has taken,” he said.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which President Trump pulled out of in January 2017, was a way to isolate China, he said. Absent the treaty, the U.S. needs to strengthen bilateral relations with India, Singapore, Vietnam, and other Asians nations, “but those things are taking a long time to do,” he said. The U.S. needs to work with allies in Europe that share the same concerns about China.

“I am frustrated with how this administration approaches natural allies and partners to solve world problems,” Larsen said. Citing Trump’s official notice this week that the U.S. will withdraw from the World Health Organization, he said, “Global problems don't go away even if even if the United States backs away from them.”

Related Publications

Prospects for Crisis Management on the China-India Border

Prospects for Crisis Management on the China-India Border

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

By: Patricia M. Kim; Vikram J. Singh

After a deadly skirmish in June and shots fired in September, Sino-Indian tensions have escalated to a level not seen in decades. Both countries’ foreign ministers recently agreed to a five-point framework to manage the situation, showing both sides want tensions to plateau rather than deteriorate further. But the Line of Actual Control (LAC) will not easily go back to a well-managed bilateral irritant—right now, it’s a dangerous flashpoint and likely to stay that way. USIP’s Vikram Singh and Patricia Kim look at the recent discussions, what’s driving the escalation, how the conflict affects the region, and what history can tell us about how it might be resolved.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

The Dangers of Myanmar’s Ungoverned Casino Cities

The Dangers of Myanmar’s Ungoverned Casino Cities

Thursday, August 6, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

As a struggling, incomplete democracy, Myanmar and its elected leaders face challenges that would confound any country. The best-known involve the military’s uneven loosening of a 50-year dictatorship; ethnic tensions and armed conflicts; the lack of a common national identity; entrenched poverty; and the complications of borders with five nations, including China. Less well known is an emerging threat that touches each of these vital concerns. Over the past three years, transnational networks with links to organized crime have partnered with local armed groups, carving out autonomous enclaves and building so-called “smart cities” to tap into the huge, but illegal, Chinese online gambling market. Myanmar’s leaders at every level and in every sector should pay serious attention to the alarming national implications of these developments.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Democracy & Governance

Myanmar: Casino Cities Run on Blockchain Threaten Nation’s Sovereignty

Myanmar: Casino Cities Run on Blockchain Threaten Nation’s Sovereignty

Thursday, July 30, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

On January 20, a young venture capitalist named Douglas Gan sat down in a Philippine television studio to discuss, in part, an exciting new “Smart City” project his firm had become involved in. Sporting a black hoodie over a white tee-shirt, Gan described how one of his companies, Building Cities Beyond Blockchain, was already at work in Myanmar’s Yatai New City, recording instantaneous property transfers and showing the potential of blockchain technology. It’s a start, the anchor said. Gan agreed.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Myanmar’s Casino Cities: The Role of China and Transnational Criminal Networks

Myanmar’s Casino Cities: The Role of China and Transnational Criminal Networks

Monday, July 27, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

Seeking to profit from China's lucrative but illegal gambling market, a shady web of actors has begun building resort cities in Myanmar’s Karen State to cater to Chinese gamblers. This report casts light on the actors behind Myanmar’s illegal gambling sector, their linkages to Chinese government entities and to Myanmar's armed groups and military, and how their actions could upend Myanmar’s prospects for peace.

Type: Special Report

Economics & Environment

View All Publications