THE US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), a body operating under the US Congress, recently published a report that oozes pure arrogance as it lacks the ability and expertise to understand China, the Chinese way and China’s understanding of the world. The organization, out of its ignorance of China, framed China’s development in the social, economic, technological, energy, supply chain, green economy and security sectors through a narrow lens encompassing hypersecuritization. The report exposes the entrenched ignorance that the Commission holds and illustrates the emerging need for the US and its allies to foster deeper, more logical and precise understanding of China.
Initially, the central feature or essence of the USCC’s report displays a fundamentally flawed narrative framework. Experts term the annual report as politically motivated and prejudiced, based on pre-set conclusions. The report does not entail a correct interpretation but is saturated with geopolitical considerations and competitive calculations in a great zero-sum game. Its purpose is to downplay China’s significant achievements in different sectors to shape a more favourable public sphere and socio-political landscape for the US, enabling shortcuts and masking its own shortcomings in strategic competition with China. In doing so, it prioritizes concealing deficiencies rather than conducting an objective and thorough analysis of China’s development, socioeconomic growth and foreign policy. This approach risks the credibility and influence of the Commission and its annual report.
It is noteworthy that the USCC’s annual report is consistently full of propaganda, false notions, misleading rhetoric and hostility towards China and its development. The Commission made an embarrassing attempt to resurrect and revive the narrative of Chinese overcapacity, arguing that China’s investment in advanced manufacturing has extensively distorted pricing patterns and weakened supply chains. This rhetoric claims that China has weaponized supply chains, thereby causing instability in the global economic equation.
These smear campaigns against China’s normal upgrading of its industrial setup represent an attempt to undermine the nation’s sovereign right to development. The Commission forgets that Beijing’s pursuit of manufacturing sector development is a pivotal decision to meet long-term national needs and remains aligned with national conditions. Therefore, the critique reflects an entrenched hegemonic and Western mindset, coupled with a sense of economic superiority. It suggests that any development plan contrary to Western interests is to be classified as a deviance or a threat to the global economic order and stability.
It should not be forgotten that China has never weaponized supply chains but has consistently operated in a manner reflecting a win-win approach, dialogue and diplomacy over meaning-less disputes, rooted in its ancient wisdom. This contrasts sharply with blockades on semi-conductor equipment and the coercion of allies to prevent and control chip supply chains—actions that demonstrate the true weaponization of supply chains. Such measures have compromised technological leadership and innovation, using them as tools of containment with the intent of preventing China from advancing through innovation, ultimately risking the stability of global industrial chains. On the contrary, China’s supply chain strategy has served as a countermeasure to imposed sanctions. This is evident from the rare earth regulations introduced by Beijing to standardize exports and establish mechanisms that safeguard global sup-ply chain stability.
The West has a habit of imposing its ideological interpretations on international cooperation, forgetting that the purposive approach to interpretation under the VCLT does not operate through a Western lens. This highlights a lack of depth in understanding other economic cultures. The notion that China’s affordability in terms of products has caused political instability, inflation and unemployment in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America reflects an absolute disregard for the tangible benefits China has delivered to these regions. These include socioeconomic development through infrastructure, electricity, employment creation, telecommunications, green energy and manufacturing—benefits that underscore the West’s ignorance of the predicament of developing countries.
The Trump administration has tilted towards displaying a flexible attitude towards Beijing, which has contributed to a thaw in bilateral engagement. Keeping these positives in mind, it is integral to preserve this return to normalcy by subduing the anti-China forces operating within Congress that seek to derail this fragile trend toward normalization. There is a need to uproot complexity and volatility to ensure a correct perception and understanding of Chinese development, enabling the two global superpowers to join hands to foster stable global economic growth and ensure the stability of supply chains.
—The writer is President, the Centre for Knowledge and Public Policy, Regional Expert: China, CPEC, BRI & World Affairs.
