Op-Ed

We Should Trade with China, But Under New Rules

Trade with China is very much at the center of the national conversation.

It should be. Over one billion people live there, making up the largest single potential market for U.S. goods and services anywhere in the world. We want to trade with them — and should want to — but under a set of rules that does not leave the United States at a disadvantage.

The Trump administration has made a new trade deal with China a major piece of business. After some intense negotiations, it looks like progress is being made. President Donald Trump delayed until later in the year a March 1 deadline imposing higher tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

Of singular importance, insiders say, is the movement toward new rules governing intellectual property that will work to the benefit of the United States. Up to now, China has been known as a place where U.S.-developed IP either must be surrendered as a cost of doing business or is just stolen by the government.

Hopefully, those days will soon behind us. Protecting America’s intellectual property is important, as is gaining greater access to Chinese markets. Both would be a boost to the U.S. economy, but that’s only part of the challenge. It’s important to remember that China, while a major trading partner, is not an ally. It is a competitor, militarily and economically and needs to be treated as such.

Trending:
Tragedy in Alabama: Nine Young Children, One Adult Dead After 'Most Horrific Accident' in County History

It’s well and good to open the Chinese market to greater access for U.S. manufactured goods and services. That’s trade we want. It’s another thing entirely to let the Chinese enter into joint ventures with U.S. companies in areas that are strategically important without subjecting those deals to a thorough government review to ensure national security interests are not compromised.

There’s a procedure for that, run by a Treasury Department-led inter-agency committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. When allowed to do its job, CIFUS works quite well. When it isn’t, it’s time to sound the alarm bell – as is the case where a joint venture involving Chinese-owned Tsingshan Group and Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, a U.S. company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is concerned.

Tsingshan, the world’s largest producer of stainless steel, has deep ties to the Chinese military. ATI is a critical supplier of advanced materials to the U.S. aerospace and defense sectors. A joint venture between the two is just the kind of deal CIFUS should review beforehand to make sure nothing of importance is compromised. Unfortunately, it appears CFIUS never got the chance. Neither ATI nor Tsingshan notified it of the deal when it was proposed in late 2017 and it closed in March 2018 without being reviewed.

That was a mistake that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act that passed Congress on a bi-partisan basis and the accompanying U.S. export control reforms signed into law last year strengthened the U.S. government’s ability to review transactions that may pose a national security risk. The potential for transfer of sensitive technology between ATI and Tsingshan (and from there to the Chinese military) is just the kind of thing the law was intended to prevent.

It is not as important to establish why it didn’t happen as it is to correct the error. CFIUS should exercise its authority and conduct a review anyway, even though the deal has already been consummated. It is important to acknowledge as legitimate concerns raised by those who follow these issues closely, including some members of Congress, that this joint venture is not another attempt by China to extract critical intellectual property from the United States while simultaneously undermining U.S. manufacturing.

China is an important market for U.S. goods. In our eagerness to sell to them, however, we must always remember that they play by a different set of rules. The U.S. government needs to be certain we are not compromising our national security interests just to make a few dollars.

Peter Roff is a senior fellow at Frontiers of Freedom and a former U.S. News and World Report contributing editor who appears regularly as a commentator on the One America News network. He can be reached by email at RoffColumns@GMAIL.com. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



loading

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, ,
The Western Journal publishes select Op-Eds submitted by our readers. If you would like to submit an Op-Ed, fill out a submission form here: https://www.westernjournal.com/writeforus/.




loading

Conversation