The current wave of anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States has been building for years. It started in the early 2000s, when US policymakers first raised national-security concerns about Huawei. China’s national technology champion, the market leader in developing new 5G telecommunications equipment, was accused of deploying digital backdoors that could enable Chinese espionage and cyber-attacks. US-led sanctions in 2018-19 stopped Huawei dead in its tracks.
But Huawei was just the start. The US has since spiraled into a full-blown outbreak of Sinophobia – a strong word that I don’t use lightly. The Oxford English Dictionary defines phobia as an “extreme or irrational fear or dread aroused by a particular object or circumstance.”
Indeed, China threats now seem to be popping up everywhere. The US government has imposed export controls to cut off China’s access to advanced semiconductors – part of its concerted effort to stymie the country’s artificial-intelligence ambitions. The Department of Justice has just indicted a state-sponsored Chinese hacking group for allegedly taking aim at critical American infrastructure. Much has also been made of the purported risks of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), construction and dock-loading cranes, and now TikTok.
Nor are the fears confined to technology. Several years ago, I wrote about America’s trade-deficit disorder, whereby the US government misdiagnosed a multilateral problem – a trade deficit with more than 100 countries – as a bilateral problem and punished China with tariffs. Others have warned that Washington’s exaggerated claims of the Chinese military threat have, at times, bordered on hysteria as tensions mount in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
Of course, all this is only half the story. China is equally guilty of its own strain of “Ameri-phobia” – demonising the US for its accusations of Chinese economic espionage, unfair trading practices, and human-rights violations. Both phobias are related to the profusion of false narratives that I address in my most recent book, Accidental Conflict. Notwithstanding this tit-for-tat blame game, my point now is different: There is good reason to worry about an increasingly virulent strain of this phobia spinning out of control in the US.
Not since the red-baiting of the early 1950s has America so vilified a foreign power. Back then, a two-pronged congressional approach, led by US Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), spearheaded an assault on alleged Communist sympathisers under the guise of protecting Americans from Soviet espionage and influence.
Today, another politician from Wisconsin, Representative Mike Gallagher, has led the charge as chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, which, in an eerie parallel to the dark days of HUAC, has leveled a series of unsubstantiated charges against China. While Gallagher will retire from Congress in April, his legacy will live on, not just as co-sponsor of a bill that could lead to an outright ban of TikTok, but also as the leader of a congressional effort that has cast a long shadow over those who support almost any form of engagement with China.
The litany of US allegations is a manifestation of unproven fears wrapped in the impenetrable cloak of national security. Yet there is no “smoking gun” in any of these cases. Instead, it is all about circumstantial evidence of an increasingly aggressive China. At work is an unmistakable bipartisan politicisation of deductive reasoning.
For example, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, a leading Democrat, asks us to “imagine” what could happen if Chinese EVs were weaponised on American highways. FBI Director Christopher Wray, a Donald Trump appointee and member of the conservative Federalist Society, warns that Chinese malware could disable critical US infrastructure “if or when China decides the time has come to strike” (emphasis added). And a former US counterintelligence officer has compared sensors in Chinese-made cranes to a Trojan horse. There are many “what ifs” and mythical parallels, but no hard evidence on intent or verifiable action.
What is it about China that has generated this virulent US reaction? In Accidental Conflict, I stressed that the US has long been intolerant of competing ideologies and alternative systems of governance. The claim of “American exceptionalism” seemingly compels us to impose our views and values on others. That was true in the Cold War, and it is true again today.
I also argued that excessive fear of China conveniently masks many of America’s own self-inflicted problems. Bilateral trade deficits may well reflect the unfair trading practices of individual countries – China today, Japan 35 years ago – but broad multilateral trade deficits stem more from chronic US budget deficits that lead to a deficiency of domestic saving. Similarly, the technology threat is not only an outgrowth of the alleged Chinese theft of US intellectual property; it also represents, as I stressed in Accidental Conflict, America’s underinvestment in research and development and shortfalls in STEM-based higher education. Rather than taking a long, hard look in the mirror, it is politically expedient for US politicians to blame China.
As Sinophobia feeds on itself, fear starts to take on the aura of fact, and the dangers of accidental conflict with China intensify. By acting on these anxieties, America risks inciting the very outcome it wants to deter. Fears over Chinese aggression in Taiwan are a case in point.
The US can and must do better. Rather than excusing the excesses of Sinophobia as justifiable reactions to the China threat, US leaders need to avoid the low road and think more in terms of being the adult in the room. Global leadership requires nothing less.
In his first inaugural address in 1933, US President Franklin Roosevelt underscored the ultimate risk of this dangerous pathology with the memorable line, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Amid today’s Sinophobic frenzy, that message is well worth remembering.
*Stephen S. Roach, a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, is a faculty member at Yale University and the author of the forthcoming Accidental Conflict: America, China, and the Clash of False Narratives (Yale University Press, November 2022). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024, published here with permission.
21 Comments
A great article.
the flip side is that there is a real risk of war. The example is that of Germany allowing itself to become reliant on Russian gas - a pipeline that was weaponised very during the Ukraine war.
Any strategic reliance on China, or allowing China a potential to access American data or control American devices/cars. Is a risk.
As far as I can see to date the US has been the adult but increasingly China has taken advantage of that and is acting the child.. by stealing IP, blocking access to markets, refusing to support the global rules system and more.
I learned once that in relationships its actually possible to have a either parent, adult or child on each side. To date the US has mostly been the adult.. i would say they are now acting more of a parent than child (by imposing chinas own childish actions in reverse so it can feel what its like)... and allowing China a last opportunity to show it can be an adult before I suspect.. severing the relationship entirely. Having seen how Russia has behaved toward the west after starting a war (and being chinas main ally) we have now to assume China may be a military adversary in the near future and ensure we are ready.
Since the beginning, it's been obvious that Gaza was in many ways a fight between International Law and the US's "rules-based order". https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1772389118439252045/video/1
This whole episode around the UN resolution is a perfect illustration of this. There is no debate amongst international law scholars that resolutions by the UN Security Council that "demand" certain actions are binding (good explanation by a legal scholar here: https://verfassungsblog.de/why-todays-un-security-council-resolution-demanding-an-immediate-ceasefire-is-legally-binding/). In fact resolutions by the council ARE international law, article 25 of the UN Charter clearly states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Yet the US now argues that the "rule" is in fact different: "It's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel". Where is this rule written, that somehow when the UNSC "demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire", it's non-binding and "there's no impact at all" on the warring party? Nowhere, that's the beauty of the rules-based order: the rules are made-up in the moment to fit the interests of the U.S. and its henchmen, depending on the circumstances. Link
China is unstoppable and the Americans hate it. They brough it on themselves by off shoring all the work to them so a very few already rich people could get even richer. It took a long time and it started in the early 2000's, it was pure greed and the West capitalised on the cheap products without passing those savings on. The Chickens have come home to roost, the likes of AliExpress and Temu have gone direct and cut out the middle man and its killing New Zealand retail.
I loathe thinking of having to ever make a choice - as that implies global, intractable conflict. But being born in the US, it would have been an easy choice, given I have my relatives and my roots/beliefs in a democratic form of governance. Sadly, in the event of a second Trump presidency, that may disappear and the US could become no different than China or any other authoritarian superpower for that matter.
'American exceptionalism' if it ever was a thing, is operating on very thin ice when MAGA ethics and philosophy "took hold" with so many citizens.
Stephen forgot to mention the Chinese hacking - maybe next time!
A major concern I have with China is they seem to have done little to shut down Putins war with Ukraine. They could do more if they wanted to - clearly they don't.
Any authoritarian regime is a concern as they have no normal checks and balances and seem to care little if thousands or maybe millions of their countrymen are killed. Meanwhile the west is looking soft and distracted on silly internal issues. That's why we have a Trump lurking - must admit would have thought a better more polished version might have appeared by now.
Re their cars - they look great but would be concerned about maintainability - if there is a war over Taiwan, I would be more concerned about getting parts much more so than all the cars driving us off the nearest cliff.
The parts issue seems significant. In Europe some of those cars are uninsurable due to the difficulty in sourcing spares.
I think BYD and co have a huge range of vehicles and thus will really struggle to make spares available globally... maybe they are trying to run b4 walking by scaling up too fast?
Chinese believe it is in China's national interest not to shut down Putin, but to encourage and support his war in Ukraine for as long and as much as possible. Their leadership, and those living abroad, still firmly believe that if Russia fails, China will bear the brunt force of and face the US on its own. As long as they could threaten to cut off access to a market of 1.3 billion consumers, they can ignore or play dumb with any Western countries (NZ included) forever, but not with the US.
Australia's coal and lobster export to China was stopped overnight for voicing its concern over the situation in the SCS and Taiwan, while Lithuania had its diplomatic status downgraded and a 71% drop in bilateral trade for allowing Taiwan to open its trade office under the name of Taiwan instead of Taipei.
Chinese called this "The rise of the East and the decline of the West", where the East is China alone, and the West isn't just the US.
No, you are seeing the blowback from "wolf warrior diplomacy." Chinas assertiveness is bringing it into conflict with neighbouring countries and a superpower. This is being done with absolute intention, it is not an error or policy mistake by either side.
The US has maintained its position as a superpower at great cost, fighting the Spanish Empire, Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan and many local street thugs along the way. There had been enough walking softly with China, now it's time to flash the big stick.
In my experience China lacks production quality . example...American / German cloned car parts are much cheaper but significantly lack the durability/reliability that more expensive 'genuine' parts have. I would imagine that many manufacturers that choose China would need to ensure quality is maintained throughout the entire process not just at the end of the production line. The 'West' is under ever growing pressure from multiple arenas and I think its a given that NZ has no choice if pushed to side with the USA and other traditional allies . I think we would do well to consider reinstating the ability of our airforce , a few helicopters wont cut it in the real world.... lol
The question is, do you trust the US in perfect democracy more than you trust the dictatorships of Russia and China. Do to the compromises of 1787, when the US constitution was written, it has never been perfect or totally equal. However, it functioned well for a long time and may still do in the future, but regardless of its faults it is a democracy and you should hope it comes right or you maybe speaking Russian or Chinese in the future.
Mr Roach has a great turn of phrase & writes with the experince of age, but he too can be very selective with his words when he wants to be. As are we all. For me it boils down to whether our home grown communists/Marxists/socialists are better than theirs. Or not?
Sure, greed from Wall Street started the fire way back in the 90's but the reality was their own highly paid labour force had priced itself out of the market. Yes, it was greed, but the unions had organised everything, including some very generous pension schemes & so the future liabilities were huge & couldn't be delivered if continued & everyone knew it. At the same time our own universities were marching towards their own version of lunacy, currently called woke, but then called PC, remember. These highly knowledgeable, but equally unbalanced people were creating their own version of socialism, but none-the-less, equally as destructively efficient. Today we see woke at work, which is ironical in the sense that it doesn't work(!) with anything that we currently know, but works against everything that has taken us the best part of 1,000 years to get right.
Everyone knows who runs the best societies - just look at where the immigrants go. The tertiary treason that has now evolved to this insidious viral version we know today [Jacinda Ardern & her 6th Labour Govt was our version of it] is so destructive on families, communities, cultures, cities, schools, businesses & just about everything else we've worked so hard for over the last few hundred years, that it has almost destroyed everything that created it in the first place. This would have to be the most ungrateful response to what has been the most successful global period for humanity since I can't remember. This past 80 odd years has grown to include the most people alive on planet Earth at the one time, ever, the most well fed number there-of, the wealthiest, with the best health outcomes since mankind began... I could go on but you get my drift.
Our communists are just as bad as their comminists & what Mr Roach neglects to mention is that a lot of the tertiary sectors increasing prosperity was under-written by the Confucious institutes set up in just about every tertiary organisation they could find, to the collaborative extent, that even the high risk scientific stuff was off-shored to places like Wuhan with American money, no less.
We are right to beware the beast from the East. When you dance with the dragon, you know that you will be taken out at some point or another. It's just a matter of when.
These pension & healthcare schemes have driven up business costs in the US, due to the absence of proper universal public equivalents seen in the rest of the G20. Where there's universal health & pensions, industries don't have to bear the costs of providing them. And on top of that, the US spends far more as a % of GDP on health than nations with universal coverage.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206105208/autoworkers-retirement-pensio…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.