​
S. 4428 will be a major undertaking by Congress on foreign policy at a very critical juncture of world security. The bill contains nine titles with a long draft text boiling down to three main points. First, Congress wish to support Taiwan diplomatically, militarily and economically. Second, Congress tempt to violate the One China Principle (which is the foundation of the U.S.-China official diplomatic relations). Third, Congress explain the justification of the bill’s legitimacy in the name of U.S. interests, value and security concern (in view of China’s rising influence in the world). As a Chinese American who has witnessed the evolution of U.S.-China relations since 1949 and how the U.S. has acted on major foreign relations (for example, siding with U.K. and suppressing N. Ireland separatists pursuing independence and siding with Ukraine against Russia’s defending Russian speaking Ukrainians from discrimination), this author feels that S. 4428 has no legs to stand on justice nor on American value and interest. Mainland-Taiwan unification has been a Chinese domestic issue since 1949, but Mainland China had never attacked Taiwan in the past 72 years other than a skirmish in 1996 provoked by the U.S. (permitting then Taiwan’s pro-independence ‘President’ Lee Deng Hui visiting the U.S. - stepping across the redline of the above cited One China Principle.) Mainland China has allowed Taiwan to transform politically towards democracy in the past three decades so long as Taiwan recognizes One China Two Systems Principle. The draft text of S. 4428 essentially tells us that the U.S. has adopted a double standard. (Her support of U.K. against N. Ireland seeking independence versus supporting Taiwan’s separatists and turning a peaceful Taiwan Strait into a war zone.) The Congress must carefully analyze the changing world (the rapidly changing foreign affairs and changing views of the global citizens) and understand what are the real interests of the U.S. that can be realistically pursued or maintained. S. 4428 would actually hurt the U.S. interest, if executed, based on careful assessment of the pros and cons of this foreign policy. In this paper, the author presents his view on why our Congress should focus on U.S. domestic issues (infrastructure, energy, revitalization of manufacturing industries, etc.) rather than promoting S.4428 - ideologically driven with no clear evidence of being beneficial to the interest of the U.S.
 
The present U.S.-China relations is no doubt falling off a cliff. By an honest assessment, the U.S. was the initiator of the escalating tension, if we put vague “ideological’ differences aside. China never exported or advocated as much ‘my way’ as the U.S. did to the rest of the world. China focuses on self-development and lifting her people’s living condition from poverty to middle class - a no fault and admirable goal. China has risen to be the second largest economy by being diligent in manufacturing (productivity) and trading (business relations), eventually becoming a major trading partner with over 136 countries or regions. This is a fact today, not just a possibility, for anyone to deny. No doubt China and the U.S. will continue to develop which will make two nations to compete for world resources, talents, and capitals. This puts pressure on both China and the U.S. Again no doubt, the U.S. desires to maintain her number one world leadership position, measured by economical power not military power. (Evidence: the collapse of the mighty military Soviet Union was due to her failure in economy.) The U.S. Administration of course recognizes the current situation, hence is under pressure to revitalize her economy and to impede China’s fast development in order to compete or keep up with China’s continuous growth in economy (China will compete in military power as well if she is threatened or provoked by U.S. military actions or from other nations, but China and the U.S. should bear the Soviet collapse as a lesson.) It is based on the above reasonable logic, we analyze whether the U.S. Congress should work on S. 4428. The Administration although not yet taken a clear position on S. 4428, but it’s current China Policy charged with bias and hostility is encouraging Congress to waste its energy on S. 4428.
 
S. 4428 is a provocative plan using China’s domestic separatist problem to de-stable China and impede China’s economic development and wishfully hoping to gain U.S. economic growth. The bill contains three major acts, pertaining to political, military and economic goals. We shall analyze these three arrows and conclude why Congress should stop working on this bill:

1. Political Arrow

 
Basically the U.S. is trying to renege on the One China Principle by encouraging, promoting even helping the separatist Taiwan government to engage in international organizations where Mainland China is the legal representative. This arrow may provoke the CCP government and its 1.4 billion people but it will not give Taiwan much real benefits since China enjoys the support of the majority of the UN membership making any such political attempt (arrow) futile. In fact, it will waste the U.S. resources and political capital and hurt the U.S. own political standing on the world stage since the effort more than likely will fail. The people on Taiwan are tired of the humiliation and spending to buy a few votes in any such useless political maneuver, for example seeking membership in WHO, RCCP, etc. People in Taiwan have also become wiser with the following rhetoric question: if the U.S. were so helpful, why didn’t she just recognize ROC, which the U.S. did recognize before 1979. The U.S. would have to spend enormous diplomatic resources to lobby Allie’s support to push for this political attempt, but SEATO, EU even South Korea and Japan had already showed resistance since they wisely recognize that there was no historical ground to stand on nor any political brownie point to gain but economic loss.

     2. Economic Arrow  

This bill contains an economic plan to impede China’s development and to enhance the U.S. economy. The most critical plan is the technology sanction plan, starting a semiconductor or chip war. It is correct that semiconductor is a vital industry for the entire economy. However, expecting Taiwan (and S. Korea and Japan) to jeopardize their own semiconductor industries (which are heavily dependent on China’s enormous market), to move to the U.S. and help her to gain control of the world semiconductor business (supply chain) so she may choke China’s economic growth is as unrealistic as Aladdin’s lamp. The strong coupling of R/D/M of technology product with market/size/location is an outcome of economic principle. This arrow can only stimulate China to accelerate the development of her entire semiconductor supply chain to become self-reliant. China’s enormous market needs will draw world capital to come since a healthy investment return can be expected. On the contrary, the U.S. semiconductor industry could not recover easily since high-tech products are subject to sanctions to be exported to China and low-tech products face small domestic market size and price competition on low end products from China.

      3.  Military Arrow
 
S. 4428 contains a plan to sell military equipment to Taiwan in the name of providing Taiwan’s defense capability. The Pentagon and their military commanders have repeated warned that any Taiwan Strait War is to Mainland China’s advantage. Of course, selling military gear does bring revenue to the U.S. defense industry, to the size of $45B, but it is a drop in the bucket of the U.S. defense budget. Expecting people in Taiwan fighting to last soldier and citizen is a fantasy. Despite of DPP government’s tight control (propaganda, shutting down TV stations and enacting anti-spy laws), the Taiwanese media are full of proposals of peaceful solutions and rational analyses of island defense (difficulties, islands are easily crippled with insufficient reserve in energy and food under air and sea blockade). Same reason for U.S. carriers to stay 600 miles away from Taiwan Strait under the threat of missiles. The recent Pelosi’s visit to Taipei have essentially verified the above scenarios, making the PRC military exercise fait accompli in demonstrating how the PRC forces could easily cross the Strait median line and surround the entire Taiwan with real fire exercises for days extending to weeks.
 
Instead of working on S.4428, Congress should begin examining and exploring any win-win China Policy. For example, the U.S. still has advance leads in semiconductor design, software tools and a few key technologies. If the U.S. took an approach to partner with China in the semiconductor industry, say with a 49% : 51% or better partnership relationship, one can imagine what profit the U.S. will gain with a 49% participation in the Chinese semiconductor market. The U.S. advance technology companies will have the profit return to sustain high- tech R&D whereas China can have employment positions for her 1.4 billion people. This will keep a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship for decades if not centuries. Likewise, in Electric Car industry, cooperation can yield benefits to both sides by efficiently using precious materials (RE), sharing engineering design (AI) to satisfy a global market and common standard. In aeronautics and space research, again cooperative benefits are plenty, joint space station program, collaboration on moon and Mars exploration as well as manufacturing airplanes and drones for transportation rather than war applications. Furthermore, in climate and healthcare areas, both nations could join hands to deal with drought, wild-fire and floods as well as joint research in medicine and healthcare to raise life expectancies.
 
In conclusion, the U.S. Congress should not waste time and energy to process S. 4428 to hurt itself, the arguments are easy to understand. Let the two great powers to cooperate for the benefit of mankind.

The U.S.-China relation is no doubt the focus point of foreign affairs and national security of the U.S., China and even the entire world. The rapid deterioration of the relationship between the world’s two largest economy caused by confrontation has raised acute tension across the board from trade, technology, military, space and diplomacy to the point of rupturing into war - a nuclear war. The U.S. has relied on nuclear deterrence (ND) restraining nuclear armed countries and controlling non-nuclear-armed nations. Denial deterrence (DD) was a strategy based on overwhelming offensive military power to deter any aggression. Other economic and diplomatic sanctions were used in conjunction with denial deterrence to punish or prevent trouble makers. This national security strategy worked fairly successfully since the end of WW II recognizing the U.S. as a super-power of the world. Wooing China and isolating the Soviet Union since the 70’s, the U.S. succeeded in seeing the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91. That was the ‘unipolar moment’ for the U.S. A columnist, Charles Krauthammer, published an essay in Foreign Affairs in 1990 (brought out today by Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, Editor of Foreign Affairs in his newsletter) arguing that the world was de facto unipolar with the U.S. being the only superpower having the military, diplomatic, political, and economic resources to be a decisive player in any conflict. This essay was very influential, and the U.S. had acted as the world police for nearly three decades. Today, the U.S. felt strained in fulfilling that role as China had risen as the second largest economy of the world, a close second next to the U.S.
 
The Quincy Institute (QI) report - Active Denial (AD)(June2022) is the result of years long research of ten authors schooled in different aspects of expertise in national security strategy. QI, different from many other U.S. think tanks, is not directly funded by the U.S. government or by the U.S. Industrial Military Complex (IMC), which essentially adhered to the Nuclear and Denial Deterrence (ND-DD) strategy assuming U.S. supremacy in military and economic power. The facts that supported the past U.S. national security strategy (ND-DD) were: 1. WW II victory, 2. Super-power, 3. Strong economy (20-40% of world economy),4. Biggest industrial military complex (IMC), 5. Collapse of the Soviet Union, 6. Defeated terrorist attack. Today, the world has changed with the following facts: 1. Declining U.S. economy (<20% world economy) 2. Rise of China (across industry, military and economy >17% world economy), 3. U.S. national debt (31 Trillion), 4. China’s growth rate (3-4 times of U.S.). Recognizing the above, the QI report redefined the active denial national security strategy in Asia based on three criteria: 1. Effective deterrence of potential aggression, 2. Enhance stability and limit risk of rapid and nuclear escalation, 3. Affordable under tighter fiscal budget. The QI report recommended: 1. Reduce army and marine footprint in Asia, 2. Eliminate vulnerable platforms (large ships) to save cost, 3. Mitigate security dilemma, reduce arms race and foster mutually acceptable compromises, as well as specific U.S. force restructuring: 1. Greater focus on navy and air force and cuts in army, 2. Reorganize Air Force for ground support (defensive rather than offensive), 3. Cut army and marine and transfer roles to Allies/partners, basically a philosophical change from offensive to defeat to defensive to deter.
 
The QI report has six chapters, two appendices, many charts and figures, and 314 pages with lots of discussions on rationales justifying its recommendations, ten authors’ different views and opinions on the geopolitical issues, and detailed reasoning for force restructuring on why, what and how. This author highly commend the ten authors’ effort as a large group working over more than a year’s time on an extremely complex subject against a ton of ‘mainstream’ think tank studies and research reports. The candidness of admitting and explaining differences in opinion in this group of authors (though not all opinions are traceable to individual names) is refreshing. However, this author is somewhat disappointed that this report did not ask a fundamental question, that is, what is the basic justification that China must be the target of denial? We have ample studies to place the Soviet Union as the target enemy threatening the national security of the U.S. The historical track record of Russia and more in the history of the Soviet have demonstrated the aggressiveness of the Soviet Communist. Hence, an anti-communist Soviet Union strategy was justifiable. However, China although started as a communist country had parted from the Soviet Union since the 60’s. The partnership of U.S.-China is a significant contributing factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Shouldn’t we ask why would China (even today’s Russia) be targeted as a threat to the U.S. national security in the same logic as the Soviet Union was?
 
To accept any of the AD or DD as a legitimate strategy in Asia against China, it is not only fair but necessary to ask the fundamental question: Why is China justified as a national threat to the U.S.? It is hardly reasonable to pin China as a threat simply because China has grown faster than the U.S. in the last fifty years, China had not initiated any war against anyone on Earth, whereas the U.S. did numerous times. Go back 100 to 150 years, China was mostly a victim of aggression by the Western aggressors and her neighbor Japan. Even China’s association with communism had shown that Chinese people were victims of communism. The PRC government has less than 100 years of history, why can't it learn from experimenting with communism, strive by embracing capitalism and reform from absorbing the best suitable system for Chinese people? Shouldn’t the fact that China lifted a billion people above poverty be considered a valuable success story? Talking about human rights, there is no ‘saint’ government on Earth. The U.S. murdered the native Indians, imported the African slaves and looted the Mexican territories whereas China kept Tibetan culture alive and people more prosperous and so was with Uighurs. The QI report could only be considered as a small voice trying to reduce a serious risk that might be entirely removable by a sensible national security strategy in Asia.
 
What If the U.S. and China resolved the phony China threat theory? What if U.S. and China became partners rather than adversaries? A host of benefits (far more than any AD or DD could produce) could be realized:

1. A free trade agreement making goods cheaper to Americans and Chinese. (Especially food vs household goods)
2. North and South Korea and the U.S. peace treaty signed with China as the matchmaker and witness.
3. The U.S. and China jointly making Iran and Israel giving up nuclear weapon or its development.
4. The U.S. and China serving as the guarantors for border peace between Russia and Ukraine and other countries.
5. The U.S. subletting oversea bases to China ships and planes for supply use.
6. China signing a long-term supply, trade and recovery agreement with the U.S. in rare earth minerals.
7. The U.S. and China collaboration in space station and other space exploration.
8. Taiwan Strait becomes a natural settlement process resulting in U.S.-China mutual reduction of military expense and arms race.

The list could go on and on. This author hopes that the QI - A.D. report as well as this column will lead people to think in the right direction, that is, why just reduce risk or manage crises or save military cost if we could remove all risks and crises entirely?!

​