The US-China relations is an important subject since it affects global economic development and world prosperity and peace. The US-China bilateral relationship has taken a path of accelerated deterioration since the arrival of the new century. Strangely, the recent global pandemic COVID-19 attack, a common threat to mankind, should have coerced every country to work together to face the world's common enemy, yet we see rhetoric between the two nations clearly diverting their energy away from the pandemic and the troubled global economy caused by the virus. The rapid growth of China’s GDP has been interpreted by some hawks as ‘China Threat’ (to the U.S. and projected to the world) based on mostly ideologically biased assessment with little rational analysis.
 
The political anti-communism policy has a deep root in the U.S. foreign policies which have become a legacy driving the U.S. 'China policy' despite of China’s departure from the Lenin-Stalin style of communism long since the 1960’s and her persistent searching for a socialistic system suitable for China over the past seven decades. In a fair analysis, China’s success in her economical development actually was owing more to her embracing of capitalism perhaps than to her failed experiments with grandiose socialism, which might have yielded some valuable lessons for her to attempt capitalism. In this article, the author would like to analyze the “competition issue” between the U.S. and China, which seems to be the basis for their 'Thucydides trap' (Graham Allison) and the root cause of their mistrust and rhetoric. Through a rational analysis free of legacy arguments, the author arrives a conclusion, as contained in the title of this article, engagement between the U.S. and China is a beneficial China Policy.
 
We shall take a broad perspective of comparing the two great nations' 'competitiveness' in the following five domains, which are fundamentally related to a great nation’s ability to compete, to arrive at our conclusion:
 
I. Demographics
 
The U.S. and China have a total territory of 9,833,517 sq km (land 9,147,589 sq km and water 685,924 sq km) and 9,596,960 sq km (land 9,326,410 sq km and water 270,550 sq km) respectively, a coast line of 19,924 km and 14,500 km each, farm land of 15,226.3 hectare (0.47 per capita) and 11890 hectare (0.09 per capita) with comparable temperature range. China has more mountains and deserts thus less agricultural land. The U.S. has two long coast lines in Pacific and Atlantic oceans whereas China has only one coastline in the Pacific. The U.S. has about 329 million people（median age 37.7, life expectancy 75.8, growth rate 0.37%, birth/death rate 12.4/8.2 per 1000) versus China 1400 million (corresponding figures 37.7, 80.1, 0.8%, 12.1/8) yet the U.S. has 20% more cities than China. So in this comparison, the U.S. no doubt has been blessed far more than China with more resources (for example, oil reserve) and fertile agricultural land (food production). Other than the population difference which can be an asset or liability depending on the government’s ability to manage the Human Resources for productivity, the U.S. has a clear advantage to feel more competitive and secure.
 
II. Economy
 
The U.S. and China are the world’s number one (GDP $21.43T, GDP per capita $36K and rate of GDP increase 2.3-2.9%) and number two economy (correspondingly, $14.36T (67% of US), $4266 (12% of US), 6.1-6.9% (2.6X of US)). Their trade amounts to $559B with U.S. exports $106.6B (aerospace, food, engines, vehicles, IC, energy and copper) and imports $452.2B (phones, PC, toys, games, sports, monitors, seats and electrical) with an imbalance of $345B which should be offset by about $40B net service gain by the U.S. The U.S. services export to China has grown steadily over a decade from $13B in 2007 to to $56B in 2017 obviously with growth potential in the long run.
 
Looking into the trade pattern between the U.S. and China, it was clear that China’s export advantage is in the so-called first category of manufacturing products, namely products derived from agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fishing, etc. which contains food and household necessities. China’s total output is about $1021B versus U.S. $169B, a ratio of six to one. In the second category of manufacturing goods, namely, mineral, electricity, gas, construction material and appliances of mechanics and electronics, etc., China’s net output is $5597.8B versus the U.S. $3901.4B, a ratio of 1.4 to 1. In the third category of products , namely high technology and items not included in the first two categories, China’s net output is $7744.2B vs the U.S. $17,357.1B, a 45% ratio. The above analysis plus the labor productivity data (China $8253/person vs the U.S. $10,110) clearly show that the U.S. indeed depends on China for low end consumer products but definitely holds an upper hand on more advanced products with 12X labor productivity. The U.S. sets a self-constraint limiting sales of high technology products to China out of national security argument, which is hard to justify other than labeling it as a sense of insecurity - an undesirable trait in any competitive situation.
 
III. International relations and Military
 
The U.S. has ten more foreign diplomatic relations than China has, namely 190+/-10. I cannot put down a definitive number since search engines do not return a definitive number even from the website of the U.S. State Department. One website reported that the U.S. has ten more foreign relations than China but the U.S. has 273 foreign offices which is 3 less than China has. The above numbers were cited elsewhere as well. The U. S. spends $643B (2018) on military/defense budget (36% of world military expenditure, $1.785T) vs China spending $71.58B ( a ratio of 9 fold). The U.S. maintains about 800 military bases (after a recent reduction of 100) in seventy foreign countries and territories whereas China is known for sure to have one in Djibouti where a U.S. large military base also exists. Afghanistan, Cambodia, Myanmar and Tajikistan were also reported having presence of Chinese military bases but Cambodia openly denied it.
 
(to be continued)
 
 Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District. 

 
The answer to the title question is obvious: China has the national responsibility to protect Hong Kong's security, especially against any threat or interference from foreign country or organization. As for Hong Kong's future, Hong Kong is principally responsible for its own future under the One Country Two Systems (OCTS) agreement (established in 1997 when Hong Kong was returned to China  from British colonial rule) which allows Hong Kong to maintain its economic system and local government to maintain its current internationally recognized corporate, commerce, finance and civic laws (The basic laws for governing Hong Kong's daily operation as a financial center). Naturally, Hong Kong as a part of China may receive national support to enhance its economic competitiveness in the global arena and its future development. The recently completed mega project – the Zhujiang-Hong Kong-Macao cross-ocean bridge (This new world wonder certainly adds another jewel on Hong Kong and Macaw's crowns and expands their competitiveness through Zhujiang linking to Mainland China) is an example of such national support.  So, why is there fuss about Hong Kong getting a National Security Law established and unanimously (2878 yes: 1 no: 6 abstain) passed by the Chinese National People's Congress? What is comical in the mainstream media is that they sought the opinion of former Hong Kong Governor, Christopher Patten, as if he should know better about Hong Kong's security than a Chinese! In this article, we will analyze in this article the security issue for Hong Kong from Hong Kong people and Chinese points of view.
 
What is National Security and Who Provides It?
In the U.S., we Americans know very well that anything our government considering it damaging to the interest of the country and/or its people is a national security matter, from a foreign country flying a missile or plane over our territory to terrorists bombing our streets. Naturally, we expect our Federal Government to provide our national security whether we live in New York City, Buffalo or a far away island, Honolulu. So it is without doubt, China is responsible for Hong Kong's security and anything that threatens Hong Kong and/or its people  is a national security matter to China, regardless how much Hong Kong or its people is tied to the nation's economy just like New York City, Buffalo or Honolulu would expect the same national security protection.
 
What is the Nature of Hong Kong's Recent Unrest?
Hong Kong had many protests when it was ruled as a colony under the U.K and after its return to China. The U.K. would quash any protest especially against the British rule under British law and/or Hong Kong law British had set up. Prior to returning Hong Kong to China, the U.K hastily expanded Hong Kong's Civic Laws but no national security law. Of course, it makes no sense for the British to define national security law for Hong Kong. When recently Hong Kong's unrest became more violent involving external interference (such as unpatriotic behaviors beyond vocal expression to burning, destroying properties and hurting people, carrying the flag of the U.K. and the U.S.), it naturally calls for national security law to protect Hong Kong and China. Thus, the passing of the Hong Kong security  law by the National People's Congress is necessary and timely.
 
National Security under One Country and Two Systems (OCTS)
OCTS clearly defines one country which means that all regions and systems are governed under one constitution and one sovereignty. The two systems may be different but certainly can not be two opposing systems challenging the one country rule. In Hong Kong's situation, it is not difficult to understand that OCTS allows Hong Kong to maintain a different system, most importantly its economic system with laws and government mechanisms to maintain its free trade status, internationally competitive corporation laws, commerce laws and financial, including monetary, laws. These laws and additional civic laws can make Hong Kong to function as a free trade city and as a financial center. However, if Hong Kong is threatened by any unrest (such as any color or flower movement as instigated by external and/or internal forces) then its special free trade status will collapse. Hence, China's National People's Congress must establish a national security law for Hong Kong.
 
What Is Wrong with Hong Kong ? Can National Security Law Cure the Problem?
Historically Hong Kong was not only a heaven for free trade but it was also a heaven for intelligence operations. It was not all fictions in Hollywood movies to feature Hong Kong as a spy city where MI6, CIA, SVR RF etc. are active. Should Hong Kong let that continue after it was returned to China? Of course not, since most of the spy agents are spying on China in addition to each others. Spies were underground, covered or hidden, so it was not simple to get rid of them. During the recent Hong Kong unrest last year, the external influence became obvious when the protests became more organized, trained, equipped and more violent and vocal with anti-national security behavior. The national security law is expected to be applied to prevent and punish these offenses and having no effect on law-abiding Hong Kong citizens.

What Can Be Expected from the Hong Kong Security Law?
The national security law certainly will be a deterrent for foreign anti-security operations in Hong Kong. China and Hong Kong have all the rights to implement and apply the national security law. Perhaps, there will be a little more unrest instigated by the vulnerable and concerned foreign organizations, but in due time, the law will have its full effect. With the existence of this law, we may also expect two things to happen. The first is that the Hong Kong educational system will begin a self-cleansing process to remove some of the teachers and teaching material deemed to be unpatriotic and worse anti-national security. This practice is maintained in every country, certainly in the U.S. public schools. The second is that the Hong Kong judicial system will be served by Hong Kong citizens rather than by foreign nationalities, an anomaly that would never be accepted in the U.S. or U.K.. This is also critical for the security law to be effective, since the judges will interpret and apply the law.  
​
Following the above analysis, it is clear that the foreign countries have no right to criticize China for implementing a needed national security law. When the U.S. raises a threat to not granting Hong Kong the free trade status over the national security law issue, it is almost laughable since the U.S. currently enjoys a ludicrous trade surplus with Hong Kong ($31 Billion in 2018) and the national security law is designed to protect Hong Kong's stability and her trading system benefiting the U.S. and hundreds of her trading partners. As for Christopher Patten's comment: China's authoritarian government may impact the freedom of Hong Kong citizens, it is more than laughable since the Hong Kong citizens know very well what kind of second citizenship they were under the British rule. If the U.K. would dare to offer all Hong Kong people British citizenship to prove her claim that Hong Kong people preferred British rule, I bet that only a handful of applications would take place, an humiliating immigration event that would clearly indicate that the days of sending undesirable people away from England to Australia is over. The Aussies would not go back to Britain today even if bribed!  
 
So, please do not make waves to hurt Hong Kong, it will hurt the U.S. and U. K. more with humiliation!