America’s mainstream media and policy establishment is still seized of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but a new fear has come to grip it — the spectre of Chinese influence. China’s new willingness to be the vanguard of globalisation, along with its proposal of a new model of economic integration and connectivity, has begun to rankle the American establishment.
At a Congressional hearing last week convened by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, titled “The Long Arm of China: Exporting Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics”, a thought that was repeatedly expressed was on the possibility of Beijing influencing the outcome of an American election in the future. Experts who deposed before the Congressional committee said it was “certainly a possibility”.
A November article in Foreign Policy raised questions about the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation, founded in 2008 by Tung Chee-hwa, a Hong Kong shipping magnate who was also the province’s Chief Executive. The foundation conducts exchange programmes that take journalists, scholars, and political and military leaders to mainland China. It has also partnered with an array of American think tanks. More than 100 American colleges and universities host Confucius Institutes, an initiative started by Beijing in 2004. Add to that the willingness of American tech companies to abide by Chinese laws to be able to operate there. All this came up during the hearing. A recent report by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) termed these Chinese efforts ‘sharp power’ as opposed to ‘soft power’ that the West seeks to exercise in other parts of the world through similar initiatives.
“….it directly threatens our most deeply held values and our national interests,” Mr. Rubio said. Added Representative Christopher H. Smith: “American institutions are being seduced by the promised infusion of much-needed wealth from China.” Shanthi Kalathil, director, International Forum for Democratic Studies at NED, who deposed as an expert, said: “China will continue to set standards based on the Communist Party’s restrictive understanding of these (democratic) values.”
A global cooperation model
But neither the lawmakers nor the witnesses could frame the illegality or even impropriety. At one point, independent Senator Angus King sought to know how Chinese exchange programmes were different from America’s own. One scholar described the Chinese efforts as “brilliant” and “sophisticated”. By spending all this money, what is it that China wanted to achieve, asked Mr. Rubio. China was promoting a model of global cooperation in which national sovereignty is inviolable, Ms. Kalathil said.
As professional strategic experts and lawmakers add China to their agonies, President Donald Trump has no quarrel with the Chinese insistence on national sovereignty. He has repeatedly stated that all international engagements must be based on the principle of national sovereignty. The Trump administration has also made it clear that it is not interested in expanding American soft power, and considers such efforts a waste of money.
Just as a lengthy Washington Post story on his sympathies for Russia was animating the professionals this week, Mr. Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin on the phone. “President Trump thanked President Putin for acknowledging America’s strong economic performance in his annual press conference,” a White House statement said.
Varghese K. George works for The Hindu and is based in Washington
