By Qamar Bashir
It was an exhilarating experience to watch the live telecast of Scott Bessent’s over four- hour confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary of the most powerful nation on Earth. This live broadcast reflected the highest standards of democratic values, making the public a part of vital decision-making, showcasing the performance of their elected representatives, and ensuring their accountability. This hearing also provided a rare opportunity for a writer like me to gain insight into the minds of U.S. decision- makers—how they think, deliberate on critical issues affecting both the United States and the world, strategize, and implement far-reaching, fate-changing decisions.
During the four-hour hearing, the members of the committee grilled Trump’s nominee on
multiple issues confronting the U.S. and the world, including tariff policy,
macroeconomic management, ensuring the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s
principal reserve currency, reducing inflation, creating jobs, fostering innovation,
controlling the energy supply chain and trade routes, establishing a foolproof
cybersecurity apparatus, securing and managing rare mineral resources, and maintaining
military dominance.
Interestingly, China emerged as the primary focus of the discussion, consuming
most of the hearing. No other country or world leader was deemed worthy of significant
attention, reflecting the U.S. policymakers' intense focus on China and its status as the
foremost rival to American global influence across nearly all aspects of power dynamics
and world dominance. Committee members repeatedly referred to China as
"Communist China," labeling it the nation's biggest adversary and singling it out as
the primary geopolitical and economic threat to the United States.
The senators from both parties expressed deep concerns over China’s alleged unfair
trade practices, strategic global investments, and economic maneuvers aimed at
undermining U.S. global leadership. The hearing systematically examined specific
threats posed by China and explored counter-strategies to contain and counteract its
growing influence.
The senators from both sides of the aisle used their oratory skills to elaborate on and
condemn China’s alleged unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation, state
subsidies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers, which they
argued create an uneven playing field for American businesses. They accused China of
weaponizing trade partnerships and using economic coercion to pressure countries into
political and military alignment by leveraging its massive trade network.
China’s growing influence in Latin America and Africa was highlighted as a significant
concern, with senators observing that Chinese investments in energy, mining, and
digital infrastructure in developing regions provide Beijing with long-term leverage
over critical resources and political alliances. To counter China’s expanding geopolitical
reach, senators proposed strengthening U.S. alliances in Asia and Latin America by
deepening strategic partnerships with countries such as India, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and Latin American allies.
Senators emphasized that the massive trade deficit with China, which has surpassed $400
billion annually, has severely impacted American manufacturing, agriculture, and
industrial sectors, leading to job losses and economic vulnerabilities.
Senator Bill Cassidy highlighted that China continues to flood global markets with
artificially cheap goods, particularly in steel, semiconductors, and solar panels, driving
American competitors out of business. Senator John Cornyn warned that China’s Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI) strengthens its economic dominance by creating debt
dependencies in developing nations, enabling Beijing to export its overcapacity while
undermining U.S. trade influence. Senator Todd Young proposed using tariffs to pressure
China into fulfilling its commitment to purchase $200 billion in additional U.S.
agricultural products, which it has yet to fully meet.
Scott Bessent and Republican senators advocated for tariffs as the primary tool to correct
trade imbalances and protect domestic industries from China’s state-backed economic
aggression. Bessent outlined a tariff strategy that includes imposing selective tariffs on
industries where China has gained an unfair advantage through government subsidies and
forced technology transfers, using tariff revenues to fund American infrastructure and
industrial revitalization, and leveraging tariffs as a negotiation tool to compel China to
adhere to fair trade agreements and prevent further economic distortions.
The Committee members and Scott Bessent were unanimous in viewing tariffs as the
primary weapon in the economic battle against China. However, they differed widely on
how this weapon should be deployed. Some senators advocated for an aggressive tariff
regime aimed at safeguarding U.S. manufacturers from China's cost-effective yet high-
quality products and services. However, this stance largely ignored the underlying
inefficiencies within American manufacturing, the need for technological upgrades, and
strategies to lower production costs. Others struck a middle ground, proposing a selective
and strategic use of tariffs by targeting specific products and services where increased
duties would not disrupt domestic manufacturing efficiency or unduly burden American
consumers.
A recurring argument made by senators was that China engages in unfair trade practices
by subsidizing its industries, allowing them to produce goods at lower costs, thereby
outcompeting American businesses. However, this criticism overlooked a crucial aspect:
the U.S. government itself employs similar mechanisms to support select industries
through tax incentives, tax breaks, reduced levies, and regulatory advantages. These
policies, while not explicitly labeled as subsidies, serve the same purpose—boosting
domestic industries while limiting competition from foreign markets. Moreover, the
senators failed to acknowledge that many Chinese industries, rather than being propped
up by state subsidies, are highly profitable and contribute significant tax revenues. These
revenues are then reinvested in struggling sectors, infrastructure, and research and
development, reinforcing China’s economic growth and global competitiveness.
Rather than focusing solely on weakening China's economic progress through tariffs, a
more effective long-term strategy for the U.S. would be to strengthen its own industries
through structural reforms. This would include improving manufacturing efficiency,
reducing bureaucratic red tape, accelerating decision-making processes, and significantly
increasing investment in research and development. Enhancing the productivity and
competitiveness of American manufacturers would be a more sustainable solution than
imposing reactionary tariffs.
"Ultimately, the best strategy for the U.S. is not to pull China down but to elevate itself
through technological advancements, economic discipline, and sound policymaking. By
fostering an environment that rewards innovation and competitiveness, the U.S. can
position itself as a leader in global trade—not through protectionism, but through
excellence and efficiency.
In Part II, we will explore Trump's strategy to counter China's Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI) and its implications for global economic influence.
