By Qamar Bashir
The recent U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing underscored that China is the most significant long-term threat to U.S. national security. The discussion, led by
Senator Marco Rubio, who has been nominated for Secretary of State, emphasized
concerns about China’s economic, military, and technological ambitions, positioning it as
the foremost geopolitical adversary of the United States. Lawmakers pointed to China's
alleged aggressive global strategies, including intellectual property matters, cyber
warfare, military and economic expansion, as evidence of its intent to challenge U.S.
dominance.
The committee identified four key adversaries—China, Russia, North Korea, and
Iran—with China at the forefront and accused China of involvement in the fentanyl trade,
supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, aiding Iran’s destabilizing activities in the
Middle East, and reinforcing North Korea’s aggressive stance in the Asia-Pacific region.
A major concern raised was China’s increasing control over global supply chains,
including critical industries such as rare earth minerals, artificial intelligence, and
quantum computing. Senators emphasized that China’s technological advancements pose
a significant risk to U.S. economic and national security interests. They discussed
strategies to counter China’s dominance by restricting Chinese access to advanced U.S.
technologies, reinforcing domestic manufacturing capabilities, and securing key
partnerships with allied nations.
Additionally, the committee proposed a comprehensive Indo-Pacific strategy to counter
China’s influence. This included strengthening military alliances with Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines, as well as increasing military cooperation through
the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the United Kingdom. The senators stressed
that our engagements should be aimed at deterring Chinese actions in the South China
Sea, where China has allegedly harassed Philippine vessels, conducted large-scale
military exercises aimed at Taiwan, and simulated a naval blockade of Japan stressing on
expanding intelligence-sharing mechanisms and facilitating technology transfers among
allies to maintain regional stability.
The hearing also focused on China's alleged cyber warfare activities, including recent
cyberattacks on U.S. government institutions such as the Treasury Department. Senators
detailed China’s alleged involvement in sabotaging undersea communication cables in
Asia and Europe, highlighting the broader threat posed by Chinese cyber-espionage. The
committee emphasized the need to strengthen U.S. cybersecurity infrastructure and take
proactive measures to neutralize cyber threats before they escalate.
Regarding Taiwan, the committee reaffirmed its support for the "Porcupine Strategy,"
aimed at making the cost of invading Taiwan prohibitively high for China. This strategy
includes increasing arms sales to Taiwan, fortifying its missile defense systems, and
expanding diplomatic backing to counter China’s efforts to isolate Taiwan on the global
stage. Senator Rubio and his colleagues emphasized that defending Taiwan is not just
about regional security but also about maintaining the credibility of U.S. commitments to
its allies.
A significant portion of the hearing was dedicated to human rights concerns, particularly
China’s alleged repression of ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs. Senator Rubio
committed to lobbying against the deportation of Uyghur refugees from Thailand back to
China, where they reportedly face persecution. The committee also condemned China’s
use of forced labor and transnational repression, urging stronger global action to address
these human rights abuses.
In terms of global security, the committee emphasized that the world is currently facing
its most dangerous geopolitical climate since World War II and argued that the U.S. must
shift from a defensive to an offensive posture to secure its interests.
However, for anyone watching the hearing live, it was evident that the committee’s
accusations were largely theoretical, based on perceived and pre-established views.
Despite making several allegations, the committee failed to present any irrefutable
evidence to substantiate its claims that China was involved in the illegal activities
outlined during the hearing.
The committee overlooked China's perspective that, while pursuing its legitimate rights
and responsibilities toward international peace and prosperity, it adheres strictly to
peaceful and lawful means to achieve its objectives without jeopardizing any partner or
regional and global stability.
Unlike other nations, China asserts that it remains uninvolved in regional and
international conflicts, including the war in the Middle East, the Israel-Palestine crisis,
and the Russia-Ukraine war. Moreover, China emphasizes that it does not threaten other
nations with annexation, such as incorporating Canada as the 51st U.S. state, reclaiming
control over the Panama Canal, or occupying Greenland adding that the U.S. forms
alliances at both bilateral and multilateral levels specifically to undermine China’s
legitimate interests. Whereas, China has extended an open invitation to the U.S. and other
nations to collaborate in its global efforts to enhance the quality of life for people
worldwide.
The most questionable assertion of all was on Taiwan given that Taiwan is not a U.S.
territory, yet the U.S. assumes the inherent right to interfere in what is essentially a
bilateral territorial dispute between Taiwan and China—one that has no direct connection
to the United States. While the U.S. frequently warns, criticizes, and censures other
countries for interfering in bilateral matters of other countries, it continues to reserve the
right to intervene in conflicts worldwide as though it were an inherent prerogative.
The committee seemed to overlook the U.S.’s own controversial human rights record,
including the inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay,
targeted and extrajudicial killings of declared enemies around the globe without judicial
review, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through military
interventions in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Syria, and Libya. Furthermore, the U.S.
has been accused of supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza, which many have condemned as
genocidal.
The US Senators’ perspective once again highlights the double standards of the U.S. As
of today, the U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of arms and ammunition, which are
among the primary drivers of wars, conflicts, and unrest worldwide. Additionally, the
U.S. maintains 257 military bases across the globe, whereas China has none. Despite this,
the U.S. assumes the authority to unilaterally determine the legitimacy of other nations’
economic and geopolitical pursuits while exempting itself from such scrutiny.
Despite the urgency with which the U.S. has framed China as a strategic competitor, the
broader implications of such an adversarial approach warrant critical reflection. While
policymakers in Washington now acknowledge the scale of China's global ascendancy,
their recognition comes at a point where China’s dominance over rare earth metals,
control of global supply chains, and economic expansion have reached an almost
irreversible status.
Instead of merely labeling China as an adversary, the U.S. should consider an alternative
strategy—one that moves beyond confrontation toward collaboration. Engaging China as
a preferred partner rather than an existential threat could pave the way for more
constructive diplomacy, where both nations focus their vast economic, technological, and
geopolitical resources on addressing global challenges.
Breaking free from a cycle of rivalry and embracing strategic cooperation could yield
substantial benefits not just for the U.S. and China but for the global community as a
whole. At this critical juncture, U.S. policymakers must reconsider their approach and
explore avenues for constructive engagement. Instead of escalating tensions, fostering a
mutually beneficial relationship could pave the way for lasting global stability and
prosperity.
