According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the United States imports more from China than from any other country.” The total volume of imports in 2022 from China into the U.S. amounted to more than $536 billion, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported.

The Group of Seven leaders in May issued a statement about “de-risking and diversifying” from China, while also acknowledging that they would not be “decoupling or turning inwards.”

What does “de-risking” and “diversifying” look like?

“Well, I think the imbalance of trade is extremely concerning, particularly when we’re talking about a regime that is now credibly accused of a genocide against the Uyghur people. It has totally broken an international treaty in regard to Hong Kong and dismantled completely the promised freedoms and autonomy for Hong Kong,” says Benedict Rogers, co-founder and chief executive of Hong Kong Watch.

Hong Kong Watch is a “registered charity” based in the United Kingdom that “researches and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s basic freedoms, the rule of law and autonomy as promised under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, which is enshrined in the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration,” according to its website.

“And it’s committing other very serious atrocity crimes against other groups within China, but also it’s complicit with atrocities in other regimes, particularly North Korea and Burma,” Rogers says. “And of course, it’s increasingly threatening Taiwan. And plus, it’s a regime that hid and lied to the world over the virus, which became the COVID-19 global pandemic.”

Rogers adds:

So, to have such a high dependency on that one country for imports I think is a very dangerous situation to be in. And I hope that the United States and other countries as well will diversify, and that means producing more at home, but also investing in other countries that are less risky.

Is Biden the ultimate embarrassment to our country?

Yes!

He's not that bad

Email^*

This poll gives you free access to your Patriot911 Newsletter in your email inbox. Email field is required. Unsubscribe at any time.

Submit your vote!

Rogers joins today’s episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss the difference between “de-coupling” and “de-risking and diversifying”; how the U.S. can ethically trade with China; and his book, published late last year, “China Nexus: Thirty Years In and Around the Chinese Communist Party’s Tyranny.”

Listen to the full interview or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Samantha Aschieris: Joining today’s show is Benedict Rogers, the co-founder and chief executive of Hong Kong Watch. Benedict is also an adviser to the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign and author of “China Nexus: Thirty Years In and Around the Chinese Communist Party’s Tyranny.”

Thanks for joining us.

Benedict Rogers: It’s a great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Aschieris: So, I want to dive right in and talk about the trade between the U.S. and China. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the United States imports more from China than from any other country.” And the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported earlier this year that the total number of imports in 2022 from China into the U.S. amounted to over $536 billion.

Now, recently we’ve heard of this idea of de-risking or diversifying from China. What does this look like and what are your thoughts on these ideas?

Rogers: Well, I think the imbalance of trade is extremely concerning, particularly when we’re talking about a regime that is now credibly accused of a genocide against the Uyghur people. It has totally broken an international treaty in regard to Hong Kong and dismantled completely the promised freedoms and autonomy for Hong Kong.

And it’s committing other very serious atrocity crimes against other groups within China, but also, it’s complicit with atrocities in other regimes, particularly North Korea and Burma. And of course, it’s increasingly threatening Taiwan. And plus, it’s a regime that hid and lied to the world over the virus, which became the COVID-19 global pandemic.

So, to have such a high dependency on that one country for imports I think is a very dangerous situation to be in. And I hope that the United States and other countries as well will diversify, and that means producing more at home, but also investing in other countries that are less risky.

I think there are plenty of countries where we could strengthen our supply chains, whether it’s emerging economies in Southeast Asia like Indonesia, long-established economies like Japan and Korea. Perhaps doing more with Taiwan, although, obviously, there are risks around Taiwan if a war happens. But we should be diversifying our supply chains.

Aschieris: We’ve also heard of this expression or this phrase, decoupling. What’s the difference between diversifying versus decoupling versus de-risking?

Rogers: Well, I think decoupling is, in an idealistic sense, probably the right thing to do, but it’s probably much more difficult to achieve because of the longstanding economic relationship with China. It’s almost impossible to completely pull out altogether. And so, diversifying is about reducing our dependency on China and trading more with other partners.

And de-risking is about saying, “OK, we’re not going to stop trade with China, but how can we reduce the risks, whether it’s ethical risks of, for example, our pension funds being invested in Chinese companies that are complicit with atrocities or whether it’s the financial risk of doing business in an increasingly unstable economy in China?”

Aschieris: As we’ve been talking about and as I mentioned earlier, just for the dollar amount of the amount of imports that we have from China, the relationship that we have is very intertwined, it’s very extensive.

With that being said, it doesn’t seem like just walking away from China in terms of trading with them is on the table right now. So, with that in mind, how can the U.S. trade with China ethically?

Rogers: Well, I think there’s a combination of steps that should be taken. Firstly, our pension funds should really look closely at where they’re investing our money and withdrawing that money from, and reducing investment in Chinese companies that are either directly committing or facilitating atrocities or indirectly complicit with that.

I think the second thing that we should be doing is saying—and I’m not sure how much this applies to the United States, it certainly applies to the United Kingdom. We should be saying, “OK, we’re going to continue trading with China, but we should not have Chinese investment in our strategically vital sectors.”

And I know the U.S. has made some progress on this in terms of banning companies like Huawei and Hikvision. The U.K. has made less progress, although taken some steps.

But it’s about looking at the critical sectors that are vital for either our critical infrastructure or our national security and saying, “Let’s not have investment in those sectors from companies that are linked to the Chinese Communist Party.”

Aschieris: Yeah, definitely. And just along the lines of things that are made in China, it feels like you could literally flip over anything in this office right now and it would probably say, “Made in China.” And with that comes, usually, lower prices.

So, where do you find that balance? Where do you draw the line between being able to buy things from China that are probably cheaper, probably more people can afford to buy against the fact that it’s also, for the U.S. especially, it’s our greatest adversary and is a growing threat to countries throughout the world?

Rogers: Well, it is a challenge and I think for a long time now we’ve become accustomed to cheap goods, and I think that there probably needs to be a consumer mindset change. And we have to get used to the idea that, at least for a period of time, goods will be more expensive if we go down this path of decoupling or de-risking.

I think that the crucial things we should be looking at are products that are made by slave labor. And the U.S. has taken some steps on their side, like other countries, to do the same. But making sure that when we’re importing goods, they can be proven that they’re not made by Uyghur forced labor.

And I think the second thing we should be doing is looking at products that could be used by the Chinese Communist Party regime for surveillance purposes, so some of the technology that we import. And that means looking to other sources of that technology.

But yes, it will come at a price and I think we have to be willing to accept that.

Aschieris: In terms of the companies that are doing business with the Chinese Communist Party, what types of incentives do you think would be necessary for them to start either leaving China completely or at a basic level, just start pulling back a little bit here and there from working directly with China or even in China?

Rogers: I think one of the biggest incentives right now is actually coming from the Chinese Communist Party itself because it has just produced a new espionage law that essentially will make it almost impossible for companies to do due diligence. The levels of transparency are reducing dramatically. And so, the ability for companies to assess their risk in China is becoming much more difficult.

At the same time, [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping is pursuing an economic policy that is really going after entrepreneurs and private enterprise. So, it’s a much less attractive market to do business with than it perhaps appeared a decade or two ago. And I think that ought to be the biggest incentive for companies, is the risk that they face and the lack of ability to do due diligence must be pretty off-putting.

Aschieris: Now, the trade relationship specifically between China and the U.S. didn’t happen overnight, right? And especially throughout the world, China’s role with being a big exporter and being able to produce these cheap goods didn’t happen overnight.

So, can you walk us through how China became such a global leader in terms of trade? And if there’s anything that you would suggest either to the U.S. or the U.K. or other global leaders in terms of how you can lessen that role of China?

Rogers: I think China became such a global economic power with a lot of help from us, from the United States and from the West. And that was particularly with the admittance of China into the World Trade Organization, the establishment of most favored trading nation status, and then [permanent normal trade relations].

And at the time, and I shared this view, at the time, it was a very different China. It was a China that was opening and growing economically, but also a regime that appeared to be much more pragmatic and appeared to be allowing some degree of, I wouldn’t call it liberalization, but perhaps relaxation of more space for civil society, for certain limited freedoms. And there was a sense of optimism that if we bring China into the global economy, that will lead to further political liberalization and reform.

Clearly, we were proven wrong, the exact opposite happened. And I think the Chinese government, once they’d achieved their economic superpower status, then reverted to their natural character, which is much more repressive, and really cracked down on those limited freedoms.

What can we do about this now? Well, ideally, certainly the option of removing them from the WTO and changing that trading status should be looked at. But I recognize that that’s extremely difficult to do and it could only ever be done, I think, together with allies. And unfortunately, in Europe there’s a diversity of opinion regarding China, and so it’s very hard to see that happening.

I think the best things we can do are to, as we’ve been discussing, reduce our dependency on China, use sanctions where appropriate as a punitive measure for the behavior of the regime, and strengthen our trading relationships with other countries.

Aschieris: Now, as I mentioned at the top of the show, you have a book out titled “China Nexus: Thirty Years In and Around the Chinese Communist Party’s Tyranny.” I wanted to give you a chance to talk a little bit about your book. From my understanding, there are 10 ideas that you mentioned in your book. Could you talk about those and just more broadly about your book?

Rogers: Sure. Well, it’s a book that is an attempt to look at, from a human rights angle, all of the Chinese regime’s repression.

And when I was thinking about the book, I thought initially, “Well, there are thousands of books on China. What can I really add that’s new or of value?” But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that although there are many books on China, there were very, very few, indeed, if any, that put all the pieces of the picture together.

So, the book looks at everything from the crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong to the genocide of the Uyghurs, atrocities in Tibet, the persecution of Christians, forced organ harvesting, the crackdown on lawyers and dissidents and civil society and journalists across China. But also, the relationship between China and North Korea, and China and Burma, the threats to Taiwan, and also the threats to our own freedoms in the United States and the U.K. The Chinese Communist Party’s campaign of influence and infiltration and intimidation well beyond its borders.

In terms of the 10 ideas that I outline in the final chapter of the book, which looks at the international community’s response to these challenges—and I talk to experts both in the United States and in the U.K., but also across Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Korea, and India, because I didn’t want it to just be a Western lens. I wanted to get perspectives from some of China’s neighbors that are also feeling these challenges.

And I won’t go through all 10 recommendations, partly because of time and partly because I hope people will read the book.

Aschieris: Read the book. Yeah. Yeah.

Rogers: But broadly, they’re in three categories. The first is, what can we do to end impunity, ensure accountability for the Chinese Communist Party’s crimes? And that includes the use of sanctions as a punitive measure, because I think the Chinese Communist Party only understands one language and that’s strength. And unless there are consequences for its actions, it’s just going to be emboldened to be even more repressive at home and aggressive abroad.

The second category of ideas is, what can we do to help people who need to get out, who need a lifeline, may be in great danger? And also, what can we do to empower dissent, whether that’s within China or among the diaspora?

And then thirdly, ideas for how to strengthen our values of freedom in our own societies and in the international rules-based order and counter the Chinese Communist Party’s growing influence.

Aschieris: I’ll definitely make sure to include a link to your book so—

Rogers: Thank you.

Aschieris: … our audience members who are interested can take a look at it, hopefully buy it and read it.

Just before we go, I wanted to circle back to your role with Hong Kong Watch as well as being an adviser to the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign. If you could just walk us through some of the work that you do for both Hong Kong Watch and the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign.

Rogers: Yes. So, I co-founded Hong Kong Watch five-and-a-half years ago now, because I had lived in Hong Kong previously, actually, for the first five years after the handover, from 1997 to 2002. And then I had seen Hong Kong’s freedoms being dismantled, starting with the protests in 2014 that became known as the Umbrella Movement.

And when I saw what was happening, I, as somebody who had lived in Hong Kong, started to speak out initially in a personal capacity, and then by 2017 I knew that we needed an organization to do this. One person on my own, it was not enough.

So, Hong Kong Watch is both a research and advocacy organization. We research and compile in-depth reports on different aspects of the deteriorating human rights situation in Hong Kong. We provide regular shorter briefings as well. And then we advocate for policy actions. We initially were founded in London and of course, the U.K. has a special responsibility for Hong Kong, given our history.

But almost from the start, we also began advocacy in Washington, D.C., in Ottawa because Canada has an important role, particularly having a very large Hong Kong diaspora community in Canada. We’re very active at the European Union level and at the U.N. And even with countries like Australia we’ve developed engagement.

And a new aspect of our work since 2020, when the crackdown really intensified and many people started to leave Hong Kong, has been working with the growing Hong Kong community in the U.K. and Canada in particular to help them integrate into their new lives in those countries, to understand their freedoms in the U.K. and Canada and how they can engage with our political systems.

In terms of the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign, it’s a really important group that was founded by an amazing friend of mine who’s actually originally a Uyghur singer who’s become an activist because of the situation, Rahima Mahmut.

And it’s a group that aims to raise awareness, keep attention on the appalling human rights violations that the Uyghurs are facing, which is increasingly recognized as a genocide. And I’m on their advisory group, so I try to support Rahima and the team there in what they’re doing.

Aschieris: Great. Well, Benedict Rogers, thank you so much for joining us today. It was great to have you on.

Rogers: Thank you very much for having me.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post ‘A Very Dangerous Situation,’ Benedict Rogers Says of US Depending Too Much on China For Imports appeared first on The Daily Signal.