2020 U.S. presidential election China tracker

On China’s role in climate change, at the Nevada primary debate:
“And lastly I want to say, look, the idea of China, China is — and their Belt and Road proposal, they’re taking the dirtiest coal in the world mostly out of Mongolia and spreading it all around the world. It’s clear. Make it clear when you call them to Washington in the first 100 days, if you continue, you will suffer severe consequences because the rest of the world will impose tariffs on everything you’re selling because you are undercutting the entire economy.”

On the signing of the phase one trade deal, in a statement to Bloomberg:
“China is the big winner of Trump’s ‘phase-one’ trade deal with Beijing. True to form, Trump is getting precious little in return for the significant pain and uncertainty he has imposed on our economy, farmers, and workers. The deal won’t actually resolve the real issues at the heart of the dispute, including industrial subsidies, support for state-owned enterprises, cybertheft, and other predatory practices in trade and technology.

Based on the reports we’ve seen so far, the commitments China is making, including on forced technology transfer, currency manipulation, and intellectual property protection, are almost all vague, weak, or covered by previous announcements and existing agreements…”

On the re-election of Taiwan president, Tsai Ing-wen via Twitter:
“Congratulations to President Tsai and the people of Taiwan for another successful election. You are stronger because of your free and open society. The United States should continue strengthening our ties with Taiwan and other like-minded democracies.”

On whether or not the U.S. is on a collision course with China (in the Democratic primary debate held on December 19, 2019):
“It’s on a collision course with China, but not for war. What we have to make clear is that we, in fact, are not going to abide by what they’ve done. A million Uighurs, as you pointed out, Muslims, are in concentration camps. That’s where they are right now. They’re being abused. They’re in concentration camps.

And what we started in our administration that Trump stopped, we should be moving 60 percent of our sea power to that area of the world to let, in fact, the Chinese understand that they’re not going to go any further. We are going to be there to protect other folks.

Secondly, we, in fact, should make sure that we begin to rebuild our alliances, which Trump has demolished, with Japan and South Korea, Australia and all — and Indonesia. We, in fact, need to have allies who understand that we’re going to stop the Chinese from their actions.

We should be going to the U.N. immediately and sought sanctions against them in the United Nations for what they did. We have to be firm. We don’t have to go to war. But we have to make it clear, this is as far as you go, China.

And in terms of their military build-up, it’s real. But it would take them about 17 years to build up to where we are. We’re not looking for a war. But we’ve got to make clear, we are a Pacific power and we are not going to back away.”

On pushing back on human rights violations, at the November debates:
“With regard to China, we should — look, unless we make it clear that we stand for human rights, we should be going to the United Nations seeking condemnation of China, what they’re doing with the million Uighurs that are there, essentially in concentration camps in the west. We should be vocally, vocally speaking out about the violation of the commitment they made to Hong Kong. We have to speak out and speak loudly about violations of human rights.”

On North Korea policy, at the November debates:
“And in Japan and Australia, and being a Pacific power, and putting pressure on China in order — for them to make sure that it is a non — it is a nuclear-free peninsula. And the way we do that is, we make clear to China, which I have done personally with — with the president of China, and that is we’re going to move up our defenses, we’re going to continue to make sure we increase our relationship with South Korea, and if they view that as a threat, it’s an easy thing to respond to. They, in fact, can, in fact, put pressure on North Korea.”

On trade relations with China, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“The fact of the matter is, China — the problem isn’t the trade deficit, the problem is they’re stealing our intellectual property. The problem is they’re violating the WTO. They’re dumping steel on us. That’s a different issue than whether or not they’re dumping agricultural products on us.

In addition to that, we’re in a position where, if we don’t set the rules, we, in fact, are going to find ourselves with China setting the rules. And that’s why you need to organize the world to take on China, to stop the corrupt practices that are underway.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They are not competition for us.”

“We need to get tough with China. China poses a serious challenge to us, and in some areas a real threat.” 

On the trade war:
“The only people who are paying a price are farmers and working people.” 

“There’s no going back to business as usual on trade. We need new rules, and a new process that has the voices of all stakeholders at the table – including leaders representing labor and the environment.”

On intellectual property:
“China’s greatest violation is the way they steal our intellectual property.”

On climate change:
“We can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives. Biden will not allow other nations, including China, to game the system by becoming destination economies for polluters, undermining our climate efforts and exploiting American workers and businesses.”

“Stop China from subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution. China is far and away the largest emitter of carbon in the world, and through its massive Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is also annually financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel energy projects across Asia and beyond. Biden will rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable to high environmental standards in its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects, so that China can’t outsource pollution to other countries.”

On Hong Kong:
“The extraordinary bravery shown by hundreds of thousands in Hong Kong, marching for the civil liberties & autonomy promised by China is inspiring. And the world is watching. All of us must stand in support of democratic principles and freedom.”

“The brave people of Hong Kong deserve the full support of the United States as they demand the civil liberties and autonomy promised to them. Violent suppression is unacceptable. The world is watching.” [most recent tweet, October 1]

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“The United States should push back on China’s deepening authoritarianism, even as we seek to cooperate on issues where our interests are aligned. It is inspiring to see the brave people of Hong Kong demonstrating peacefully for the civil liberties and autonomy promised by Beijing. The world is watching; we should all stand in support of democratic principles and freedom.

The forced detention of over a million Uighur Muslims in western China is unconscionable. America should speak out against the internment camps in Xinjiang and hold to account the people and companies complicit in this appalling oppression, including through sanctions and applying the Magnitsky Act.

The challenge doesn’t stop at China’s borders. Freedom in the 21st century will be won and lost in cyberspace. The Free World should come together to compete with China’s efforts to proliferate its model of high-tech authoritarianism. The United States should lead in shaping the rules, norms, and institutions that will govern the use of new technologies, like Artificial Intelligence. Through diplomacy and development finance, we can work with democratic allies to provide countries with a digital alternative to China’s dystopian system of surveillance and censorship. These efforts could begin at the global Summit for Democracy that I will host my first year in office.

Most important is that we lead once again by the power of our example. America’s commitment to universal values sets us apart from China. I will reinvigorate and repair our democracy by eliminating the Trump administration’s Muslim ban, increasing our refugee admissions, and ending the indefensible practice of separating families at the border. That is how to project a model that others want to emulate, rather than following China’s authoritarian path.”

In the CFR questionnaire, on the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”
“When it comes to trade, either we’re going to write the rules of the road for the world or China is – and not in a way that advances our values. That’s what happened when we backed out of TPP – we put China in the driver’s seat. That’s not good for our national security or for our workers. TPP wasn’t perfect but the idea behind it was a good one: to unite countries around high standards for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and transparency, and use our collective weight to curb China’s excesses. Going forward, my focus will be on rallying our friends in both Asia and Europe in setting the rules of the road for the 21st century and joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology abuses. That’s much more effective than President Trump’s so-called America First approach that in practice is America Alone, alienating our allies and undermining the power of our collective leverage. My trade policy will also start at home, by investing in strengthening our greatest asset—our middle class. I would not sign any new trade deal until we have made major investments in our workers and infrastructure. Nor would I sign a deal that does not include representatives for labor and the environment at the negotiating table and strong protections for our workers.”

In the CFR questionnaire, on the question, “How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries?”
“The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice…outlines a number of specific steps to deter and dissuade China from subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution, including G20 commitments to end all export finance subsidies of high-carbon projects, offering alternative sources of development financing for lower-carbon investments, and making future U.S.-China bilateral agreements on carbon mitigation contingent on China ending its export subsidies for coal.”

At the Democratic primary debates in July, in response to the question, “would you rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”
“I’d renegotiate. We make up 25 percent of the world’s economy. In order — either China is going to write the rules of the road for the 21st century on trade or we are. We have to join with the 40 percent of the world that we had with us, and this time make sure that there’s no one sitting at that table doing the deal unless environmentalists are there and labor is there.

And to make sure we equip our workers first to compete by investing in them now, in the things that make them more competitive. That’s what we have to do. Otherwise, they are going to write the rules of the road. We must have the rest of the world join us to keep them in check from abusing…

[asked to clarify by moderator] I would not rejoin the TPP as it was initially put forward. I would insist that we renegotiate pieces of that with the Pacific nations that we had in South America and North America, so that we could bring them together to hold China accountable for the rules of us setting the rules of the road as to how trade should be conducted. Otherwise, they’re going to do exactly what they’re doing, fill the vacuum and run the — and run the table.”

Links 

• Campaign website
  Note: “a rising China” is listed as one of a handful of “inescapable challenges.”
• Biden’s China gambit / Washington Post
• Trump and Biden clash over China as trade war deepens / Washington Post
• Biden has an aggressive plan to force China to go green / Vice
• Biden says China is not going to ‘eat our lunch.’ Other candidates beg to differ / Inkstone
• Donald Trump attacks Joe Biden over trade / The Atlantic
• Giuliani claims media ‘covered up’ Chinese deal by Biden’s son / Washington Examiner
• Biden girds for clash with Trump over China / Politico
• Top 2020 Democrats on how to address the Uighur Muslims being detained in China / Axios
  A campaign spokesperson told Axios that Biden supports sanctioning companies and officials that run the Uyghur camps.
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  Axios says that “The Biden campaign was not clear on tariff policy, and would not commit to getting rid of the existing tariffs on day 1.”
• Joe Biden answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations
• Op-ed Editorial Board: Joe Biden / NYT

 

On Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, in September 2019:
“Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive. No government survives without the will of the majority of its people, okay? The Chinese Communist Party looks at Russia and they look for where the Communist Party is and they don’t find it anymore. And they don’t want that to happen. So, they really are responsive.”

In response to the question, “…your business is heavily invested in China. I think you mentioned that a few questions back. The number one producer in the world of carbon emissions. How far would you go to force China to reduce those emissions and tackle the climate crisis?”
“Well, you’re not going to go to war with them. You have to negotiate with them and try to — and we’ve seen how well that works with tariffs that are hurting us. What you have to do is convince the Chinese that it is in their interest, as well. Their people are going to die just as our people are going to die. And we’ll work together.

In all fairness, the Chinese have slowed down. It’s India that is an even bigger problem. But it is an enormous problem.”

Note: The New York Times fact-checked Bloomberg on this claim that India “is an even bigger problem.” They found:

This is false. China’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose last year from 2018, according to the International Energy Agency. In fact, emissions have risen each year since 2017, after having declined in 2015 and 2016. Experts say China had been stimulating its economy to try to keep up growth rates. Industrial coal burning is the largest source of greenhouse gases in China, which remains the world’s largest emitter.

In response to the question, “You said you want to intensify U.S. and international actions to stop the expansion of coal. How exactly are you going to do that?”
“…America’s responsibility is to be the leader in the world. And if we don’t, we’re the ones that are going to get hurt just as much as anybody else. And that’s why I don’t want to have us cut off all relationships with China, because you will never solve this problem without China and India, Western Europe, and America.” 

On the Chinese economy:
“Some in the west believe that a growing Chinese economy is a threat. As a businessman, and now as mayor of the world’s largest financial capital, I believe the opposite is true: Chinese growth is, in fact, an opportunity for the US and the world, because the global economy is not a zero-sum game. We all share in each other’s success.”

On non-zero-sum thinking for economics and climate change:
“It has been very encouraging to see the important steps that China has taken to open up its markets to global investors. It is never open enough. We always want to work for more, but that is what two countries sitting down across the table should be negotiating, rather than yelling and screaming at each other. We have to make sure we don’t forget that life is not, and diplomacy is not, a zero sum game. We both are dependent on each other. It is the same with climate change. If anyone reduces pollution, anyone in the world benefits, and if somebody does not, everybody suffers. It is not them versus us.”

On China signing the Paris Accord on climate change:
China “deserves a lot of credit for setting an example to other countries.”

Links 

• Campaign website
  Note: The foreign policy section does not mention China, even though it discusses his New Economy Forum (held in Beijing).
• The Finance 202: Mike Bloomberg is likely the most China-friendly 2020 candidate. That could be a liability / Washington Post
• Bloomberg to skip his own China forum next week as he mulls presidential run / Reuters via New York Times
• Michael Bloomberg launches China-linked rival to Davos gathering / FT (paywall)
• Bloomberg: Stop blaming China / Diplomat (porous paywall)
• Michael Bloomberg praises China, pans Trump on climate change / Barrons
• Michael Bloomberg: Americans ‘Are Here to Fight Climate Change’ / Asia Society on Youtube
• Bloomberg News is said to curb articles that might anger China / NYT (porous paywall)
• Opinion: Michael Bloomberg in the White House? China might say thanks, but no thanks / SCMP
  Robert Boxwell argues that “The billionaire’s history of self-censorship with regard to China is a liability with voters that his rivals in the presidential race would seize on. This would make China-related issues a focus in the election, a turn of event Beijing would not welcome.”
• Opinion: Michael Bloomberg’s China record shows why he can’t be president / by Josh Rogin in Washington Post
• Bloomberg profits from conference business in China / FT (paywall)
• Bloomberg’s business in China has grown. That could create unprecedented entanglements if he is elected president / Washington Post

In response to the question, “How far would you go to force China to reduce those emissions and tackle the climate crisis?”
“And then global climate diplomacy. I’m a little skeptical of the idea that convincing is going to do the trick when it comes to working with China. America has repeatedly overestimated our ability to shape Chinese ambitions. But what we can do is ensure that we use the hard tools…”

On military budgets, at the November debates:
“Right now, we are spending a fraction of the attention and resources on things like the artificial intelligence research that China is doing right now. If we fall behind on artificial intelligence, the most expensive ships that the United States is building just turned into bigger targets.”

On the Trump farm subsidies, at the November debates:
“We shouldn’t have to pay farmers to take the edge off of a trade war that shouldn’t have been started in the first place. I will support farmers, but not long ago, I was in Boone, Iowa, a guy came up to me, he said I got my Trump bailout check, but I would have rather spent that money on conservation.”

In response to the a follow-up question on the farm subsidies, “Would you continue those subsidies or not?”
“Yes, but we won’t need them because we’re going to fix the trade war.”

In response to the New York Times report on the Xinjiang papers, in a tweet:
“China is waging a shocking, merciless campaign to erase the religious and ethnic identity of millions. The United States has a responsibility to speak out. This president’s silence has a cost.”

In response to the question, “would you repeal the tariffs?”, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“I would have a strategy that would include the tariffs as leverage, but it’s not about the tariffs. Look, what’s going on right now is a president who has reduced the entire China challenge into a question of tariffs, when what we know is that the tariffs are coming down on us more than anybody else and there’s a lack of a bigger strategy.”

On Hong Kong (in Meet the Press interview):
“Certainly the people of Hong Kong need to know that we stand with them. And China needs to know that if they’re going to perpetrate a repeat of Tiananmen, they will be isolated from the Democratic world.”

On his strategy toward China (in Meet the Press interview):
“We can find areas of cooperation, from climate to security to trade. It just has to be something that actually works for Americans. Now obviously the current strategy, I’m not even sure you can call it a strategy, let’s say the current pattern of poking China in the eye with tariffs and seeing what will happen, isn’t working…My focus, in terms of a China strategy, will be identifying areas of mutual advantage and holding them accountable for the problems that we’ve seen created by things like currency manipulation. Just realize that they’re not going to change their fundamental economic model because we poked them with a few tariffs. That’s why the ultimate way to stay ahead of China is to invest in our domestic competitiveness.”

“In response to the question, “How would you stand up to China?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 27:
“I mean, first of all, we’ve got to recognize that the ‘China challenge’ really is a serious one. This is not something to dismiss or wave away. And if you look at what China is doing, they’re using technology for the perfection of dictatorship. 

But their fundamental economic model isn’t going to change because of some tariffs. I live in the industrial Midwest. Folks who aren’t in the shadow of a factory are somewhere near a soy field where I live, and manufacturers, and especially soy farmers, are hurting.

Tariffs are taxes. And Americans are going to pay on average $800 more a year because of these tariffs. Meanwhile, China is investing so that they could soon be able to run circles around us in artificial intelligence. And this President is fixated on the China relationship as if all that mattered was the export balance on dishwashers. We’ve got a much bigger issue on our hands.

But at a moment when their authoritarian model is being held up as an alternative to ours because ours looks so chaotic compared to theirs right now, because of our internal divisions, the biggest thing we’ve got to do is invest in our own domestic competitiveness. If we disinvest in our own infrastructure, education, we are never gonna be able to compete. And if we really want to be an alternative, a democratic alternative, we actually have to demonstrate that we care about democratic values at home and around the world.”

On the anniversary of Tiananmen (in a tweet):
“Today we honor those who sacrificed their lives and livelihoods for freedom and democracy in Tiananmen Square. And for those still fighting, from the Uighurs of Xinjiang to China’s courageous activists, publishers, lawyers, students, and feminists: We see you. We’re with you.”

On Hong Kong (in a tweet):
“Inspiring to see so many in Hong Kong marching peacefully this weekend. We must continue America’s commitment to Hong Kong’s openness, democratic values, and judicial independence.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“The Chinese Communist Party’s repressive treatment of the Uighurs and other minorities, and growing pressure on Hong Kong, are symptomatic of a broader, and intensifying, ‘systems’ competition. Beijing seems committed to consolidating and legitimizing authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to the democratic capitalism embraced by the United States and its closest allies and partners.

Where necessary and feasible, we should seek cooperation with Beijing, such as in addressing climate disruption, maintaining strategic stability, combatting terrorism, and managing conflict through international peacekeeping. But the United States must defend our fundamental values, core interests, and critical alliances, and accept that this will often entail friction with China.

For too long we have underestimated China’s ambitions, while overestimating our ability to shape them. We must instead focus on repairing our democracy and reinvesting in our economic and technological competitiveness; inoculating open societies from corrupt, coercive, or covert political interference; strengthening, rather than straining, our alliances in order to put collective pressure on China for unfair economic practices, human rights abuses, and intimidation of countries that stand up for their sovereignty; realigning defense and other national security investments to reflect China’s military modernization and full-spectrum statecraft; and reducing vulnerabilities from economic interdependence by disentangling the most sensitive sectors of our economies–in an orderly, not chaotic, fashion–and ensuring that American and allied resources and technologies do not underpin authoritarian oppression and surveillance.”

In the CFR questionnaire, on the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
“I would not support the US joining the current CPTPP. It lacks critical trade provisions on labor, environment, and the digital economy, and does not align closely enough with the needs and interests of American workers….

At the same time, we should not surrender the world’s fastest growing markets in Asia to other nations. It is where China wants to dominate and is buying influence through their Belt and Road initiative. China is negotiating broad new trade agreements with their neighbors that favor China’s economy and workers. These agreements also enshrine non-democratic principles at the expense of the US and free people. Sitting on the sidelines is a losing proposition for America.

We cannot just put up walls around our economy. We need to be setting the rules of the road for the future, so that strategic and economic competition with China happens on our terms.”

In CFR questionnaire, on the question, “How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries?”
“…the US can leverage trade agreements to reduce the amount of coal funded through China’s Belt and Road initiative.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Mayor Pete Buttigieg answers questions on the climate crisis, China and immigration / Washington Post
• Buttigieg splits from the progressives on foreign policy / The Atlantic
• Top 2020 Democrats on how to address the Uighur Muslims being detained in China / Axios
  A Buttigieg campaign spokesman gives a detailed answer on what Pete Buttigieg would do to address the human rights crisis in Xinjiang.
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  A Buttigieg campaign spokesperson gives a detailed high-level answer. On tariffs: “tariffs can be de facto domestic taxes, with real costs for American workers, so they should be employed with clear strategic ends, and as part of a comprehensive strategy, executed in coordination with our allies, for addressing China’s unacceptable conduct across trade and economics, technology, security, and human rights.” Axios adds, “Buttigieg’s campaign did not commit to dropping existing tariffs immediately upon entering office.”
• Pete Buttigieg answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations
• Pete Buttigieg: “Fool’s errand” to think you can change fundamentals of China’s economy with a few tariffs / RealClearPolitics
• Meet the Press – August 25, 2019 / NBC
  The full transcript of the program, including an interview with Buttigieg. Click here for a video clip of the part of the interview on China.

On nuclear:
“We have rising tensions with nuclear armed countries like Russia and China.”

“So it’s important for us to make sure that we are de-escalating tensions with nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China, and build those relationships that are based more on cooperation, rather than conflict.”

On trade war:
“Trump’s trade-war against China has damaged, not helped, our economy, has undermined our efforts to denuclearize North Korea, and has strengthened the hand of Chinese anti-American militarists.”

At the second Democratic primary debates in July 2019, in response to the question, “would you keep President Trump’s tariffs on China in place?”
“I would not, because the approach that President Trump has taken has been extremely volatile without any clear strategic plan, and it has a ravaging and devastating effect on our domestic manufacturers, on our farmers, who are already struggling and now failing to see the light of day because of the plan that Trump has taken.”

At the second Democratic primary debates, in response to the question, “Many saw the Trans-Pacific Partnership issue as something that would be a critical tool to deal with the rise of China. You were against it. How would you ensure that the United States is able to remain competitive against China on the world stage?”
“By pushing for fair trade, not trade deals that give away the sovereignty of the American people and our country, that give away American jobs, and that threaten our environment. These are the three main issues with that massive trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I think the central one was the fact that it gave away our sovereignty to a panel of international corporations whose rulings would supersede any domestic law that we would pass, either a federal law or a state or a local law. This is extremely dangerous and goes against the very values that we have as a country.

What to speak of the fact that it would have a negative impact on domestic jobs and that it lacked clear protections for our environment. These are the things that we have to keep at the forefront as we look to enact fair trade deals with other countries to make sure that we continue to be a thriving part of our global economy.”

On climate change:
“Even as we must do all that we can here in this country, it still won’t be enough unless we build relationships based on cooperation, rather than conflict, with other countries that are big contributors to this threat — countries like China, for example. While we have differences in certain areas, this is an issue that is a global crisis and can only be addressed with global action.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Trade wars can easily escalate into hot wars, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says / Bloomberg (porous paywall)
• Tulsi Gabbard warns rising tensions with Russia, China ‘bringing us closer to the risk of nuclear catastrophe’ / NewsWeek

In response to the NYT editorial board question, “Can or should the United States take action on their [Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities who are being repressed in China] behalf?”:
“I think the United States should be standing up much taller on this front, both with Hong Kong, and you see Congress acted on that front with authorizing some sanctions and passing a law which the Trump administration grudgingly signed. But I think when it comes to the Uighurs, the stories that your newspaper uncovered of kids that are off in college and then they come home and there is no family, there’s no parents, and they’re off in what appears to be some kind of modern day camps where they have been sent. And it’s outrageous. And it, unlike some of these things, it seems like something you could really work with your allies — again, not alone — to push a resolution and get those people home. It’s a human rights debacle and a crisis and we should be elevating it on the international stage.”

In response to the NYT editorial board question, “How big a crisis do you think Hong Kong is and if early in your presidency, China were to flood Hong Kong streets… with troops and crack down violently, what do you think you would do?”:
“Well, first of all, again, standing taller and working with our allies I think would be key. If you remember how this all started, it was when Carrie Lam wanted to get a new law that would have allowed the extradition of political prisoners, well all prisoners but including political prisoners. And that’s what sparked this. She has since backed down from that, but it just shows that this spark, this protest — and you’ve got to allow for these protests and you’ve got to push on civil liberties for people. But again, I think the best way is to stand with allies, something this president has refused to do, so many times. Any time there’s a choice in a moment where he can choose, he stands with dictators over allies, or tyrants over innocents. He gets us out of these international agreements, and I’m going to give a speech on this at the Foreign Relations Council tomorrow about some of my ideas about reasserting American leadership, rejoining these international agreements.”

In response to the question, “Greatest geopolitical threat to the United States right now?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 26:
“Two threats: Economic threat, China; but our major threat right now is what’s going on in the Mid-East with Iran.”

On the trade war:
“China is someone that has been a country that’s been stealing intellectual property, subsidizing their industries, and creating an uneven playfield when it comes to trade.

On military competition and cybersecurity:
She would “invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.”

Links:

• Amy Klobuchar’s remarks on US tariffs against China / CSPAN
• Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar is running for president — here are her top priorities / CNBC
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  A Klobuchar spokesman directed Axios to recent comments by the candidate, in which she identified “surveillance… intellectual property violations… subsidizing industries and manipulating their currency” as the main problems with China. Regarding trade negotiations, Klobuchar said she would “work with our allies and to push them and I wouldn’t just walk away from every negotiating table, months go by.”
• Op-ed Editorial Board: Amy Klobuchar / NYT

In an interview with 60 Minutes, in response to a question from Anderson Cooper on whether China taking military action against Taiwan would elicit a military response from the United States:
“That’s something, yeah. I mean, I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely.”

On the use of tariffs (in CNN interview):
“Yeah of course, [tariffs are] used in a rational way within the context of a broad, sensible trade policy. It is one tool that is available. You’re looking at somebody, by the way, who helped lead the effort against permanent normal trade relations with China.”

On the human rights crisis in Xinjiang:
“We would do everything that we can to prevent the kind of persecution that is currently happening.”

On trade with China and manufacturing jobs:
“Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs. It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors. When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our trade policies.”

On China’s clean energy investments:
“China, with one-third our per capita income, leads on electric vehicles and renewable energy, while Trump says climate change is a hoax. A Green New Deal would invest in building our electric buses, trains and cars here in America with good union wages.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“China is engaged in a program of mass internment and cultural genocide against the Uighur people. It has also been steadily eroding liberal democracy in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the United States has limited options when it comes to pressuring Beijing to change its policies. But that does not mean that we should, as the Trump administration has done, abandon our role in promoting human rights, whether at the United Nations or as part of our ongoing trade negotiations with China. My administration will work with allies to strengthen global human rights standards and make every effort to let Beijing know that its behavior is damaging its international standing and undermining relations with the United States.”

In the CFR questionnaire, on the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
“Under no circumstance would we rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership under a Sanders Administration. I helped lead the effort against this disastrous unfettered trade agreement.  The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories.

Re-joining the TPP would not bring back one American job that has been outsourced to China. Instead, it would force more American workers to compete with desperate workers in Vietnam who make less than a dollar an hour and migrant computer workers in Malaysia who are working as modern-day slaves. It is bad enough to force U.S. workers to compete with low-wage labor; they should not be forced to compete with no-wage labor.

We need to fundamentally rewrite our trade policies to benefit American workers, not just the CEOs of large, multi-national corporations. Rejoining the TPP would be a betrayal of American workers and a step in the wrong direction.”

Links:

• Campaign website
  Note: None of the “Issues” landing page subjects include any direct mention of China at this time.
• Bernie Sanders on China / Feelthebern.org
  A website supporting Bernie, but not affiliated with his campaign, gives a thorough roundup of the senator’s record on China, celebrating his tough stances on the country.
• Sen. Bernie Sanders says he is “not anti-China” / MSNBC via Yahoo
• Bernie Sanders challenges Donald Trump’s China trade policy / CNBC
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  Three noteworthy excerpts from spokespersons remarks here:
  On climate change: “Trump has completely failed to address the biggest danger to the American people that comes from China: It is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. We are number two. The United States and China have to work together, and rally the world, to transition to a green-energy future. Senator Sanders understands that we’re not going to save our climate if the top two emitters lock themselves into an avoidable, carbon-spewing arms race and military confrontation.”
  On tariffs: “As President, Sen. Sanders will begin a full review of tariffs against China, including advice from experts about which tariffs are working and what policies might better help American workers and change Chinese behavior. Tariffs may be *part* of the answer, but the Trump administration lacks a serious strategy for managing China.”
  On pressuring China: “As president, Sen. Sanders would establish a coalition of allies and partners that is agile enough to respond to Beijing’s troubling behavior in key areas — including disputes over trade and IP — while pursuing ways to cooperate with China to tackle pressing challenges, especially climate change.”
• Bernie Sanders answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations
• Sanders: China has done more to address extreme poverty ‘than any country in the history of civilization’ / TheHill
• Bernie Sanders: ‘Of course’ I would use tariffs as President / CNNPolitics
• Sanders would take action if China attacked Taiwan / Taipei Times

In response to the NYT editorial board question, “How do you get China to stop burning coal?”:
“Look, it’s like every negotiation. What do you care about? The question in dealing with other people is what do you care about and what are you willing to do about it?”

In response to the NYT editorial board’s follow-up question, “So what’s your assessment of what China cares about? What would you bring to the table in those conversations?”:
“Look, I think what China cares about is cheap energy, and I think that at this point wind and solar is cheaper than coal. And I think that they are going to suffer; these people are not dumb. If you take a look at who’s going to suffer from climate, I don’t know if you guys have looked at that, I mean, probably you have, O.K., the Chinese and the Indians are going to suffer in ways that are almost unimaginable. So the real question is sitting down with China and saying, how are we actually going to do this, because it is in your interest? And by the way, coal plants are more expensive than wind and solar.

So the question is, why would you want to do that and what can we do together to make sure that you don’t do that? But it’s a question of priorities, because if it’s not your chief priority, then that’s not going to be the thing that you’re going to be pushing on. It’s not going to happen. But do I think that it’s in the Chinese country’s and the Chinese leaders’ interest to actually get on top of this? Yes. And do they know it? Yes, they do.

But honestly, I’ve looked at the coal numbers, too, the number of plants that they’re talking about building. I know how many plants they’re talking about building, not even in China, but it is just part of the Belt and Road expansion. The number’s 350. So, I’m highly aware of what happens if everybody in the world builds the coal plants that they’re talking about building and the United States closes our 237 coal plants.”

In response to the NYT editorial boards request that he discusses what the U.S.’s relationship with China should be:
“We’re a frenemy… We’re tied to them. They’re the second-biggest economy in the world. We don’t want them to fail. We want them to play by the rules. They don’t play by the rules. So the question is, what can we do to pressure them to obey the rules, to be decent counterparties without trying to destroy them? Because we don’t want to destroy them. And to me, a lot of questions in all these things is trust and relationship. Do people think that you actually are a fair, trusted counterparty who tells the truth and is not trying to hurt them, but is actually trying to cooperate in a way that is better for everybody?”

In response to the NYT editorial board’s question on whether or not Xi Jinping is a dictator:
“He is. He doesn’t have a term limit. He wasn’t elected. I don’t know what the definition of a dictator is, but an unelected leader who has no term limit, I don’t know what that is. It’s not America. I believe in democracy, I’m telling you. I’m a grass-roots person who wants everybody’s vote counted. So do I like that? No, I don’t like that.”

On how he would respond should the Chinese government take military action in Hong Kong (in the December debate):
“Look, there is a temptation, particularly for this president, to try and answer that on a bilateral — in a bilateral way. The way the United States should be reacting in Hong Kong is by gathering our coalition of democracy- and freedom-loving partners and allies to push back.

In fact, when we’re making moral statements around the world, it should not be us threatening and trying to be the world’s policeman. It should be us leading on a value-driven basis with the other people who share our values and want to change the world.

We actually can’t isolate ourselves from China. In fact, we have to work with them as a frenemy. People who disturb us, who we disagree with, but who, in effect, we are linked to in a world that is ever getting closer. And, in fact, if we are going to treat climate as the threat that it is, we are going to have to partner with the Chinese. They are going to have to come along with us. They’re going to have to trust us. And together we’re going to have to solve this problem.

So the ability to say what’s off the table — we need a good relationship with them and we’re going to have to work with them going forward under all circumstances.”

In response to a Washington Post op-ed by John Kerry titled, “China and India must step up on climate change”:
“China and India ALSO need to see US step up and get our own house in order. We have work to do on our end—and I know we can do it!”

On the U.S.-China trade war, in an interview with CNBC:
“To me, the trade war, Mr. Trump’s trade war, is an absolute, abject failure. And I would walk away from it on the first day of my administration. I think when you’re making a mistake, face up to it and end it. And this is a classic mistake: poorly conceived, poorly executed, and hurting Americans, every single day.”

“Look, I know that China doesn’t obey the rules. I spent 30 years as a businessperson, I watched Chinese companies and the Chinese government systematically cheat in terms of closing markets and stealing intellectual property. But this trade war hasn’t worked one bit, and it’s hurting Americans. What we need to do when we see someone who’s a bad actor in foreign affairs, is we need to work with our allies, who are also being harmed, to use the instruments that are in place like the WTO, to take them on in every single instance. I know they’re doing it. I know it’s wrong. But we have to take them on with other people in a concerted effort every single day. This trade war is an attempt to get away from the actual granular negotiations and hit them over the head. We are tied to China. They are a frenemy. We’re not rooting for China to fail, we’re insisting that they obey the laws so that they can succeed legally and we can prosper the way we deserve to, also legally. It’s a completely different approach that involves not bilateral but multilateral approach, and that takes into account both working people and the environment. Absolutely different from what Mr. Trump is doing.” 

Links:

• Campaign website
  Note: Does not mention China anywhere, not even in the “hold others accountable for environmental crimes” section.
• Election 2020: Tom Steyer, Democratic Presidential Candidate / Council on Foreign Relations
  An explainer on Steyer’s background and central foreign policy message on climate change.
• Op-ed Editorial Board: Tom Steyer / NYT

In response to the New York Times report on the Xinjiang papers, in a tweet:
“The Chinese government’s cruel, bigoted treatment of Muslims and ethnic minorities is a horrifying human rights violation.

We must stand up to hatred and extremism at home—and around the world.”

On the NBA controversy, in an October 7 tweet:
“China is trying to use its market power to silence free speech and criticism of its conduct. In response, the NBA chose its pocketbook over its principles—and our values. We should all be speaking out in support of those protesting for their rights.”

In reaction to reports that Trump promised Xi that he would keep quiet on Hong Kong, and also discussed the candidacies of Warren and Biden in a June phone call (October 3 tweet thread):
“Trump can say what he wants about me, but it’s outrageous that any president would sell out the people of Hong Kong behind closed doors.

The public must see the transcript of Trump’s call with Xi. And we need a leader who will stand up for our values.

This is a moment for American leadership. The country needs a president capable of both advancing U.S. economic interests and standing up for America’s values, not one who sees the two as in conflict with one another.”

On the protests in Hong Kong, from her October 3 op-ed in Foreign Policy:
“For months, the world has watched as protesters in Hong Kong stood bravely in the face of police and state violence. They deserve our support… 

Hong Kong plays a unique role in the global economy and an essential role for China. That role is sustainable only if Hong Kong is allowed to retain its democratic orientation and traditions… 

The United States must send a clear message that it and its partners expect China to live up to its commitments—and that they will respond when China does not. To send that message over the situation in Hong Kong, the United States should take two steps.

First, it must stop exports of police gear to Hong Kong…

Second, it should provide temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure to Hong Kong residents.”

On the human rights crisis in Xinjiang:
“Like in so many areas, we need to think about the broad range of tools available to us. That includes diplomatic pressure on China, working it in with our economic negotiations, and working with our allies around the world and international communities and international organizations to highlight the problem.”

“I don’t think there is any one obvious answer that’s going to resolve this problem. It’s how we think of all the tools available to us, in order to move it in a better direction … The Trump administration has shown little interest in helping these people or in working with our allies to strengthen international standards that would protect them.”

On China’s economic growth and its political system:
“China weaponized its economy without ever loosening its domestic political constraints.”

“China is on the rise, using its economic might to bludgeon its way onto the world stage and offering a model in which economic gains legitimize oppression.”

Americans cannot support a more integrated economic system with China if it “fails to respect basic human rights”.

On the technological competition between China and the U.S.:
“Would-be rivals, for their part, have watched and learned, and they are hard at work developing technologies and tactics to leapfrog the United States, investing heavily in such areas as robotics, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and quantum computing. China is making massive bets in these and other areas in an effort to surpass the United States as a global technological power.”

“In Asia, we should encourage our allies to enhance their multilateral cooperation and build alternatives to China’s coercive diplomacy. We should also respond to China’s efforts to force foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology in order to gain access to the Chinese market and penalize its theft of U.S. intellectual property.”

On the use of tariffs:
“What I’d like to see us do is rethink all of our trade policy. And I have to say, when President Trump says he’s putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall.”

On the protests in Hong Kong:
“The people of Hong Kong are making clear that they will not tolerate repression, and their movement affirms: The power is with the people. They deserve our support and the support of the world.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• A foreign policy for all / Foreign Affairs
• China isn’t cheating on trade / The Atlantic
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  A Warren campaign spokesperson told Axios that “Elizabeth favors engagement and believes in a relationship of mutual respect,” but also that “a Warren administration will implement a strategy to respond to China’s economic aggression and build alternatives to China’s coercive diplomacy.”
  Also, on tariffs, “Warren’s campaign offered a vague statement noting that she would conduct a review of existing tariffs upon entering office.”
• Opinion: What Warren’s trade plan means for China / by Daniel Schoolenberg on SupChina
  “Frustrated with the lack of progress on a U.S.-China trade deal under Trump? Warren’s ‘economic patriotism’ agenda would nullify any trade agreement with China.”
• Opinion: It is time for the United States to stand up to China in Hong Kong / by Elizabeth Warren in Foreign Policy
  “Tweets aren’t enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its commitments—and it will respond when China does not.”

Michael Bennett

Dropped out of the primary race on February 11, 2020.

Panda Shrugger (standard Democrat positions on China)

• Key word or phrase: China’s unfair trade practices
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: He wants to keep “China accountable on trade.”

In response to the question, “How would you stand up to China?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 27:

“I think the biggest factor in national security is Russia, not China…I think the president has been right to push back against China, but has done it in completely the wrong way. We should mobilize the entire rest of the world who all have a shared interest in pushing back on China’s mercantilist trade policies, and I think we can do that.”

On his strategy on China:
“A real strategy on China would strengthen our alliances, not provoke a trade war.”

On China’s unfair trade practices:
“For decades, China has used unfair trade practices to undermine American jobs and innovation. While the USTR Section 301 investigation did not address all the threats unfair Chinese trade practices pose to the U.S., it did identify several serious concerns faced by American workers and businesses.”

“Any acceptable agreement must, at a minimum, commit China to cease the predatory practices identified in the Section 301 investigation…Your negotiations should seek to extract meaningful commitments from China on each of these elements and end the threats that these policies pose to the U.S. economy and national security. A satisfactory agreement must include a clear and transparent monitoring and enforcement mechanism that allows the United States to hold China accountable.”

On technological threats from China:
“The United States must sharpen efforts to address technology threats from China and other nations that undermine our economic and national security, erode democratic norms, and leave vulnerable our supply chains. Successfully combatting these threats requires a long-term strategy for maintaining U.S. competitiveness in technologies of the future. We must work across public and private sectors to galvanize efforts that ensure our technological competitiveness.”

On Trump’s foreign policy with China:
“Offering to trade American sanctions enforcement to promote jobs in China is plainly a bad deal for American workers and for the security of all Americans,” the senators wrote. “American workers and companies confront rampant theft of U.S. intellectual property, agricultural policies that disadvantage American farmers, restrictions on market access for U.S. service providers and manufacturers, and mercantilist industrial policies that have cost U.S. workers their jobs. America’s policies toward China should put American workers, farmers and businesses first, not China’s.

“We urge you to focus on identifying effective strategies to reshape China’s policy approach in each of these areas, such as through enforceable commitments to eliminate forced technology transfer policies, market distorting subsidies, data localization policies, and foreign investment restrictions, and ensuring nondiscriminatory treatment of U.S. firms in regulatory and other proceedings. Above all, we urge you to remain steadfast in enforcing America’s laws.”

On tariffs:
“Putting tariffs on our allies, putting tariffs on even the Chinese that are actually taxes on American producers, American farmers, taxes on the American consumer and taxes on the American worker, I think are completely the wrong way of doing this.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• 2020: Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado pragmatist, is running for president / Vox
• Michael Bennet on “Face the Nation”: Trump is the “most fiscally irresponsible president” in decades / CBS
• Sen. Michael Bennet, agriculture leaders say Trump’s trade moves hurt Colorado / Colorado Springs News
• Michael Bennet knows what’s wrong with America / The Washington Post

Bill de Blasio

Dropped out of the primary race on September 20, 2019.

Panda Shrugger (unclear positions on China)

• Key word or phrase:  Unknown
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization:  Unknown

No quotes on China found.

Links:

• Campaign website
• Mayor de Blasio remarks at the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association’s Lunar New Year event / Youtube

Cory Booker

Dropped out of the primary race on January 13, 2020.

Panda Shrugger (standard Democrat positions on China)

• Key word or phrase: A pro-fair trade Democrat
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: He thinks the global trade agreements that the U.S. has been in are harmful to factory workers and small businesses in America. “We did not account for how globalism was going to severely hurt people in America.”

In response to a question at the November debates on whether and how the U.S. should support the Hong Kong protesters:
“Well, first of all, this is president who seems to want to go up against China in a trade war by pulling away from our allies and, in fact, attacking them, as well. We used a national security waiver to put tariffs on Canada. And so at the very time that China is breaking international rules, is practicing unfair practices, stealing technology, forcing technology transfer, and violating human rights, this nation is pulling away from critical allies we would need to show strength against China.

There’s a larger battle going on, on the planet Earth right now between totalitarian, dictatorial countries and free democracies. And we see the scorecard under this president not looking so good, with China actually shifting more towards an authoritarian government, with its leader now getting rid of even his — getting rid of term limits.

And so I believe we need a much stronger policy, one that’s not led, as President Trump seems to want to do, in a transactional way, but one that’s led by American values. So, yes, we will call China out for its human rights violations.

But not only that, we will stop engaging in things that violate American rights. Because it is a human rights violation when people at our border, children are thrown in cages. It’s a human right violations without coming to the United States Congress for an authorization for the use of military force for us to refuel Saudi jets to bomb Yemeni children. It is about time that this country is led by someone who will say the values of freedom and democracy are what we are going to lead with and begin to check China, check Putin, and the other folks that are trying to undermine American values and democratic values around the globe.”

On strategy toward China, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“We cannot go up against China alone. This is a president that has a better relationship with dictators, like Duterte and Putin, than he does with Merkel and Macron. We are the strongest nation on the planet Earth, and our strength is multiplied and magnified when we stand with our allies in common cause and common purpose. That’s how we beat China. That’s how we beat climate change on the planet Earth, and that’s how American values are the ones that lead on issues of trade and workers’ rights.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“China is playing an unfair game and their goal is to keep us divided. Trump played into their strategy.”

“I’m saying that if we are going to win in Asia, we need to bring together the allies that we have there, and do a deal that works for us to counter and check China in a substantive way.”

On American tech companies:
“So what I do have more of a problem with is the tech companies who are allowing China’s values on privacy, on security, using those tech platforms to squelch the human rights of others to surveil their citizens. These are things that I have a problem with. Tech companies are willing to sacrifice values for profit. That’s unacceptable to me.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“Protecting human rights must be a central tenet of our foreign policy and that means protecting persecuted religious and ethnic minorities and preventing genocides. If I am president, whenever the United States meets with China, human rights will be a focus of the conversation.

I am deeply disturbed by the human rights abuses happening in China’s Xinjiang region and support putting companies that build the detention camps there and their surveillance systems on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, in addition to using the Global Magnitsky Act to sanction the people involved with the detention camps.

I am also a co-sponsor of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which requires a series of reports on China’s treatment of the Uighars, including from the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence, that would be used to determine whether certain individuals meet the criteria for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

As president I will also insist that China honor the commitments it has made for the autonomy of Hong Kong, and will be a voice for the people of Hong Kong and their ability to organize and express their opinions.”

Links:

• Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker walks the line between business and the left / CNBC
• Democrats harden their stance on China / FT
• Top 2020 Democrats on how to address the Uighur Muslims being detained in China / Axios
  A spokesperson for Cory Booker responded to Axios.
• Cory Booker answers our foreign policy questions / The Council on Foreign Relations

Julián Castro

Dropped out of the primary race on January 2, 2020.

Panda Shrugger (critical of Beijing, but also pro-trade)

• Key word or phrase: China is a rising power that needs to be reined in
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: “I do think that we ought to only strike trade agreements that are good for American workers and American companies. I disagree with people who say we’re going to close off trade — I don’t agree with that.”

In reaction to clashes between protesters and police at Hong Kong Polytechnic University on November 18, in a tweet:
“I condemn the campaign against protesters at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, which represents a significant escalation by the authorities.

The United States must #StandWithHongKong and hold the Chinese government accountable for repression. The whole world is watching.”

On competing with China in Latin America, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“And under my administration, we’re going to put renewed focus on Latin America. It makes sense. They’re our neighbors and we have a lot of things in common. It also makes sense that, because we have a country like China that is going around the world to places like Africa and Latin America, making their own relationships, strengthening those, the United States needs to strengthen its partnerships in Latin America immediately.”

In response to the question, “what do you do for leverage? Where do you get it?”, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“So when I become president, I would immediately begin to negotiate with China to ratchet down that trade war. We have leverage there. I also believe, though, that we need to return to a leader when it comes to things like human rights.

We have millions of Uighurs, for instance, in China that right now are being imprisoned and mistreated.”

On the human rights crisis in Xinjiang:
“The government of the People’s Republic of China’s efforts to erase Uighur culture and identity, including through holding up to a million individuals in concentration camps, is morally reprehensible. The United States must speak up and hold those in China accountable for these practices.”

“I support placing foreign companies complicit in China’s oppression of Uighurs on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, preventing them from doing business with United States companies or individuals, and will ensure no American company benefits from forced labor in Xinjiang. I also support using the tools of the Global Magnitsky Act to sanction those running the camps.”

In response to the question, “Greatest geopolitical threat to the United States right now?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 26:
“China and climate change.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“And it’s more important than ever that we have allies around the world because we have countries like China that are growing very quickly, that are projected to get stronger and stronger militarily and economically.”

“We should allow China to compete, but not cheat.”

On Trump’s approach towards China:
“I mean Trump has been talking about that for 30 years. About how he thinks that the United States is getting ripped off by China. The problem is that the president has done a terrible job when it comes to laying the groundwork, setting the foundation to actually outcompete a country like China. He’s chosen a go-it-alone strategy that is hurting everybody from farmers in Iowa to business owners in Texas. And it doesn’t help many people.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Congressman Joaquin Castro: Asia and the rise of China / Asia Society
• A long talk with Julián Castro / New York magazine
• Full FOX News town wall with Julian Castro: “A lot of cleaning up to do” when Trump is gone / Real Clear Politics

John Delaney

Dropped out of the primary race on January 31, 2020.

Panda Slugger (prioritizes addressing business grievances against China)

• Key word or phrase: Intellectual property
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: “You have to build a coalition of all the countries in the world, and our private companies, to have a unified front in dealing with China around the issues that actually really matter.”

In response to the question, “Greatest geopolitical threat to the United States right now?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 26:
“The greatest geopolitical challenge is China, while the greatest geopolitical threat remains nuclear weapons.”

On trade war:
“The President is right that we have a big problem with China.”

“China is our main rival economically. No question.”

“China has acted like ‘pirates.’ And that’s the best word I could come up with.”

“In many ways, he (Trump) is the mirror image of the Chinese. They don’t sell a set of values, they don’t sell kind of a global order if you will, they don’t sell allies, they sell transnational relationships.”

On the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
“I think President Obama was right. He did include environmental standards. He did include labor standards. We would be in an entirely different position with China if we had entered the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We can’t isolate ourselves from Asia. “

On intellectual property:
“The question is how do we deal with the fact that they steal intellectual property. We cannot let that happen. And we have to build competitive alternatives.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“It is critical that United States foreign policy be based on a solid foundation of moral principles; that foundation is what has always distinguished the U.S. on the world stage. Within that context, we must place a high priority on defending human rights of all people globally and when confronted with human rights abuses by countries with whom we have relations, we must make the resolution of those abuses an important part of our engagement with that country. There should be no exception to this bedrock foundational policy, not in China, not anywhere and the well documented abuses by the Chinese government that are occurring with respect to the Uighurs demand a U.S. and global response. My administration would work closely with appropriate United Nations agencies – and the U.S. Congress – to investigate human rights abuses which have been committed against the Uighur people. I would place this issue front and center in diplomatic discussions with the Chinese government and would urge them to accord human rights protections to all peoples under their domain. With regard to Hong Kong, while I respect the Chinese government’s right to govern within its borders, I will voice strong support for Hong Kong’s right to autonomy awarded to the city by its status as a special administration region. Hong Kong’s ability to manage its own affairs is important to U.S. policy since thousands of U.S. businesses operate out of Hong Kong because of the economic and political protections.”

In the CFR questionnaire, on the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
“I would seek to reenter the TPP on day one of my administration. In response to the emergence of China as a dominant economic power on the international stage – which does not always adhere to accepted trade and economic norms and rules – 12 leading Pacific Rim countries reached agreement on a set of protocols for a rules-based trade deal covering 40% of the global economy to counter Chinese economic misconduct. I was one of a handful of Democrats who voted in favor of Trade Promotion Authority to give President Obama the ability to effectively negotiate TPP because I felt we needed a strong strategic response to China. I believed that the United States alone could not stand against China, that it would take a multilateral and strategic effort to counter China. The Trump Administration has abandoned this approach in favor of a trade war with China, a trade war that has had a serious negative impact on hard working Americans and several sectors of the United States economy.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Q&A in Madrid: Where do you stand on China? / John Delaney campaign website
• Trump is ‘mirror image of the Chinese,’ says Dem Candidate John Delaney / Cheddar
• What does John Delaney believe? Where the candidate stands on 6 issues / PBS
• Campaign 2020: John Delaney, Democratic presidential candidate / Council on Foreign Relations
• John Delaney answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

Kirsten Gillibrand

Dropped out of the primary race on August 28, 2019. 

Panda Shrugger

• Key word or phrase: To “hold China accountable” and “outcompete China”
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? At a town hall meeting with CNN, she said that she learnt Chinese in college and had a great time travelling across the country. She studied at Beijing Normal University in 1986 and spent a second semester in Taiwan. She researched Tibetan refugees and interviewed the Dalai Lama for her senior project, and later spent four months in Hong Kong as a corporate lawyer.
• Been to China? Yes
• Associated with any previous China policies? In June, She introduced a bill that would “level the playing field” for American workers in global trade agreements. She sponsored two China-related bills: US – S178 Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019; US – S1634 South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions Act of 2019.
• Views on trade and globalization: She opposes TPP and “called for action to end unfair Chinese trade practices, including state subsidies in renewable energy and restricted exports of rare-earth metals.”

On her bill:
“The Level the Playing Field in Global Trade Act of 2019 would require any future trade agreements that is eligible for fast track consideration by Congress to include enforceable wage, workplace, and environmental standards. This would help ensure that American workers and businesses are not undercut by foreign imports that are made by workers who are paid substandard wages or who work in hazardous conditions, and that imports are manufactured using sustainable production methods that uphold environmental standards.”

On Trump’s foreign policy with China:
“He ran on no bad trade deals. He started a trade war that is crippling our farmers and crippling our manufacturers. He ran on the system’s rigged and all he’s done is line his cabinet with the elite of the elite.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“I am deeply troubled by the alarming reports of widespread human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim Chinese citizens. I have called on U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to update U.S. export controls on American technology to ensure that neither China nor other repressive regimes can use American technology to commit human rights violations. I have further supported targeted sanctions against those responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture and other abuses of human rights, and have cosponsored the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019. America must pursue a variety of goals in the bilateral relationship with China, including holding them accountable for currency cheating, unfair trade practices, and cyber theft of American technology and Americans’ data. But history has taught us that we never ultimately advance our interests when we ignore human rights abuses. I believe we can support human rights in the context of addressing our country’s vital national security and economic interests.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Actress Connie Britton was Gillibrand’s college roommate / CNN
• New York senator impresses with Mandarin / NYT (porous paywall)
• Video shows Gillibrand speaking Mandarin to reporter / The Hill
• Gillibrand wrote her thesis on Chinese oppression in Tibet but has been silent about it in Congress / Washington Examiner
• Gillibrand’s letter addressing human rights violations in Xinjiang / Website of Senator Gillibrand
• Top 2020 Democrats on how to address the Uighur Muslims being detained in China / Axios
  A press secretary for Gillibrand responded to Axios: “As president, she will leverage national and international tools in an effort to end the tragedy in Xinjiang.”
• Top 2020 Democrats on U.S. policy toward China / Axios
  A press secretary for Gillibrand told Axios: “Senator Gillibrand believes tariffs can be a useful tool to hold China accountable for their cheating, but there must be strategy and coordination with our allies so that American workers are protected. China’s currency manipulation, dumping of steel, and stealing of intellectual property threaten the economy and security for free countries all around the world. She would also fully support our legal restrictions on foreign investments made to take our IP or create other national security risks.”
• Kirsten Gillibrand answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

Kamala Harris

Dropped out of the primary race on December 3, 2019. 

Panda Shrugger

• Key word or phrase: Rethink tariffs and bring China back to the negotiation table
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Yes
• Associated with any previous China policies? In December, in an attempt to urge the Trump administration “protect American technology from China,” she introduced a bill to update the Economic Espionage Act to expand prosecutors’ ability to go after foreign hackers stealing trade secrets.
• Views on trade and globalization: America needs better trade agreements than TPP to “protect workers and environmental regulations”; “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”

In response to the question, “how would your trade policy differ from President Obama’s?”, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“I am not a protectionist Democrat. Look, we need to sell our stuff. And that means we need to sell it to people overseas. That means we need trade policies that allow that to happen.

You asked earlier about China. It’s a complicated relationship. We have to hold China accountable. They steal our products, including our intellectual property. They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable.

We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents. We need to partner with China on the issue of North Korea. I am on — and I think the only person on this stage — the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee. We need a partner on the issue of North Korea.”

On tariffs:
“These tariffs would be particularly harmful for California, which has the country’s largest consumer electronics sector. The industry contributes $438 billion each year to California’s economy and directly employs over 900,000 workers in the state. Over 80,000 of these jobs are supported by exports.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“Whether it’s the nuclear threat of North Korea and Iran, chaos and oppression in Venezuela, or confronting China’s unfair trade practices, the U.S. is most effective at confronting global challenges when we work in lockstep with our partners.”

America should address “the threat [China] presents to our economy, the threat it presents to American workers.”

On intellectual property issues:
She accused China of “engaging in “unfair industrial policies and outright theft of American intellectual property.”

On Trump’s foreign policy with China:
“The president and his administration have failed to realize we’re stronger when we work with our allies on every issue — China included.”

“While we agree with the findings of your office’s recent investigation into China’s unfair industrial policies and outright theft of American intellectual property, we are concerned that the Administration’s trade actions are counterproductive to its goal of ensuring a level playing field for American companies.”

On the Hong Kong protests:
“I stand with the people of Hong Kong and affirm the fundamental right of all people to peacefully protest for their rights. The President of the United States should call for the same.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“China’s abysmal human rights record must feature prominently in our policy toward the country. We can’t ignore China’s mass detention of more than a million Uighur Muslims in “reeducation camps” in the Xinjiang region, or its widespread abuse of surveillance for political and religious repression. We can’t ignore Beijing’s failure to respect the rights and autonomy of Hong Kong’s people and the Hong Kong government’s excessive use of force against peaceful protestors. President Trump has consistently turned a blind eye to these abuses in hopes of earning a ‘win’ in his trade war, all to no avail.

Under my administration, we will cooperate with China on global issues like climate change, but we won’t allow human rights abuses to go unchecked. The United States must reclaim our own moral authority and work with like-minded nations to stand up forcefully for human rights in China and around the world.”

Links

• Campaign website
• Democratic US presidential front-runners split on China tariffs / Nikkei Asian Review
• Campaign 2020: Kamala Harris, Democratic Presidential Candidate / Council on Foreign Relations
• Kamala Harris blasts Donald Trump for conducting China foreign policy via Twitter / Washington Times
• Biden says China is not going to ‘eat our lunch.’ Other candidates beg to differ / Inkstone
• Kamala Harris answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

John Hickenlooper

Dropped out of the primary race on August 15, 2019. 

Panda Hugger (emphasizes international cooperation)

• Key word or phrase: “Re-energize trade with the world”
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: Hickenlooper is a proponent of “open and fair” trade policy. He called Trump’s trade policy “reckless”, saying the trade war is “a tax on the American people.”

In response to the question, “What is the first relationship you would like to reset as president?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 27:
“The first country I would go to, and I understand they have been cheating and stealing intellectual property, would be China because if we are going to deal with public health pandemics, if we are going to deal with all of the challenges of the globe, we’ve got to have relationships with everyone.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“We should have a vision of where we want to be with China in ten years. And how do we get there, right? We don’t have protocols for cybersecurity right now. If there’s an incursion, there’s a breach of our cybersecurity, at different levels of that breach we don’t have protocols the way we did with military, from the Cold War. Think about Ebola pandemics.”

“So ten years down the road, that means we’ve got to be maybe not partners with China, but we gotta have a working relationship. We have to get to a point where they’re not stealing our intellectual property. Or they’re not cheating on the treaties that we have in place. Where we have some level of trust and, you know, we have certain shared goals that are explicit and non-transactional in nature.”

On intellectual property:
“When you look at some of these electronics companies and how they’re having to rebuild their supply chains because of these tariffs, these are … supply chains that were designed to create jobs in the United States. And now those jobs are probably moving away, moving out of the country forever.”

During the second Democratic primary debates in July 2019, in an exchange on trade:
“I think Congressman Delaney has got a point here. And there is a way of looking at trade that is therapeutic.

The bottom line is, you talk to any economist, there is not a single example in history where a trade war had a winner. Trade wars are for losers. And the bottom line is we’ve got to recognize, let’s negotiate a better trade deal. But you’re not going to win against China in a trade war when they’ve got 25 percent of our total debt.”

During the second Democratic primary debates in July 2019, on climate change:
“We’ve got to be building bridges right now with people like China, who were cheating on international agreements and stealing intellectual property. We need to work on that, but not with a tariff system. We need every country working together if we’re going to really deal with climate change in a realistic way.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• A long talk with John Hickenlooper / New York magazine
• 2020 hopeful John Hickenlooper unveils plan to “re-energize trade with the world” / CBS
• 2020 presidential candidate John Hickenlooper: China was already ‘at the table’ before Trump’s risky tariff war / CNBC

Jay Inslee

Dropped out of the primary race on August 28, 2019. 

Panda Hugger (sees cooperation on climate change as top priority)

• Key word or phrase: Re-engaging with China
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? As Washington Governor, Inslee facilitated an array of high-level technological and educational cooperations between his state and China.
• Been to China? Yes
• Associated with any previous China policies? Yes
• Views on trade and globalization: Pro-trade and globalization. “Part of our success is the result of the globally-oriented outlook of our companies. We depend on positive working relationships with our trading partners and access to foreign markets to sell our goods and services worldwide.”

On trade war:
“Unfortunately, the president’s erratic and unilateral moves undermine everything we’ve done to build up markets for our world-class products. The losers in these deals are Washington’s hard-working, job-creating manufacturers and growers and their customers.”

“Certainly there are a couple companies that say, ‘Gee, I like that protection.’ But for many others it’s not been good. They have to increase cost to their customers or absorb the costs of the tariffs. Many have investment plans, and now all of a sudden their exports are down and the cash flow they were going to use to finance their investment is shaky.” —Robert Hamilton, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee’s trade adviser

On climate change:
“We know that China is doing some significant investment in clean energy domestically. We know that they recognize that air quality in Beijing is a threat to the stability of that nation. And when you talk to leaders in China they’ll tell you that’s the thing that they actually might lose the most sleep over. So they are taking dramatic action to reduce some of their carbon emissions domestically. But unfortunately, under the Belt and Road provision, they are not exporting coal around the world. And we have to use every single policy available to reengage China to stop those investments on a(n) international level, which is every bit as dangerous.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Gov. Jay Inslee on US-China relations / Youtube
• Trump’s trade war ‘undermines’ everything the state of Washington has done to build global markets: Gov. Jay Inslee / CNBC

Beto O’Rourke

Dropped out of the primary race on November 1, 2019.

Panda Shrugger (has not yet talked in detail about China)

• Key word or phrase: A trade war with support from American allies
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Yes
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: “China isn’t paying the price for this reckless trade war. We are.”

On the trade war:
“I strongly agree that we’ve got to do all we can to support the cotton farmers across west Texas. That includes price support for cotton seed — but it also means we stand up together against Trump’s trade war, a trade war that will devastate Texas farmers.”

“Let’s make sure we hold other countries of the world accountable, but let’s not do it at the expense of our farmers, our growers, our producers, those who are fundamental to the success of the U.S. economy.”

“Trump knows full well how destructive his trade wars have been. They amount to one of the biggest middle-class tax hikes in history. But even with so many farmers crippled by tariffs, drowning in debt, and some farms still underwater, our President has refused to throw them a meaningful lifeline.”

“When in the history of this country have we ever gone to war, a military fight or a trade war, without allies? Because that’s exactly what we are doing now with China.”

“Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and entire communities of Americans have paid the price for these trade wars. What we see is another example of Donald Trump trying to be both the arsonist who created this problem in the first place and the firefighter who wants credit for addressing it.”

“As president, we will hold China accountable, but we will bring our allies and friends, like the European Union, to bear, and we’ll also negotiate trade deals that favor farmers and American workers and protect human rights and the environment and labor.”

On Joe Biden’s China remarks:
“On China, he says China is no threat—nothing to worry about. And now seems to be changing his message on that. So I’m not exactly sure what he believes.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“To address complex global challenges—climate change chief among them—we need smart, principled engagement with China. But we don’t do ourselves, or our relationship with China, any favors by not being forthright about our core values. Chinese oppression of the Uighur minority is a human rights disaster, and the United States should not only be condemning their detention and surveillance, but should be leading an international effort to pressure China to relent. Likewise, the people of Hong Kong should have no doubt about where we, as Americans, stand in their struggle to preserve democracy against increasing efforts by the Chinese government to undermine it.

These issues are not—and should not be seen as—separate from other strategic interests we pursue in the broader relationship with China. Our values are assets, not liabilities, in the global competitive environment. Indeed, we are more likely to achieve our other objectives with China when China upholds its human rights obligations, including its promises to respect Hong Kong’s independence.

Navigating the wide range of trade, security, climate, and human rights interests we have with China requires skillful and patient diplomacy, something that is sorely lacking in the current administration. Like all nations, China will act in a way that it believes is consistent with its interests. As President, I will seek to engage China around mutual interests, like climate change, where our countries should be cooperating to build the global green economy.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Trump has a ‘legitimate’ gripe with China, but his trade war alienated partners, Democrat Beto O’Rourke says / CNBC
• Beto O’Rourke: Our farmers are paying the price for our trade wars / CNN
• Beto O’Rourke answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

Tim Ryan

Dropped out of the primary race on October 24, 2019.

Panda Slugger (very critical of trade with China)

• Key word or phrase: Economic issues
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? Yes (see bill to ban foreign firms “flaunting” U.S. laws)
• Views on trade and globalization: Ryan said he shares Trump’s concerns with Chinese trade policy, but criticized the president’s “dangerous” lack of strategy. “It roils the markets, it doesn’t provide stability and he’s got no plan. So I’m not going to support this.” Ryan’s congressional district includes the former General Motors plant in Lordstown.

“In response to the question, “Greatest geopolitical threat to the United States right now?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 26:
“China without a question. They’re wiping us around the world economically.”

Also as the first Democratic primary debate on June 26, in response to a question on whether he can fulfill a promise to bring back manufacturing jobs to places like Ohio, he decried the tax cuts and “bailouts” General Motors received under the Trump Administration, only to have them leave the country:
“I’ve had family members that have had to unbolt a machine from the factory floor, put it in a box and ship it to China.”

On China’s global influence:
“They’re putting billions of dollars behind these projects, and they have a 100-year plan. We’re in a 24-hour news cycle. And they’re winning, and that’s the urgency that I’m bringing to this race.”

“China is coming at us. They are in Africa. They are locking down long-term deals in Africa for raw materials. They’re building islands in the South China Sea. They’ve got very detailed, long-term programs like their One Belt, One Road, where they’re connecting Asia to the Middle East.”

On the trade war:
“Part of it is having people in the State Department having a long-term, sophisticated, diplomatic operation, being in touch with China, continuing to talk to them and having a relationship with them in the long term but also having an economic strategy of our own in that region of the world, making sure that we are competing globally, we’re not retreating from, you know, NATO and our relationships that we have militarily and diplomatically in that region, and letting our friends and allies know that we are going to be with them and compete in this global economy.”

“Trump does not have a big strategy. He has a tactic that gets him on TV because he sends a tweet out — tariffs are on, tariffs are off — and the media runs with it all the time and it changes the subject and he can look tough. We’re getting our clock cleaned.”

At the second Democratic primary debate in July 2019, in response to the question, “As president, would you continue President Trump’s steel tariffs?”
“Look, I think President Trump was onto something when he talked about China. China has been abusing the economic system for a long time. They steal intellectual property. They subsidize goods coming into this country. They’ve displaced steel workers, auto workers, across the board, eroded our manufacturing. And we basically transferred our wealth of our middle class either up to the top 1 percent or to China for them to build their military.

So I think we need some targeted response against China. But you know how you beat China? You out-compete ’em. And that’s why I’d put a chief manufacturing officer in place to make sure that we rebuild the manufacturing base.

We’ve got to fill these factories that — in Detroit, in Youngstown, that used to make cars and steel. We’ve got to fill them with workers who are making electric vehicles, batteries, charging stations, make sure they’re making solar panels.

As I said earlier, China dominates 60 percent of the solar panel market. They dominate 50 percent to 60 percent of the electric vehicle market. We’re going to make 10 million electric vehicles somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. I want them made in the United States. That’s why I have a chief manufacturing officer that will sit in the White House and help drive this agenda.

…What’s the grand strategy for the United States? China has 100-year plan, a 50-year plan, a 30-year plan, a 20-year plan. We live in a 24-hour news cycle. That spells disaster for our economy and disaster for our global politics.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“China’s continued terrible treatment of ethnic Uighurs and their slow, methodical campaign of vilification of Hong Kong protesters should be seen as continued attacks on the concepts of multiculturalism and the rule of law. Throughout my career I have been sounding the alarm about an ascendant China that isn’t committed to democracy, international norms and now, after two decades of the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, seems intent on flexing its muscle politically and militarily. As President, I would increase our human rights pressure on China, especially in these two areas.”

Links:

• Tim Ryan’s campaign website
• Tim Ryan on China tariffs, environmental policy and immigration / PBS
• Tim Ryan: Biden’s comments on China ‘stunningly out of touch’ / CNN
• Rep. Tim Ryan on trade steps he’d like to see Trump take / NPR
• Tim Ryan: I want the U.S. to lead the global industrial revolution / MSN
• New tariffs on China pose major risk for Trump / The Hill
• Tim Ryan answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

Eric Swalwell

Dropped out of the primary race on July 8, 2019. 

Panda Shrugger

• Key word or phrase: A trade war with China is no good
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? In 2014, he praised WTO’s decision on China’s improper export restraints
• Views on trade and globalization: He thinks a trade war with China “was not beneficial to the United States and said he believes Trump has alienated nations with longstanding relationships with the U.S.”

On rare earth element exports from China:
Rep. Eric Swalwell on Twitter: “My bill countered China’s cheating around rare earth element exports by getting the US in the game. @GOPLeader and I negotiated a compromise consensus bill. @Heritage_Action opposed it & sent @MickMulvaneyOMB to @HouseFloor to object to unanimous consent.”

Links:

• Why Eric Swalwell thinks he can win over Trump supporters — like his parents / PBS
• Here’s how Democratic 2020 contenders would negotiate trade with China / CNBC

Marianne Williamson

Dropped out of the primary race on January 10, 2020. 

Panda Shrugger (positions unclear or unspecific)

• Key word or phrase: Unclear; has not spoken about China enough
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: Unclear

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“China is aggressively engaging in theft, practicing commercial espionage, and ignoring intellectual-property rights as well as trampling on human rights and democracy in their drive to dominate global markets. The US must maintain a strong position regarding China with regard to economics, politics, and human rights. 

China’s treatment of the Uighurs and of Hong Kong reflect their aggressive drive for domination and their disdain for human rights and democracy. The United States needs to stand up for human rights and call out the gross violations of human rights committed by China. It’s a good thing that this week Secretary Pompeo denounced China’s treatment of the Uighurs. We should also be speaking out against the authoritarian push for greater control in Hong Kong where thousands of people are demonstrating for their democratic rights. 

Additionally, the US has the power to prevent China from buying strategically important companies, which we have done through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). We should exercise this power more vigorously as we defend our economic interests and human rights for all.”

Links

• Campaign website
• Marianne Williamson answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations

Andrew Yang

Dropped out of the primary race on February 11, 2020. 

Panda Hugger (emphasizes cooperation on global problems)

• Key word or phrase: Tech competition; “An ascendant China isn’t a direct threat to the United States, as long as we are strong at home”
• Business, professional, or family ties to China? Unknown; his parents emigrated from Taiwan to the U.S.
• Been to China? Unknown
• Associated with any previous China policies? No
• Views on trade and globalization: “The winners of the U.S.-China trade war are Vietnam and Mexico. The losers are U.S. and Chinese businesses and consumers.”

“We’re not going to be able to address global threats like climate change and even collaborate on artificial intelligence if we don’t have a certain level of cooperation between the U.S. and China,” presidential candidate Andrew Yang told SupChina before a fundraising event in New York City on November 10. “Right now, unfortunately, our relationship is trending in the wrong direction…towards a new Cold War.” Yang said that a part of this is a “perception that America sometimes falls into that the world is a zero sum game, and if another country is benefitting, that’s somehow bad for the United States.” At the same time, Chinese IP piracy and human rights issues need to be addressed, he added.

On AI competition with China, in the November debates:
“We’re in the process of potentially losing the AI arms race to China right now, because they have more access to more data than we do, and their government is putting billions of dollars to work subsidizing the development of AI in a way that we are not.”

On how he would respond to Russia (and China), at the November debates:
“We’re going to recommit to our partnerships and alliances, including NATO. And it was James Mattis that said that the more you invest in diplomats and diplomacy, the less you have to spend on ammunition.

That has to be the path forward to help build an international consensus not just against Russia, but also to build a coalition that will help us put pressure on China, in terms of their treatment of their ethnic minorities, and what’s going on in Hong Kong.”

On the NBA controversy, in a tweet:
“The Chinese government banning the Rockets is a terrible move.”

In response to the question, “Would you repeal the tariffs on your first day in office? And if so, would you risk losing leverage in our trade relationship with China?”, at the third Democratic primary debate on September 12:
“I would not repeal the tariffs on day one, but I would let the Chinese know that we need to hammer out a deal, because right now, the tariffs are pummeling producers and farmers in Iowa who have absolutely nothing to do with the imbalances that we have with China.

A CEO friend of mine was in China recently and he said that he saw pirated U.S. intellectual property on worker workstations to the tune of thousands of dollars per head. And he said, one, how can my workers compete against that? And, two, think about all the lost revenue to American companies.

So, the imbalances are real. But we have to let the Chinese know that we recognize that President Trump has pursued an arbitrary and haphazard trade policy that has had victims on both sides.

So, no to repealing the tariffs immediately, but yes to making sure we come to a deal that addresses the concerns of American companies and American producers.”

In response to the question, “What is the first relationship you would like to reset as president?”, at the first Democratic primary debate on June 27:
“China, we need to cooperate with them on climate change, AI, and other issues, North Korea.”

At the first Democratic primary debate on June 27, in response to, “Mr. Yang let me bring you in on this. On the issue of China, you have expressed a lot of concerns over technology and taking jobs. Are you worried about China? And if so how would you stand up against it?”
“I just want to agree that I think Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat, because they have been hacking our democracy successfully and they’ve been laughing their asses off about it for the last couple of years. So we should start focusing on that before we start worrying about other threats.

“Now China, they do pirate our intellectual property. It’s a massive problem. But the tariffs and the trade war are just punishing businesses and producers and workers on both sides. I met with a farmer in Iowa who said he spent six years building up a buying relationship with China that’s now disappeared and gone forever, and the beneficiaries have not been American workers or people in China. It’s been Southeast Asia and other producers that have then stepped into the void. So we need to crack down on Chinese malfeasance in the trade relationship, but the tariffs and the trade war are the wrong way to go.”

On intellectual property:
“They (China) have taken advantage of frameworks to their own benefit and we haven’t had some of the same benefits.”

On U.S.-China relations:
“But China is in the midst of a historic increase in prosperity and that is something America should not be threatened by at all.”

“I think China’s being set up as the antagonist by the U.S. If we can see China’s rise as complementary, that would be the best hope. That, unfortunately, is not what I think is the American tendency. But if I become president, hopefully I can make it so.”

On U.S.-China technology competition:
“The US – China tech trade war will have profound implications. It will be a massive setback for Chinese providers like Huawei in the short term. But if they succeed in building software independent of Google they will have a very different ecosystem. I preferred interdependence.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?”
“The treatment of the Uighurs in China is unacceptable, and we need to be a part of the chorus of voices across the world calling the situation out for what it is. It’s also troubling to see China take a more aggressive stance throughout the region, whether towards Hong Kong, Taiwan, or in the South China Sea.

China obviously has great ambition, and their system of government is becoming increasingly authoritarian as they develop more technologies that allow them to monitor and control their population. It’s important that we work with our allies to combat the spread of this authoritarian capitalism, and provide a model for democratic capitalism.

By providing a model and engaging in international work to help developing nations, we can show the world a better way to engage in governing their nations. We should help developing nations to liberalize, and work with them to diversify their economies. Trade and exporting US technologies to these countries can help us build alliances throughout the world as more countries modernize and liberalize.

We need to make sure China isn’t stealing our IP or exporting their authoritarianism to other countries, and we must ensure that we have reliable access to rare earth metals. But the current trade war is just hurting both sides. An ascendant China isn’t a direct threat to the United States, as long as we are strong at home and project that confidence to developing nations, to show them a superior path to the one China is offering.”

In response to the Council on Foreign Relations questionnaire, on the question, “Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”
“Trade deals have inarguably hurt a large number of Americans. By outsourcing American jobs – particularly manufacturing jobs to China – we’ve devastated communities and placed large amounts of financial stress on families.

However, studies show that only 20% of manufacturing job loss is due to trade with China. The other 80% can be attributed to automation. While we need to take steps to ensure that our trade deals work for all Americans, automation is the bigger threat.

I would reenter the TPP in conjunction with policies to ensure the benefits are widely shared, like a VAT, border-adjustment tax, and the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income of $1,000/month for all American adults.

We need to increase our influence and alliances across the Pacific, so I believe we need to either enter the TPP, or negotiate a similar deal to combat the rising influence of China in the region. We should take this opportunity to renegotiate labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property and data protection, specifically in the tech sector.”

Links:

• Campaign website
• Andrew Yang: Not all aspects of China behavior should be viewed as threat / The Hill
• Andrew Yang: The U.S. government is 24 years behind on tech / Venture Beat
• Is Andrew Yang the anti-Trump? / The Crimson
• Andrew Yang answers our foreign policy questions / Council on Foreign Relations