{"id":54270,"date":"2020-05-01T09:00:59","date_gmt":"2020-05-01T09:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/05\/01\/maximum-pressure-on-china-is-no-solution-to-a-pandemic\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:01:03","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:01:03","slug":"maximum-pressure-on-china-is-no-solution-to-a-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/commentary\/2020\/05\/01\/maximum-pressure-on-china-is-no-solution-to-a-pandemic\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Maximum pressure\u2019 on China is no solution to a pandemic"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What did Beijing know, and when did they know it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Chinese government\u2019s mishandling of the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak is not in doubt, but the extent of it remains an open question. U.S. intelligence agencies are reportedly probing<\/a> the possibility<\/a> the novel coronavirus was accidentally released from a Chinese virology research facility<\/a>. Whatever such investigations find, what seems clear now is Beijing propagandized, suppressed whistleblower reports and misled the public about the severity of the illness, contributing to global viral spread. Would the U.S. outbreak be substantially different \u2014 would infections and deaths be fewer \u2014 had the unreformed authoritarians<\/a> in Beijing been more transparent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question is increasingly answered with calls for an aggressive new posture by Washington toward China. Interest in \u201cpayback\u201d is on the rise. The appeal of retribution for a crisis of this scale is obvious, but much of what its advocates propose is not prudent strategy for advancing U.S. security, prosperity and peace. Knee-jerk antagonism will not serve us well. It won\u2019t solve our present problem of a pandemic, and it could stick us with worse troubles still.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposals vary for making China \u201cpay.\u201d Some<\/a>, like boycotting the 2022 Beijing Olympics or more prominently labeling Chinese imports so Americans can eschew them for U.S.-made alternatives, are primarily symbolic but may have some limited economic effect. Others seek an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which usually protects foreign states against U.S. lawsuits. That change would require legislative action, perhaps improbable in a divided Congress, and the lawsuits would be unlikely to succeed. These suggestions thus mostly amount to political theater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More common \u2014 and more dangerous \u2014 is the push for instituting a sanctions regime on China, perhaps in the vein of the Trump administration\u2019s counterproductive, risky \u201cmaximum pressure\u201d campaign against Iran, which has much in common with its approach to North Korea. This is a disastrously wrongheaded plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maximum pressure has proven a failure when applied to Tehran<\/a> and Pyongyang. It was doomed from the beginning because both target regimes that believe resisting U.S. coercion is vital to their survival. In each case, maximum pressure has precluded productive diplomacy; fostered provocative behavior (regional troublemaking by Iran and weapons testing by North Korea); had harsh humanitarian consequences for innocent citizens already subject to harsh rule; and trapped the U.S. in an escalatory cycle in which long-term deterrence and stalemate may be the least bad option.<\/p>\n\n\n\t