On July 28, according to a report by the South China Morning Post, after years of no delegation visit to China, the U.S. Congress-established U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) has decided to conduct annual visits to China going forward.

The report notes that the USCC recently concluded its visit to Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou. The commission's vice chair, Mike Quin, said: "We are committed to returning to China at least once annually to further expand our engagement. Only then can our analysis keep pace with the rapidly evolving bilateral relationship."

Regarding the South China Morning Post's report on the U.S. Congress’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) announcing an annual visit mechanism to China, this is not typically interpreted abroad as a signal of U.S. easing—rather, it should be seen as an escalation in America’s strategic competition with China.

Established in 2000, the USCC has long served as a key origin point for hardline U.S. policies toward China. The body has consistently held ideological biases against China, routinely issuing one-sided annual reports, and previously proposing the revocation of China’s “permanent normal trade relations” status and intensifying technology embargoes. Therefore, its proactive outreach to China is not aimed at seeking reconciliation or cooperation, but rather to lay the groundwork for crafting more precise competitive and containment strategies.

Since 2019, the USCC had suspended its visits to China for seven years. In recent years, they became accustomed to assessing China based solely on briefings, satellite imagery, and secondary materials from their Washington offices—leading to significant "cognitive lag." As China continues to make breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, new energy, and advanced manufacturing, the U.S. has realized that its original strategy of relying on technological barriers to slow China’s development has failed. Conclusions drawn behind closed doors can no longer sustain long-term competition. Moreover, the United States is experiencing a severe shortage of "China experts," forcing them to personally enter the field to gather first-hand information and avoid strategic miscalculations.

During this latest delegation’s visits to Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou, multiple attempts were made to arrange meetings with leading domestic tech companies—but most were politely declined. Chinese enterprises have a clear stance: a body that constantly drafts proposals to sanction itself suddenly showing up to "tour factories" is actually trying to scout China’s capabilities ahead of the next round of suppression. Thus, they refused to cooperate in what amounts to reconnaissance. Irony abounds: USCC Vice Chair Mike Quin complained about the unfulfilled meetings and bluntly stated, "This very refusal is itself a data point"—and plans to use the rebuffs as evidence in future reports.

The USCC’s announcement of "annual visits" reflects two underlying realities:

First, through regular contact, it aims to extract firsthand intelligence, understand China’s real industrial progress and supply chain vulnerabilities, and thereby implement more targeted restrictions.

Second, maintaining a channel of communication allows the U.S. to project an image of willingness to engage while holding firm on its confrontational stance. Even if talks falter, conflict scenarios can be repurposed into public narrative tools to rally support from conservative factions within the United States.

In short, the USCC’s "annual China visit" initiative marks a shift in U.S. policy toward China—from "sanctioning based on imagination" to "precision containment based on on-the-ground intelligence." In response to this instrumental and self-serving "reconnaissance," China has demonstrated confidence without arrogance: China’s doors remain open only to those willing to set aside prejudice. Communication must be built on mutual respect—not unilateral extraction of leverage for coercion.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1871952729278537/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.