The Act outlines an integrated strategy to meet the challenges posed by China, by fostering U.S. scientific research on technological innovation, especially in semiconductors and cybersecurity; increasing American domestic manufacturing capabilities; balancing supply chains, and investing in alliances and democratic values through international diplomacy. It is not for nothing that Scott Kennedy, Senior Adviser in Business and Economics at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, has commented that “this is the most comprehensive action by Congress on China ever”. The bill is interesting in how it conceives of the nature of the U.S.-China relationship, following years of debate as to the precise nature of China’s role in U.S. foreign policy. As explained in the “Strategic Competition Act of 2021”, the essence of the American view is not only China’s great power status, but the risks that the Chinese state-capitalist autocracy poses to free-market democracies. It is a bill of preparedness.
The Senate passed the Act in early June 2021 with a healthy majority – 68 Yeas and 32 Nays – and, since then, the U.S. debate about this major legislation has become increasingly rich. One year on from the first action taken in Congress on the bill, it is possible to assess the cast of characters that will define the debate. On the day of the Senate vote, American tech firm IBM lauded the Senate for passing the legislation, adding that the company hoped the House of Representatives would act quickly to approve the Act. Similarly, last month Reuters reported that around one-hundred executives from the main American tech companies – including Alphabet Inc., Amazon.com Inc, and Microsoft Corp. – signed a letter urging Congress to pass the legislation.
The legislative path towards its passage, however, will be winding. The main reason is that, while the Strategic Innovation and Competition Act was approved in the Senate, the House of Representatives simultaneously passed similar legislation: the “America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act” (“America COMPETES Act”) in February 2022. The two bills – around 3000 pages each – are very similar, but the presence of two bills in legislative parallel is likely to delay the whole process. The current priority for Congress, therefore, is to build a solid bipartisan consensus around one bill that can conceal the views of both chambers, and subsequently work from there.
The U.S. Strategic and Innovation Act goes beyond U.S. foreign policy – it is a bellwether for an ongoing comprehensive revisitation of U.S. preparedness in the face of a changing world order. As my research explains, this is a complex process that has its roots in the end of the Cold War. Since 1989, the U.S. strategic debate has increasingly revolved around the question of understanding what China means for the United States’ role in the world. How the White House and Congress specifically frame China are the main lenses through which my research analyses and explains how the U.S. strategic consideration of China evolved presidency after presidency, from George H.W. Bush to Joe Biden. By doing so, I identify the main reasons that led to the drafting of major legislation like the U.S. Strategic Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, which will redefine great power relations between the United States and China for the first time since the end of the Cold War.