Affirmative findings would give the president statutory authority to raise import barriers to protect domestic sources. But invoking national security to justify protectionism is an extreme measure—the “nuclear option” of international trade law—that would generate some undesirable consequences for U.S.-China relations, as well as for the rules-based trading system itself.

The Chinese government believes that development is key in solving all problems in China: Development is the foundation for security, and security is the guarantee for development while China seeks political solutions through peaceful consultations, opposes intervention into other countries’ internal affairs, and promotes the global governance system to be more equitable and reasonable.

National security concerns in the U.S. and China have been used to bar certain types of foreign investments. Subjecting a legitimate commercial deal to arbitrary and protectionist exercises may only invite a similar action by the affected state, thus creating a potential spiral adverse to foreign investments.

A changing world requires China to take a clearer, more comprehensive approach to its national security. It strikes a balance between maintaining national security and promoting socioeconomic development, between internal and external security, between the security of territory and people, between traditional security and non-traditional security, and between security of a single country and that of all countries.

Compared with the 2010 National Security Strategy, the tone of U.S. policy toward China policy expressed more strategic concern on territorial disputes, military modernization, democracy and human rights, and cyber-security. Obama also has lambasted China for not “following the rules,” and China-U.S. relations could enter into a new stage of regular competition to define international rules.

China’s controversial new anti-terrorism law would require foreign companies to install “backdoors” to give authorities remote access to computers and networks, and has been placed under review due to Western concerns. Since China still has to rely on foreign technology in the immediate future, the law might have been used to tell the United States government not to engage in what Beijing called “reckless behavior,” or to further expose U.S. hypocrisy in its own cyber espionage practices.

China’s new anti-terror laws are in response to changing transnational terrorist networks and are intended to designate agencies responsible for anti-terror activities while defining the obligations of the state, society, enterprises, and individual citizens. U.S. IT companies are concerned that increased security and oversight will affect business operations, but Fu Xiaoqiang reminds that this is not unseen in U.S. law either.