Should we sanction China too?

A similar act could have the potential to be a game-changer when it comes to China today. In this case, legislating a tariff based on an annual and highly independent public assessment of China’s human rights record in a few specified areas would not only dramatically change the incentives companies face but would also generate global publicity of the abuses of the Chinese party-state.

The rights selected would have to be so foundational that they are instantly understood across cultures—such as respect for the rule of law, freedom of religion and conscience, due process and a fair trial and protections against discrimination based on ethnicity or religion. After all, reputational damage only works if everyone sees the behavior in question as wrong.

While our deep entanglement with China’s economy makes broad sanctions hard to implement, trade can still be a useful “stick” to punish and ideally change behavior—if used wisely. Conditioning trade on human rights could convey to people worldwide, including within China, the benefits of a society that upholds these rights, compared to one that does not. A trade amendment like Jackson-Vanik would significantly constrain Chinese growth, reducing funding for the Chinese military and forcing Chinese exporters to reckon with how the Chinese Communist Party’s behavior affects their own interests. Hopefully, such pressure would spark change from within—just as it did during the Cold War.