This year marks the 20th anniversary of arguably the worst congressional vote in this century. In 2000, the Senate approved Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the People’s Republic of China by a vote of 83-15. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law, declaring: “China will open its markets to American products from wheat to cars to consulting services, and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.” Republican Rep. Bill Archer of Texas, the lead sponsor of the bill, remarked, “The American people support this agreement because they know it’s good for jobs in America and good for human rights and the development of democracy in China.” While trade normalization has resulted in some benefit to American consumers, the painful costs imposed by normalization on specific industries, companies and places have fundamentally changed the United States and its politics, and not necessarily for the better. The well-meaning but catastrophic miscalculations of Chinese intent by Congress played a significant role in shattering the postwar foreign policy consensus and helped create the populism that has given rise to President Trump (and, for that matter, Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont). As a presidential candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump specifically noted, “China’s entrance into the WTO has enabled the greatest job theft in the history of our country.” The mistake was understandable. In the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, there was a sense that something had to be done.

After the Chinese stepped in to lease the station’s airwaves, they invested in boosting the signal 10-fold - wide enough to reach congressional offices. The station programming also developed biased content regarding China’s man-made islands that have been weaponized in the South China Sea. This was not an isolated incident. The radio station is a member of a network of 30 stations in the U.S. as well as in 13 other countries. The man behind the front leasing for Chinese radio broadcasts also runs the Chinese American Film Festival, which builds bridges between the Chinese government and Hollywood. And then there are the 30 million households that can receive English TV news produced by the China Global Television Network. What the Chinese are providing isn’t perspective, it’s propaganda on a global scale. The CCP Belt and Road Initiative is another clear example of the country’s hunger for worldwide influence. The announced intent was to re-establish the ancient Silk Road that had joined land masses for trading in silk. The new plan attempts at creating deeper “ties” in countries with emerging markets by leveraging CCP investments in foreign infrastructure. The 2013 project is seemingly a win-win arrangement, but as the old adage goes, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” China can quash anti-CCP rhetoric or alliances after becoming a landlord over developing countries’ power plants and shipping ports. These projects come at a cost that the host nations can never afford to pay back. This CCP debt-trap-diplomacy results in a network of countries with compromised independence. Voting patterns by Third World countries in international bodies are one of the consequences.

I have no clue what films will win Best Picture in the next few years, but it’s safe to predict they won’t be about China’s repression of democracy. Any movie with scenes referencing the Hong Kong protests or simply showing Chinese people upset with their government may get awards at Sundance, but it won’t become a commercially viable film. China is a box office behemoth. They control more screens worldwide than any other entity. In 2016, they bought the Legendary Entertainment production company for $3.5 billion. As an actor, if you appear in a film with negative Chinese overtones, you’ll have a harder time being cast in a Legendary movie. Chinese interests own or control more than 2,400 American businesses. One of them is AMC, America’s largest theater chain. Theaters make much of their profits off inflated drink and snack prices. Query: Did the CCP invest in AMC to corner the market for buttered popcorn? Or is this another choke point to ensure the “Seven Years in Tibet” sequel isn’t in production? China is taking advantage of America’s lax regulation system to buy up American business and exert soft power in a lopsided cultural exchange. The film industry is only half of it. The Red Dragon has also grabbed broadcast opportunities through the leasing or purchasing of radio stations across the country. In the Washington, D.C., market, China gained broadcast control of WAGE radio in Northern Virginia. WAGE originally provided local news using a 5,000-watt signal AM station - barely strong enough to reach beyond the boundaries of rural Leesburg, Virginia.

According to a new report from PEN America, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been tampering with our great escape: a two-hour movie. Why would a major government care what films hit the silver screen? Their scripts can create strong emotions of joy, sadness and excitement. They can also serve as propaganda. Under the ruling CCP, the Chinese government has been making huge investments in having stories told that will favorably impress their citizens as well as those in other countries. They want to depress negative imagery while supporting positive ones. The manically fussy CCP understands that images create ideas. And ideas have consequences. The China movie market is one of the most exclusive in the world. Only 34 non-Chinese films are allowed in the country each year. The only other way to get a film into China is to partner with a Chinese production company. Alternatively, obtaining one of the 34 slots requires the studio to have a pristine record when it comes to portraying the country on film. In the 2013 blockbuster “Gravity,” heroine Sandra Bullock is dangerously adrift in space. She is rescued and returned to Earth by accessing a Chinese space station. In the 2012 remake of “Red Dawn,” the villain initially was the Chinese People’s Liberation Army - at least it was before Sony Pictures sheepishly swapped out the film’s villain with North Korea. When China’s Central Propaganda Department decides what films make it into the country, it considers the film script, the political stances of the cast and crew, and other content the studio has released. As studios clamor to squeeze every red cent from a film, the process has created a Hollywood culture of self-censoring.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked: “What is Macron’s problem with Islam? Macron needs some sort of mental treatment.” Mr. Erdogan also is furious because Charlie Hebdo ran a cartoon mocking him. Turkish officials have called that “racist,” and vowed diplomatic and legal consequences. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan accused the French president of encouraging “Islamophobia,” adding: “Blasphemy in the garb of freedom of expression is intolerable.” It is often said that France is not doing enough to integrate Muslim immigrants and their children. That may be true, but such criticism is rarely accompanied by concrete proposals for government programs likely to achieve that objective. Complicating the task is the frequently leveled charge that attempts to inculcate traditional French values such as free speech violate multiculturalism, an ideology that has been embraced by Europe’s elites. It’s hard to see how this ends well. Islamism is not going away anytime soon. In one form or another, it will continue to appeal to a small but lethal minority of Muslims in Europe. How consequential will it be if the French acquiesce, agreeing to carve out an exception to free speech in deference to Islamists? Very. It would establish, de facto, the supremacy of Islam over all other religions. Once it becomes apparent that the French government cannot guarantee basic freedoms to its citizens, and that violence commands silence, some on the far left and far right are likely to employ the same tactics. Under such pressures, it’s probable, perhaps inevitable, that freedom of speech, along with other freedoms, will wither and die.

With the attack against Samuel Paty, it was freedom of speech that was targeted,” French Prime Minister Jean Castex said. “With this attack in Nice, it is freedom of religion.” There was another attack in September: Two people were stabbed with a butcher knife, allegedly by Zaher Hassan Mahmood, an immigrant from Pakistan, near the former offices of Charlie Hebdo. French President Emmanuel Macron has taken a tough line in response to this latest outbreak of what he calls “Islamist” terrorism and “Islamist separatism,” the latter a reference to the belief that Muslims in Europe owe primary allegiance to the “ummah,” an imagined pan-Islamic international community. “Islamists will not sleep peacefully in France,” Mr. Macron promised after the beheading of Mr. Paty. “This is our battle and it is existential.” He has shut down a mosque and a non-governmental organization believed to encourage extremism. He supports legislation that would ban foreign funds going to French mosques and religious schools. He’s promised additional measures. French Muslim leaders have responded variously. Some proclaimed: “The duty of fraternity requires everyone to renounce certain rights.” Translation: “Free speech does not apply where Islam is concerned.” Others disagreed. Calling Mr. Paty “a martyr of freedom,” they added: “There is such a thing as Islamism: It is the poison of Islam, the disease of Islam.” Among the countries ruled by Muslims, there have been a range of responses as well. The United Arab Emirates condemned the attacks strongly and unequivocally.

Suppose you’re a teacher, and you’re French, and you want your students to learn about France’s tradition of freedom, the reasons your nation believes it’s good and useful to tolerate a wide range of opinions, beliefs and perspectives, including those some people find offensive. Do you go ahead and teach this lesson? Or do you remain silent because to speak freely about freedom in France today is to risk your life? These are not hypothetical questions. In January 2015, the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sparked the slaughter of 12 people at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. After an obviously long delay, 14 alleged accomplices in that attack have recently gone on trial. To illustrate the issues involved, Samuel Paty, a 47-year-old teacher in a Parisian suburb, on Oct. 5 showed the cartoons to those of his middle-school students who were interested - permitting anyone who preferred not to view them to step out of the classroom for a minute. On Oct. 16, Mr. Paty was attacked and beheaded. Abdullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old Chechen immigrant, was soon shot and killed in a confrontation with the police. French prosecutors have charged six suspects with complicity in the murder of Mr. Paty, who was married and had a 5-year-old son. A few days later, two women and a man were attacked inside the Notre Dame Basilica in the southern French city of Nice. One of the women was “virtually beheaded” - her throat was deeply slashed - according to France’s chief anti-terrorism prosecutor. Witnesses said the killer repeatedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is greatest!”). Brahim al-Aouissaoui, 21, is believed to have recently arrived on a boat carrying immigrants from Tunisia.

America is a deeply divided nation with socialists gaining a strong foothold in the Democratic Party. Its mayors happily tolerate anarchy and rioting in the streets to answer brutality by police already subjected to their progressive reforms. We need to get our domestic house in order to again be a shining example - for this century. Leftists offer few constructive ideas through demands for social justice. The federal government, states and big cities already celebrate civil rights heroes, lavishly prioritize health care, social services, education and affirmative action programs that have failed to move the needle for Black communities over several decades. All acceding to their demands would accomplish is to denigrate our defining national heritage and add more wealth, under the marque of Black Lives Matter, to already privileged professionals within minority groups without lifting conditions generally in America’s barrios. The federal government must spend more on R&D - lest Huawei becomes a habit repeated throughout the technology space - and fund a bigger Navy with a base in the South Pacific to replace Subic Bay. Eleven nuclear carriers are not enough, especially given our commitments elsewhere. Address endemic racism but without kowtowing to Robin DiAngelo’s anti-White racism or extortionists’ demands for a false rewriting of history and cultural genocide, and recognize that stronger growth to pay for it all, no matter who occupies the White House, is essential to prevailing.

President Xi Jinping is out to undermine Western democracies and their economies, and impose the CCP’s values in a China-centric system of refurbished international institutions. China is pushing out in all directions ? building naval power to enforce illegal territorial claims in the South China Sea project into the Indian Ocean and Middle East, imposing tributary relationships on smaller states through aid and trade, and subverting the WTO, WHO and other international institutions. The linchpin of international power is domestic economic strength that reduces to technological prowess. Just as China invests in its Navy and dollar-driven soft power, the Huawei challenge lays bare that America has let important national technological assets decay. U.S. efforts at catchup in 5G may come down to bankrolling an inferior European competitor - Nokia or Ericsson. For decades, federal support for R&D has been declining. Meanwhile, Mr. Xi promises more subsidies for Chinese technology companies. China’s supply chain, state-subsidized exports and large domestic market are woven into the prosperity of the United States and our allies. Europeans clearly see the threats China poses to their sovereignty and core values. But its richest state, Germany, has grown addicted to exports to the Middle Kingdom. The first Cold War was won, most fundamentally, by the American record of superior prosperity and stability, and Western embrace of American exceptionalism as expressed through our performance and values. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is not poor, isolated or backward. It enjoys greater size, stronger economic growth and more domestic stability than the United States.

America is in a Cold War with China and winning will require more from Americans than the contest that forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. Intellectuals complain that Donald Trump will pull us into permanent confrontation with China to express their disdain for his presidency. Henry Kissinger warns “we are in the foothills of a cold war,” and Richard Haass writes that President Trump’s policies will precipitate a conflict that distracts from transnational threats to national security - global pandemics, climate change and the like. Granted, Mr. Trump’s bellicose and impulsive behavior undermine NATO, WTO and WHO and alienate our allies. However, his critics lack the courage to admit that decades of U.S. policy toward China, bearing their fingerprints, failed. In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated American policy was to encourage China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the liberal international system. Successive Chinese leaders have walked through that open door to pursue aggressive mercantilism that has weakened the U.S. and European economies, enabled the rise of President Trump and nationalist political parties in Europe. Since the early 2000s, the Chinese Communist Party has acted on a central premise that the Soviet Communist Party’s embrace of Western liberal values sealed its demise. It has demonstrated through its repression of Muslims, crackdown on Hong Kong, social credit system and string of broken promises on trade that it believes its authoritarian rule and a socialist-market economy are superior and should displace democracy and market capitalism as the prevailing model.