By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new U.S. government policy prohibits American personnel in China, their families, and contractors with security clearances from romantic or sexual relationships with Chinese citizens. Implemented in January 2017 by then-Ambassador Nicholas Burns, this blanket “non-fraternization” policy expands upon a prior, more limited restriction. The policy, though not publicly announced, stems from concerns about Chinese intelligence gathering and coercion, and allows for exemptions for pre-existing relationships. Violation results in immediate removal from China.
Read the original article here
The recent ban on romantic or sexual relationships between US government personnel in China and Chinese citizens is generating considerable buzz. It’s an expansion of existing fraternization policies, implemented under the Biden administration by the outgoing ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns. This raises questions about its legality and effectiveness, but the core concern appears to be national security.
The ban’s intent is clearly to mitigate the risk of espionage, specifically the classic “honey trap” scenario. The fear is that romantic entanglements could leave US personnel vulnerable to blackmail or coercion, potentially compromising sensitive information. This isn’t entirely unfounded; numerous historical instances show how personal relationships have been exploited for intelligence gathering.
It’s understandable why this policy has sparked debate. Many argue that it’s an overreach, infringing on the personal lives of government employees. It might also inadvertently create a climate of secrecy, making personnel more susceptible to manipulation. The fear is that forcing secrecy could backfire, and those in relationships will hide them, making them more vulnerable to blackmail. The possibility of a “brain drain,” with talented experts seeking employment elsewhere, is also a significant concern. The idea that capable people could be driven away from government service simply due to their personal lives is unsettling.
Conversely, others argue that this is a common-sense measure in a high-stakes geopolitical environment. Background checks and scrutiny of close relationships are already standard practice for many government positions, making this policy an extension of existing protocols. The comparison to similar fraternization policies within the US military in foreign deployments also adds weight to this argument. The argument is that China poses a unique threat, necessitating this stringent approach.
The ban’s impact is likely to be multifaceted. While it may reduce some vulnerabilities, it could also create new ones. The concern about individuals hiding relationships to avoid punishment is very real, making them more easily exploited. The perception of this ban being only applied to China also hints at possible double standards and hypocrisy, given the marital and relationship histories of some prominent figures in US politics. However, this also speaks to broader biases in the system.
The legality of the ban itself is also questionable. While employers, including government agencies, have the right to set workplace policies that affect employment, the extent to which they can dictate personal relationships is a grey area. While it’s unlikely this ban will lead to legal prosecutions for dating a Chinese citizen, the threat of job loss and clearance revocation is a significant deterrent. This could be interpreted as an infringement of personal liberties, potentially leading to legal challenges in the future.
Ultimately, this ban highlights the complex interplay between national security concerns, personal freedoms, and the inherent difficulties of managing human relationships in high-pressure geopolitical contexts. It’s a policy ripe with unintended consequences, prompting a necessary conversation about the balance between protecting national interests and respecting the privacy and personal lives of government employees. The effectiveness and long-term implications of this ban will undoubtedly be a subject of continued debate and scrutiny.