Common Conviction

President Biden, in one of his last official acts, barred the acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel, on grounds of national security.  It seems that control of US Steel by a Japanese company poses a national security hazard, in Biden’s judgement.

What, then, is national security?  Japan is a formal military ally, to which we sell advanced military hardware, licensing their manufacture of some.  The nation is well established in its democracy, and Japanese companies have long operated in the US, including in steel, with no security concerns raised.  Nippon Steel’s investments will be coming here, and no newly vulnerable supply lines will be imposed on domestically based steel plants. 

The formal process for judging national security implications of the transaction rests with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a body comprising heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the US Trade Representative and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Reportedly the major opposition on CFIUS came from the USTR, rationalizing that decisions to produce in the US could now be reversed at the discretion of a foreign firm.  As to more conventional ideas of Security, State and Defense saw no issues.  The split left CFIUS to defer to Biden.

Political rhetoric will attribute Biden’s ruling to his affinity with union leadership.  But the larger question, the definition of national security, transcends any outcome of this deal.  And the problem is that, in our politicized rationalizing of every policy action, “national security” is one more term that gets bent to serve whatever the party invoking it wants politically. 

Furthermore, security itself becomes ever more nebulous.  When is cyber-hacking a criminal act endangering citizens’ property and when does it threaten the workings of vital civic functions?  When do artificially cheap imports cut into domestic firms’ profits, when do they threaten peoples’ livings and communities, and when does that threaten the nation?   When does propaganda posing as news count as nuisance fraud, and when does its influence impede Americans’ awareness of facts, sometimes on matters of war and peace?  Are narcotics dangerous products, easily abused by us as consumers, or are they foreign instruments deployed to harm our country? 

Clarity is important.  As a practical consideration, barring a merger with an allied nation’s firm on national security grounds could weaken our alliance with that nation.  Conversely, an internet platform, however popular with posters and viewers, could house true security threats – couldn’t citizens forego the convenience of using it, whatever the government decides?  In another vein, reaching into other nations’ jurisdictions to disrupt a terrorist attack is one thing; doing so to interdict drugs that we voluntarily consume is another.

Obviously, armed force applied against our sovereignty or our civic life is a matter of national security.  Also reasonably, we need to protect ourselves against external actions to disrupt vital functions such as electric grids, financial transactions, air traffic control, and the like.  We need to be clear that these are the grounds for national security. 

As grey area topics arise we need to deliberate on them in good faith, and guard not only against damage inflicted by enemies – but also against misuse of the expression “national security.”  Is it a national matter to protect against our own actions, or nature’s, that disrupt infrastructure, lives, and property?  Perhaps, but does that imply that military and foreign relations efforts should be diverted to our domestic challenges?  Can we use the Army to fix transmission lines without disrupting its capacity to fight off a military attack?  Should we loosen sanctions against Russia if their firms invest in manufacturing capacity in the US? 

Ultimately, this nation’s security equates to our ability to live as the free persons we have committed our nation to serve and protect.  We take this as a national purpose, and we are pragmatic about how to nurture our capacity.  Part of that capacity for our society rests on our ability to preclude foreign interference in our society.  Part of it also rests on our own integrity as a self governing society – does our conduct validate the premise that people will use freedom sustainably and justly?  Proper use of terms like “national security” will support our case.