US Sister City Agreements with China Spark Controversy

There’s rising tension surrounding the sister city agreements between the US and China. On one hand, critics are worried about national security issues, while supporters believe these partnerships can foster international relations that may eventually lead to world peace.

As of 2023, there are over 100 sister city partnerships between the US and China, making it a notable arrangement. Only Mexico and Japan boast more sister city contracts with the US.

“This is certainly an emergency as we are overwhelmed by China on our own soil.”

The Sister Cities International organization, established by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, aims to create connections that enhance global harmony. Eisenhower emphasized the significance of fostering a solid foundation for peace among nations.

“If we assume everyone desires peace, the challenge lies in bringing people together and allowing them to sidestep governmental roadblocks—all the while discovering multiple ways to connect over time.”

In a 1961 speech at a World Conference on Local Government, Eisenhower noted that 150 US communities had already set up communication channels with counterparts in more than 40 countries.

The Sister City Program gained traction quickly, yet US-China relations did not commence until 1979. While the program was initially intended to promote global harmony, its growth into communist regions has raised concerns in light of heightened tensions with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Some politicians and experts on China have suggested that these sister city relationships serve as tools for soft power propaganda by the CCP.

Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, voiced hopes that measures would be taken to halt these partnerships, stating, “This is a pressing concern, as we find ourselves increasingly surrounded by China.” He pointed to notable espionage cases linked to the Sister City Program, including that of Christine Fan, who is suspected of having deep connections within US politics while allegedly being a Chinese spy.

State-Level Responses: Arkansas and Texas Take Action

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently signed a law expanding on previous measures to prohibit higher education institutions from maintaining connections with entities like the Confucius Institute. The latest legislation extends this ban to local governments, preventing them from entering into sister city agreements.

This law was intended to pressure Little Rock to sever ties with its Chinese counterpart, Changchun, but city officials are attempting to circumvent compliance by rebranding the partnership as a “friendship city.”

Friendship cities are considered less formal than sister cities, serving often as a precursor to more lasting relationships. Sam Dubke, Governor Sanders’ communications director, stated that Arkansas cities are barred from having sister cities in communist China.

Meanwhile, Texas has also adopted similar restrictions, prohibiting partnerships with countries deemed as “foreign enemies,” including China, Iran, and Russia. This new law, expected to take effect in September, could impact sister city relations in cities like Austin and Fort Worth.

Michael Crane, a Fort Worth city council member who spent years in Beijing, expressed opposition to the ban, arguing these partnerships enhance understanding between cultures. “It’s fundamentally about fostering a global society,” he argued.

While Arkansas and Texas navigate these issues, some cities in Iowa, like Davenport, have opted to renew their partnerships with China despite advisories from the state’s Republican governor, who has voiced concerns over China’s aggressive stance internationally.

“We’re vigilant in looking for opportunities for our country to assert itself,” he noted, reflecting on broader tensions with China.

Federal Efforts to Address the Concerns

At the federal level, lawmakers are moving to tackle these issues nationally. Senators Marsha Blackburn and Thom Tillis introduced the Sister City’s Transparency Act to scrutinize these relationships further. If passed, this legislation would require the Secretary to oversee sister city agreements linked to public sector corruption, particularly in relation to China and Russia.

Additionally, Elise Stefanik and John Moolenaar introduced a measure prohibiting the Capitol from having partnerships with what they term “foreign hostile administrations,” explicitly mentioning the CCP. Their focus is on ending Washington’s long-standing partnership with Beijing.

China’s Strategic Approach

Management of sister city partnerships often falls under the purview of the CCP’s United Front Work Division, which aims to neutralize potential opposition to its policies and authority. According to a report by the US-China Economic and Security Review Board, this division has significant influence on operations targeting foreign stakeholders and states.

Nathan Pikars, a fellow focused on China, elaborated on how the CCP utilizes these relationships to further its agenda, noting that sister city partnerships are cloaked in mutually beneficial rhetoric but ultimately serve centralized goals of expanding China’s influence. “The history of the program suggests that all partnerships are designed to yield benefits for China,” he concluded.

Sister Cities International did not provide a comment when approached for insights.