In recent years, there has been increasing pressure to isolate the US from any sort of contact with the Chinese economy. The latest sector to be affected is healthcare, where there is a proposal to ban US drugmakers from contracting out various tasks to Chinese firms. Here’s The Economist:

The knock-on effects for the Chinese firms’ American customers are also likely to be profound. Start with the contract manufacturer-researchers. WuXi is to big pharma what Foxconn, the Taiwanese assembler of iPhones, is to Apple—a high-quality supplier entrusted with sensitive ip. It says its clients include the world’s 20 biggest drugmakers. Dozens of American pharma firms have notified investors that, should the BIOSECURE bill pass, they may be unable to meet demand for their products or to complete clinical trials on schedule. . . . 

Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that replacing Chinese capacity would take big Western drug firms at least five years and almost certainly end up costing more. For biotech startups, which tend to rely on Chinese partners with proven records to save time and money on research and manufacturing, the BIOSECURE bill could be an existential threat. According to a survey conducted in March by BioCentury, a consultancy, biotech bosses and their investors expect a slowdown in drug development in the event of its passage.

It is difficult to evaluate “national security” arguments because almost anything might conceivably have some sort of indirect link to that amorphous concept.  Thus does weakening China make war less likely, because our adversary is less powerful?  Or does it make war more likely because rich countries have more to lose from fighting?  

One thing seems clear.  The track record of nationalism is much less promising than the track record of internationalism.