The large and growing challenges that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) presents to the United States are by now widely known and documented (see earlier PB Insights and On Pointes, for example, as well as reporting and discussion in other media). The goal of this article is not to rehash that, but to highlight the fact that the grammatically and linguistically correct—as well as self-chosen—name of the ruling party of the PRC is the Communist Party of China [中国共产党], and to spotlight the critical importance of referring to it by that and/or by its corresponding proper acronym CPC.

U.S. corporations and government (USG) agencies should immediately implement measures to transition away from the USG’s legacy naming convention referring to the ruling party of the PRC with the erroneous euphemism “Chinese Communist Party” and the corresponding acronym “CCP.”

In order to have any chance to effectively meet the challenges posed by the PRC, the U.S. private and public sectors must transition towards referring to the party by its own chosen English language name CPC, particularly in all of our official language, communications, and documents of record. Three facts—any one of which constitute sufficient reason—compel U.S. corporations and USG agencies to make this correction:

1. Overwhelming official PRC firsthand sources demonstrate that CPC is the entity’s self-designated name in the English language. Sampling the English language versions of official PRC media and CPC-controlled English language sites in U.S. major social media reveals that the language and URLs of the vast majority refer exclusively to the CPC. Rare exceptions exist, such as CPC’s Twitter feed @CPofCN making a concession to ignorance where the CPC introduction describes itself once as “Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or Communist Party of China (CPofCN).” In other cases, the occasional occurrence of “CCP” is found in a graphic or article, but—as in the Twitter example—the party is referred to as CPC (or CPofCN) everywhere else in the article.
2. CPC is grammatically and linguistically correct, while “CCP” is grammatically erroneous English and an unfortunate mistranslation from the Chinese language. On the one hand, the misnomer “CCP”—particularly its full form ”Chinese Communist Party” modifies the subject “Communist Party” with the adjective “Chinese,” which is an ethnic rather than political adjective—may be interpreted to suggest the presence of racial or ethnic prejudice in the term, in turn weakening the legal standing and efficacy of U.S. corporate or USG agencies’ regulations, positions and actions based on use of the erroneous term. On the other hand, by use of the preposition and noun “of China,” CPC modifies the subject “Communist Party” by a geopolitical descriptor, which cannot be grammatically construed as a racial or ethnic characterization. The unfortunate legacy misnomer “CCP” has its roots at least as early as the beginning of the post-WWII Cold War era, and probably earlier, and obtained widespread currency within USG agencies including but not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency. This lent the misnomer great momentum, which persists to this day within USG agencies, its peripheral consultants, and the corporate sector, hence the need for a conscious and concerted effort to correct. To reiterate, we must learn the key semantic distinction between on one hand the proper official PRC name CPC and on the other hand the improper legacy USG name “CCP,” namely, that the party is a Communist Party distinguished by its domination of the vast majority of the geography of the nation China—implied by CPC—not a Communist Party distinguished by Chinese ethnicity as mis-implied by “CCP.”
3. Going forward, as U.S. corporations and USG agencies work to further codify and implement legal and regulatory precautions regarding supply chain security, economic espionage, IP theft, cyber-intrusion, and illicit foreign influence, they are likely to find that precise and accurate terminology will be essential to mount effective follow up legal action and enforcement, and avoid self-inflicted legal vulnerability, including vis-à-vis enforcement of third party due diligence. U.S. entities may weaken their positions and telegraph ignorance, inattention, or disrespect, or some combination thereof—none of which are strategically or tactically advisable behavior—by failing, wittingly or unwittingly, to refer to important actors by their proper names, in particular the CPC, which is the main and arguably sole entity with free agency in the PRC. To understand the legal vulnerability that U.S. corporations and USG agencies may self-inflict by unfortunate choice of inaccurate terminology, one need look no further than the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) program entitled the “China Initiative.”[1] As pointed out by at least one legal scholar, the DoJ’s grouping of PRC or CPC actors in the party-state’s “Talents” programs under the overly broad adjective “China”—as done in the title “China Initiative” and elsewhere in documents about the initiative—may undermine the legal success of otherwise sound cases for prosecution of real crimes brought to U.S. courts by the DoJ, because the title’s use of “China” as an adjective may be interpreted to suggest that the target is unconstitutionally defined by ethnic or racial identity.[2] The DoJ could easily avoid this legal vulnerability by naming the initiative with a term more precisely identifying the core PRC actor or program incentivizing the targeted actions. Similarly, accurate terminology is necessary to the enforcement of regulations requiring suppliers to U.S. corporations and USG agencies to ensure that supply chains exclude participation by—or vulnerability to—CPC-controlled or influenced entities.

What Can You Do?

Existing dated documents may not need to be corrected over this distinction, but it is in the best interest of each U.S. corporation, USG agency, and individual author to understand and reflect the change going forward in all communications and documents, as well as in undated “about” and FAQ pages, where relevant. All U.S. entities—and particularly those with reach, influence, and other forms of leverage—should understand that embracing this shift in terminology is an important opportunity to close ranks and hone a key tool in the “virtual defense” of supply chain and other elements of industrial and national security, and in so doing take the lead.

[1] United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs: “The China Initiative: Year-in-Review (2019-20)” posted 16 November 2020 on the webpage of the Office of Public Affairs of the United States Department of Justice, observed 22 November 2020 at root URL: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-initiative-year-review-2019-20

[2] Margaret K. Lewis: “Criminalizing China” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 111, No. 1, 2020 Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming, 79 Pages, Posted: 9 Jun 2020 Last revised: 25 Aug 2020, observed 19 November 2020 at root URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3600580