Delusions of strong-arming China into compliance are dangerous

What is the ultimate goal of the United States’ China policy? Can the United States avoid war with China? Much of the debate about how U.S. policy should deal with an ambitious and re-emerging China focuses on these issues.

In what appears to be both a job search and a declaration of war, two prominent China commentators, former Trump national security adviser Matt Pottinger and member of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) House Select Committee Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), who just stepped down as head of state, provides the answer in a new essay. foreign affairs:If the US is strong enough, it can eliminate China through regime change.

Their approach to victory is zero-sum, take-no-prisoners confrontation. The United States must end its normal trade and break up. Spend up to 6 percent of GDP on national defense. $34 trillion in debt. There will be an unrestricted conventional arms and nuclear arms race.

As if the current US-China instability were not enough, “more friction” is needed and “rhetoric and policies” that are “uncomfortably confrontational” need to be adopted.

You get the picture.

With a bit of nostalgia disguised as strategy, the author attempts to recreate the Cold War against a one-dimensional Soviet Union. They deride the US-Soviet détente as a failure and propose a policy of maximum economic and military pressure on China. The problem with this lack of imagination is that the problem with China is a qualitatively different predicament.

China is $18 trillion economy The United States is one of the world’s nations, deeply interdependent. greatest trading power, its largest creditor,Major Technical capabilities and mature nuclear weapons state.

As we have seen in the current trade and technology wars, Beijing is ready and able to retaliate in retaliation. The trajectory of such an approach would be an economically destabilizing race to the bottom and a military conflict with a significant possibility of nuclear escalation.

at Pottinger Gallagher visionforcing the Chinese government into acquiescence would give “the Chinese people, from ruling elites to ordinary citizens,” “the inspiration to explore new models of development and governance.”

Of course, you can always get lucky. Even if China were to eliminate the CCP, few would shed any tears.However, there is little evidence that Political party with 98 million members Either that will go away soon, or that the United States has the institutions to make it happen. Magical thinking is not a sound basis for policy.US efforts At the time of change of government It rarely ends well.

Foreign policy often involves choosing between bad and bad options.

in 2019 diplomatic essay The architects of the administration’s China policy, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, both previewed the current policy. They argued that the mistake of previous engagement policies was to assume that the United States could bring about “changes in China’s economic and political system.”

“Washington is in danger of making a similar mistake today by assuming that competition will succeed in transforming China where engagement has failed. This time it will be forced to capitulate or collapse.” they wrote.

Instead, Sullivan and Campbell proposed that the United States avoid a zero-sum end state and pursue “a stable state of well-defined coexistence on terms favorable to American interests and values.”

Reality check — that’s pretty much what Biden’s China policy is trying to do.

pottinger and gallagher make concessions By maintaining Trump tariffs, cutting off access to high-end technology, qualitatively strengthening US alliances, and expanding the network of regional security agreements, China has become a “bright spot” in Biden’s beleaguered foreign policy.

In fact, the administration is already doing much of what they claim. But in their view, Biden is too soft. He simply wants to manage competitive coexistence with China and find a stable balance of power.

The authors’ criticism of Biden is accurate. The question is, does anyone have a better idea? Team Biden will disagree with Pottinger and Gallagher’s depiction of China’s relentless ambition to upend the United States and create a China-centric world order.

in major policy speechesSecretary of State Antony Blinken did not say a single word about China’s intentions and capabilities. It is the only country that is increasingly equipped with

But Blinken injected An element of realism that reflects the administration’s approach: “China is also essential to the global economy and our ability to solve challenges from the climate to the coronavirus. Simply put, the United States and China must deal with each other for the foreseeable future.”

Therefore, President Biden frequentlyguardrail” This is to prevent tensions from escalating into conflict and the current diplomacy aimed at stabilizing US-China relations.

There may be no satisfactory answer to China’s problem, the historical dilemma of how a dominant power should deal with a rising power. They often end in conflict. For the United States, the shift of wealth and power from the West to the East is central to the larger question of how to adapt to an increasingly multipolar world and the rise of other countries.

The current predicament between the United States and China is the result of a complex accumulation of 50 years of exchanges and interdependence. One result is that $575 billion in trade The relationship continues even after both parties have averted the risk. China is the largest trading partner for most of the United States’ allies and partners and a major driver of global growth.

A trend toward mutual demonization and mistrust is hampering efforts to stabilize relations, largely due to Beijing’s overreach and Washington’s overreaction.

Despite US concerns, there is a wide gap between China’s ambitions and reality. Similarly, understanding the limits of U.S. power will be of great help in getting China policy right.

Robert A. Manning is a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and its Global Foresight and China Programs. He previously served as Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for World Affairs, on the policy planning staff of the U.S. Secretary of State, and as a member of the Strategic Futures Group of the National Intelligence Council. Follow him on X/Twitter @Rmanning4.