As the U.S.-China relationship grows more contentious, American policymakers are increasingly divided on the endgame for this competition. Should the U.S. aim to manage its rivalry with China or embrace a confrontational strategy to assert dominance? Analysts, policymakers, and scholars are split over these questions. In a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, experts debated how the U.S. should handle competition with China, discussing containment, the role of alliances, economic policies, and potential diplomatic channels. This article breaks down the key arguments from these debates, exploring different visions for U.S.-China relations and potential paths forward.
The stakes of U.S.-China competition
In an assertive opening to the debate, former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger and Representative Mike Gallagher propose a hardline strategy against China, suggesting that the U.S. aim for nothing short of dominance. Pottinger and Gallagher view China as an existential threat and argue that American policy should prioritize containment to prevent China from gaining significant influence in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. They contend that achieving “victory without war” requires a significant, multi-pronged approach that combines economic restrictions, military investments, and the formation of a robust international coalition to challenge China’s power. While they stop short of calling for regime change, Pottinger and Gallagher see the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a desirable end, envisioning a post-CCP China more compatible with U.S. and democratic interests.
In contrast, Rush Doshi, a former Biden administration official and expert on China, warns against turning the U.S.-China relationship into a zero-sum game. He argues that escalating tensions without establishing boundaries for competition risks a catastrophic outcome. Instead, Doshi advocates for a more measured approach that blends intense competition with cautious communication. This approach is part of the Biden administration’s strategy, which emphasizes avoiding direct conflict by building alliances and domestic resilience while maintaining a clear focus on specific goals: ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, protecting U.S. technological leadership, and supporting regional democracies. Doshi’s approach reflects the administration’s view that the U.S. can counter China’s influence without pushing for drastic internal change within China, a policy that he believes will prevent unnecessary escalation and sustain long-term stability.
Learning from the Cold War
Pottinger and Gallagher, staunch advocates of a containment policy, draw parallels between the current U.S.-China rivalry and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. They argue that just as the U.S. contained Soviet influence during the Cold War, it should take similarly bold steps against China. This includes increasing defense spending, rearming allies in Asia, and creating a $20 billion annual deterrence fund to bolster U.S. and allied forces in the Indo-Pacific. Pottinger and Gallagher believe that the CCP’s global ambitions—evident in its support for Russia, Iran, and North Korea, which they dub the “axis of chaos”—demand a unified, hardline stance to prevent the spread of authoritarianism. They view any engagement with China as a potential vulnerability that Beijing could exploit, believing instead that Washington must assert unyielding strength to counter China’s influence.
However, Jessica Chen Weiss and James B. Steinberg offer a stark critique of this approach. They caution that framing U.S.-China relations as a binary Cold War rivalry is risky, arguing that such an approach could alienate allies, damage trade, and escalate tensions. Weiss and Steinberg assert that a confrontational Cold War mentality could reinforce China’s authoritarian trajectory by pushing Beijing to double down on repressive policies, especially if it feels threatened by a U.S. policy explicitly targeting regime change. Instead, they argue that U.S. strategy should allow room for both competition and cooperation, especially in areas where both countries have mutual interests, like climate change, health security, and economic stability. Weiss and Steinberg advocate a strategy that avoids framing China as an irredeemable adversary, warning that doing so could deepen hostilities and diminish U.S. influence among allies wary of a rigid “us-versus-them” approach.
The role of alliances
All parties agree on the importance of alliances, but they diverge on how to leverage these partnerships. Pottinger and Gallagher advocate for a coalition of nations united in opposing the CCP’s influence. This coalition, they argue, should extend beyond traditional U.S. allies to include partnerships with smaller states in the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. By rallying a broader coalition, they believe the U.S. can isolate China and limit its global reach. Pottinger and Gallagher call for strengthening alliances such as AUKUS (a defense pact between the U.S., the U.K., and Australia) and the Quad (comprising the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan), arguing that these alliances form a bulwark against Chinese expansion.
In contrast, Doshi believes that American credibility and influence rely on maintaining responsible, clear communication with allies. He warns that an overly aggressive U.S. stance could alienate partners, particularly those in Southeast Asia who prefer to avoid open confrontation with China. His approach emphasizes “tactical reassurance” to allies, ensuring they feel secure under U.S. protection without being pressured into taking sides in a potentially risky confrontation with Beijing. Doshi’s strategy emphasizes coalition-building through reassurance rather than confrontation, advocating for a balanced, stable presence in Asia that allows regional partners to cooperate with the U.S. while managing their own relationships with China.
Economic competition
Pottinger and Gallagher argue that to neutralize China’s economic leverage, the U.S. should prioritize decoupling from Chinese supply chains and strengthening domestic industries. They believe that economic dependence on China represents a critical vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies, allowing China to exert undue influence on global markets and essential supply chains. Their proposals include placing stricter export controls on technology, increasing tariffs, and incentivizing American and allied companies to reduce reliance on Chinese manufacturing. For Pottinger and Gallagher, economic decoupling is necessary to ensure that the U.S. can compete effectively without exposing its economy to Chinese retaliation in a future conflict.
Doshi, however, suggests a more cautious approach, advocating for “de-risking” rather than a full decoupling. The Biden administration has pursued selective disengagement in critical areas, like advanced semiconductors, where reliance on Chinese technology could pose security risks. Doshi warns that fully severing economic ties would be both costly and destabilizing, potentially triggering a global economic downturn. Instead, he recommends a balanced approach that protects critical industries while preserving economic interdependence in non-sensitive sectors. This strategy, Doshi argues, would allow the U.S. to compete in strategic areas without disrupting global markets or provoking unnecessary economic retaliation from China.
Diplomatic engagement amid strategic competition
Another area of disagreement is the role of diplomacy in managing U.S.-China competition. Pottinger and Gallagher are skeptical of engagement, arguing that diplomatic overtures only provide China with opportunities to delay and divide U.S. efforts. They see diplomacy as a potential weakness that China could exploit to gain advantages, whether through prolonged negotiations that weaken U.S. resolve or by using engagement to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. For Pottinger and Gallagher, a clear stance of strength and minimal diplomatic engagement would signal to Beijing that the U.S. is committed to defending its interests without compromise.
In contrast, Doshi and other proponents of Biden’s policy stress the importance of maintaining open channels of communication to manage risks. They believe that ongoing dialogue helps to prevent misinterpretation, particularly on sensitive issues like Taiwan, where a lack of communication could lead to conflict. The Biden administration has sought to create “guardrails” around the competition with China, aiming to set clear boundaries for acceptable behavior. Doshi argues that even if China’s long-term ambitions remain opposed to U.S. interests, engagement is essential to avoid escalating tensions over misunderstandings or miscalculations. Doshi’s approach treats diplomatic channels as tools for managing the relationship’s inherent risks rather than as indicators of weakness.
More Affairs
Confrontation or calibrated competition?
Pottinger and Gallagher ultimately argue for a strategy of confrontation aimed at constraining China’s rise, urging the U.S. to prepare for a long-term competition that could reshape global power dynamics. They emphasize the importance of ideological clarity, military readiness, and economic decoupling as tools to check China’s influence. This stance seeks not merely to contain China’s ambitions but to actively roll back its influence through a cohesive network of alliances, economic restrictions, and military posturing. They argue that failing to confront China decisively now will only embolden Beijing to challenge the U.S. more openly in the future.
Meanwhile, Doshi and others advocating for the Biden administration’s approach argue that competition with China can be intense but should remain carefully managed. Doshi’s vision emphasizes investing in American strengths at home, rallying allies without coercing them, and selectively limiting China’s technological and economic reach. He believes this strategy will sustain U.S. influence over the long term, allowing Washington to confront China effectively without undermining global stability. Doshi stresses that “victory” need not entail dismantling the CCP but rather preventing it from achieving regional hegemony in the Indo-Pacific.
Conclusion
As the U.S. considers its path forward with China, the debate reveals a deep divide between those who favor outright containment and those advocating for calibrated competition. Pottinger and Gallagher’s approach, rooted in Cold War analogies, calls for a firm stand against China, with the U.S. aiming for dominance to prevent China from achieving influence globally and regionally. In contrast, Doshi and other analysts supporting Biden’s strategy argue for a more cautious and adaptable approach that balances competition with strategic communication.
Both perspectives underscore that the stakes are high, and the consequences of missteps could be profound. Whether the U.S. ultimately leans toward a confrontational strategy or manages rivalry through cooperation and competition, the future of U.S.-China relations will shape global dynamics for decades. By balancing strategic clarity with careful engagement, Washington can navigate one of the most complex and critical international relationships of the 21st century.
