What is America’s China Strategy?
How does the US plan to counter its greatest rival?
In our Second Cold War series, DS has sought to better understand and define the rapidly developing conflict between China and the United States. It has become increasingly apparent that the two sides are locked in a struggle to define the very way the world works. Given the high stakes and high price of failure, one would expect the United States to have a comprehensive strategy for how it intends to compete with its new global rival. However, critics have recently suggested that the United States lags behind in this respect. So let us take a look at just what America’s China strategy is and the results that has produced.
For the primary article in this series see:
Democracy’s Cold War
“In summary, we have here [in the Soviet Union] a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi, that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state b…
Everybody Wants to Rule the World
Since the end of World War II, the United States has sought to advance what political analysts refer to as the Liberal World Order (LWO). The LWO is best defined as an international system of rules and institutions that emphasize democracy, global economic liberalism (free trade), and multilateralism (international cooperation) constructed by the United States. American policymakers have long held that the spread of these values makes the world a better place. Nevertheless, the LWO is not an altruistic construct that the United States set up for the good of the world at the expense of itself as former President Donald Trump and his acolytes frequently claim. The US created a global set of institutions and rules that put itself at the forefront just as Europeans had done with imperialism. The primary institutions of the LWO are the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and more recently the World Trade Organization (WTO). Multilateral institutions whose core purposes are to defend the rules-based system the US created and foster global economic liberalism.
Rivals to the US have long sought to upset this American dominance. The first challenge came from the Soviet Union during the First Cold War when it tried to advance its form of communism around the world. Now Authoritarian Bloc leaders, China and Russia have committed themselves to overthrowing the LWO and creating a new system with themselves at the top. After Xi Jinping and Putin met in March to reaffirm their solidarity, the latter issued the following statement, “We are working in solidarity on the formation of a more just and democratic multipolar world order, which should be based on the central role of the U.N., its Security Council, international law, the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter.” The world order they seek is one free from US dominance where China and Russia can violate international norms whenever it benefits them without harsh consequences. More substantially, China has created the Belt and Road Initiative as well as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to provide sources of funding to rival the World Bank and IMF and help link the developing world to China instead of the US and the LWO.
How to Fight Back
For decades, China has developed its foreign policy and economic strategy around outcompeting the US. But what is the US strategy to counter Chinese efforts and win this global competition? Since China began its rise to global prominence in the 1990s, foreign policy efforts in the US have turned their focus towards China to an ever greater degree. Under President Bill Clinton, the US supported the admission of China to the WTO. President Clinton maintained that greater access to the global economy and economic development would serve to destabilize the Chinese authoritarian regime and bring about democratization. Clinton argued, “China is a one-party state that does not tolerate opposition. It does deny citizens fundamental rights of free speech and religious expression. . . The question is, what's the smartest thing to do to improve these practices? . . . Membership in the W.T.O., of course, will not create a free society in China overnight or guarantee that China will play by global rules. But over time, I believe it will move China faster and further in the right direction, and certainly will do that more than rejection would.” This position was in keeping with a field of economics that argues that democratization is facilitated, and democracy becomes stronger as a country’s GDP grows. Nevertheless, economic growth has not as of yet proven itself to be a threat to the Chinese communist dictatorship. President Barack Obama pursued what was essentially a policy of détente and that too failed to produce meaningful results. Starting in 2018, then President Trump began his trade war with China as the administration sought to punish China for the theft of intellectual property and currency manipulation, tactics the country had long employed. The US steadily increased tariffs on China and the Chinese responded in kind. The trade war did hurt the Chinese economy but it hurt the American one as well and also resulted in little real change.
In 2022, Senators Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) passed legislation that required the Biden administration to create a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the Chinese threat. In February of this year, Senator Romney complained that the administration’s plan remains too vague. Let’s take a closer look.
The US’s Integrated Country Strategy for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was created in 2022 and updated this year. As discussed here, the strategy is predicated on the competition of global orders. The text identifies China as “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress over the past 75 years.” The strategy bases itself on three “aims”: invest, align, and compete. Investing in internal development and the strengthening of democracy, aligning and coordinating more closely with allies, and competing “responsibly” with China to defend US interests.
To accomplish its aims the strategy outlines five goals:
1. Protect the security of U.S. citizens in the PRC as well as in the United States.
2. Together with partners and allies, leverage American strength, leadership, and strategic advantages to advance peace, security, and regional stability, with a particular focus on the Taiwan Strait and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)
3. Promote an economic and trade relationship that defends U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses; counters the PRC’s abusive economic practices; promotes U.S. goods and services; and advances U.S. technological competitiveness.
4. Challenge the PRC to work with us in confronting climate change, epidemics, food insecurity, unregulated chemicals and narcotics – including the global opioid crisis – and other emerging threats to health.
5. Champion American values to promote freedom and equality for all, including by promoting: the rule of law; freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press; combating censorship; promoting the principles of diversity and inclusion; and by advancing human rights and fundamental freedoms in the PRC, including but not limited to Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.
Next, let’s review how the strategy addresses each goal. For the first goal, the government commits to increasing its efforts to secure the release of US citizens being legally targeted or detained by the PRC. The government also highlights the importance of protecting US citizens and entities from PRC nationals’ attempts to steal their intellectual property in a continuation of the Trump administration’s efforts.
To achieve the second goal, the strategy plans to work with allies to protect Taiwan and South Korea, and police the South China Sea but doing so with “guardrails” to prevent competition from turning into conflict.
Goal three objectives include enforcing a level playing field while again preventing the PRC from acquiring or manipulating US technology.
Goal four is to be accomplished by “eliciting” and “engaging” the PRC to combat climate change, transition to clean energy, and help defend against threats to global public health.
Finally, goal five includes promoting and defending the civil rights of marginalized groups in China while engaging with “key local audiences” to promote the development of civil society.
At just 31 pages long, Senator Romney is correct that the US overall strategy is vague. Furthermore, it at times feels delusional or contradictory. Challenge China aggressively with a large network of allies but not in a way that might lead to conflict. Punish China for its violations of human rights while promoting democratization but also work with them in a productive fashion to solve the world’s greatest problems. While certainly ideal, it is unclear what striking such balances would look like or if it is even possible to do so.
Nevertheless, there are some salient examples of how this strategy has been put into practice. Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the United States has significantly stepped up cooperation with its allies especially as it relates to China. Since 2021, multiple NATO countries have sent warships through the South China Sea to challenge illegitimate Chinese claims. This included a carrier group led by the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the flagship of the British Royal Navy.
In September of 2021, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced the AUKUS Treaty whereby the UK and US would help Australia develop a nuclear submarine fleet. This dramatically increases the naval capabilities of a key Democracy Bloc power in China’s own backyard. The Chinese government denounced the treaty.
_pulls_into_the_Port_of_Los_Angeles_for_a_namesake_city_visit.jpg){kind=link}
In August 2022, President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law that provided billions of dollars of funding to stimulate the domestic production of microchips to alleviate US dependence on global supply chains that run through Taiwan and other countries within China’s grasp. The national security aspect of the legislation allowed it to attract rare bipartisan support. The US has also worked to shift its current supply chains for microchips to allied countries. Nevertheless, implementation of the legislation and shifting away from China is proving more difficult than policymakers hoped.
Just last week at the G7 Summit hosted in Japan, the heads of these powerful countries issued a joint statement condemning China for “economic coercion” and for growing “increasingly authoritarian at home and abroad.” G7 leadership is concerned with China’s tendency to use its economic importance and strength to bully countries and companies that take issue with its dictatorial practices and or human rights abuses. The statement is unlikely to amount to much, however, as the strategy has proven particularly effective for the Chinese. Just ask Lebron James.
Finally, the US Senate is currently considering legislation posed by Senator Menendez, the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022. If passed, this bill which has again garnered bipartisan support would see the US dramatically increase military financial assistance to the island while stepping up cooperation and training between the two militaries.
As the Second Cold War begins in earnest the United States is searching for the best strategy to counter and outcompete its new rival. Under the previous and current administrations, the US has taken concrete steps toward countering China, but it still lacks an overarching vision. One notable achievement of the First Cold War was that the US managed to achieve broad bipartisan consensus in its approach towards the Soviet Union. While American Cold War policy was not perfect it was ultimately successful. Given the extremely high levels of political polarization and growing authoritarianism in the United States, it is unclear if the country will manage to repeat the past.
See the previous articles in this series:
So good. Agree