From Engagement to Competition? The Logic of the US China Policy Debate
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
| Author | Nien‐chung Chang‐Liao |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12667 |
From Engagement to Competition? The Logic
of the US China Policy Debate
Nien-chung Chang-Liao
Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica, Taipei
Abstract
This article explores the logic of the ongoing debate in the United States over its China policy. Scholarly assessments of Chi-
na’s power and intentions are more diverse than ever before, so it is no wonder that the United States is faced with an array
of policy options, including continuing engagement, accommodation, competition and containment. This makes it more diffi-
cult for US policy makers to forge a consensus regarding the course of engagement with China. This paper provides an ana-
lytic framework for explaining the logic of US policy choices within the debate and examines the implications for the Trump
administration. It is hoped that it can help US policy makers interpret China’s rise, and act as a baseline from which they can
formulate an optimal approach towards dealing with the PRC.
Introduction
Engagement, the predominant US policy approach towards
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since the time of the
Nixon administration, is vigorously contested. By seeking
broad engagement with China, Washington hoped to
encourage Beijing to become a benign actor and to build a
mutually beneficial partnership of peace and prosperity. But
according to President Donald Trump’s National Security
Strategy (NSS), ‘the premise turned out to be false’, because
China ‘challenge[s] American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity’(The
White House, 2017). In particular, China’s more assertive
behaviour in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008,
including Beijing’s harsh suppression of domestic dissent, its
policy of economic discrimination against foreign companies
and its aggressive posture towards other parties involved in
maritime disputes, has led many American academics to
reconsider the current approach and propose alternatives
(Friedberg, 2015; Garver, 2016; Harding, 2015; Wang et al.,
2018). This is not the first debate in the United States over
China, and it certainly will not be the last. Yet this time,
scholarly assessments of China’s power and intentions are
more diverse than before. The result is several more distinct
policy options ranging from continuing engagement and
accommodation to competition and containment. Indeed,
American scholars are now divided over what their country’s
most desirable policy towards China should look like.
This cacophonous debate has produced some useful,
albeit competing, interpretations of China’s rise and its
implications for US policy. Given that a departure from the
current course of US China policy will have a significant
impact not only on US–China relations but also on global
stability and peace, it is imperative to devise an analytic
framework for explaining the logic of US policy choices
within the debate. This article identifies two factors that
determine US policy options: China’s intentions (mainte-
nance or revision of the status quo) and the power gap
between the United States and China (huge or narrow). This
framework provides not only a more comprehensive and
coherent understanding of each policy alternative within the
current debate, but also a baseline from which Washington
can begin to formulate an optimal policy towards China.
The logic of this China policy debate prompts us to ask
an important question: how is the Trump administration’s
China policy playing out? A lively discussion on President
Trump’s foreign policy has already begun. Some argue that
Trump is pursuing a more conservative and realist agenda.
Others caution that Trump’s actions and statements may
culminate in a hard-line nationalism or may turn to a new
variant of hegemony. Still others argue that there is no
grand strategy at all but rather an incoherent muddle
(Abrams, 2017; Dombrowski and Reich, 2017; Posen, 2018;
Schweller, 2018). It is hoped that the analytic framework
developed in this paper thus will help us to judge whether
Trump’s dealings with Beijing are in line with existing strate-
gies or whether his administration is just cherry-picking from
different approaches. We hope that by identifying the main
policy options and examining the logic and assumptions
that underpin them, we can better evaluate trade-offs across
alternatives and rigorously test competing claims.
The China policy debate
The debate in the United States over its government’s China
policy is based on contending views of the policy implica-
tions of China’s rise. There are two components of the
debate. One concerns China’s power relative to that of the
United States and includes two implicit assumptions –that
Beijing’s intentions are uncertain, if not irrelevant, and that a
©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12667
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 2 . May 2019
250
Survey Article
To continue reading
Request your trial