'Long game': US urged to avoid 'confrontational' China strategy as policy experts call for competition, not 'cold war'

The United States should manage competition and communicate clearly with Beijing to prevent conflicts from escalating, American analysts argued as debate heated up over Washington's China strategy.

In an article published by Foreign Affairs magazine on Thursday, US analysts said Washington should refrain from a confrontational strategy that seeks to decisively win in a "cold war waged by China".

They were responding to an article that appeared in the same publication in April by Matt Pottinger, former US deputy national security adviser under the Trump administration, and former US congressman Mike Gallagher. The two criticised the Biden administration's China policy, which they said prioritised short-term diplomatic thaws over a long-term strategic "victory" in countering China's ambitions.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Rush Doshi, director of the initiative on China strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that "efforts to manage competition make the United States more competitive".

"Such actions show the American public and US allies and partners that the United States is a responsible actor and that they can confidently buy into Washington's strategy."

Doshi noted that a confrontational position might isolate Washington, diminishing its strategic options.

He urged the US to focus more on "tactical reassurance" to address specific issues. He called for Washington to be clear about its actions on matters from technology to Taiwan to discourage "dangerously fatalistic thinking" from Beijing.

"Making clear that Washington's goals are not limitless but tied to specific interests reduces the risk of runaway escalation," Doshi added. "That requires face-to-face meetings so that misperceptions can be ironed out quickly, competitive steps by the United States can be explained directly, and both sides can find off-ramps."

Former US congressman Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, has argued that the Biden administration should have implemented a firmer policy towards US adversaries. Photo: TNS alt=Former US congressman Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, has argued that the Biden administration should have implemented a firmer policy towards US adversaries. Photo: TNS>

He pointed out that even if this approach cannot end their strategic rivalry, it could reduce the risk of escalated conflict and create space for competition.

Pottinger and Gallagher have criticised US President Joe Biden's China strategy for lacking an end goal in its competition with Beijing. They proposed an alternative vision drawn from the Cold War: a China that can "chart its own course free from communist dictatorship".

However, Doshi cautioned against comparisons between China and the Soviet Union, noting that Beijing is a far more formidable competitor.

"China is the first US competitor in a century to surpass 60 per cent of US GDP. The country boasts considerably greater industrial and technological strength than the Soviet Union did and is deeply enmeshed in the global economy," he said.

Doshi also noted that a more explicit policy aimed at ending Communist Party rule would be unnecessary for protecting US interests and could escalate the rivalry to an existential conflict, prompting Beijing to take drastic actions.

"If Beijing concluded that the United States sought total victory, it would have little reason to exercise restraint."

Doshi's views were echoed by Jessica Chen Weiss, professor of China and Asia-Pacific studies at Cornell University, and James Steinberg, who served as US deputy secretary of state under former president Barack Obama.

In a response to Pottinger and Gallagher, they argued that adopting an overtly confrontational cold war stance towards Beijing would likely strengthen the Chinese leadership's commitment to tough, authoritarian measures.

"Even when direct diplomacy fails to resolve key issues, Washington's openness to engage demonstrates to the world that the United States is acting responsibly," Weiss and Steinberg wrote, adding that such interactions were a chance to urge the Chinese government to alter its policies.

"Washington needs to play a long game, one that favours its natural strengths."

They contended that a confrontational approach could lead to the worst possible scenario: a Chinese leadership that is both unwilling to collaborate and bolstered domestically by nationalist rhetoric against a perceived enemy.

An aggressive strategy could also estrange crucial US allies who are not interested in a binary "us versus them" approach, they argued.

In response to their critics, Pottinger and Gallagher said that Beijing was at the heart of escalating tensions in Europe, the Middle East and the South China Sea, and Beijing's actions showed that diplomacy had failed to mitigate the risk of escalation between the US and China.

They argued that if the Biden administration had initially implemented a firmer and more resolute policy towards US adversaries, including a significant boost in defence spending, it might have forestalled the deterioration of the geopolitical environment over the past three years.

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2024 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Copyright (c) 2024. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.