If the first meeting between the Biden administration and Chinese officials last week underscored anything, it\u2019s that the US and China are unlikely to be friendly in the years to come.<\/p>\n
The two sides\u2019 views of how the world should run are diametrically opposed \u2014 and competition more than cooperation will guide how Washington and Beijing interact for a long time.<\/p>\n
US Secretary of State Tony Blinken told his Chinese counterparts at the meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, that the Biden administration wouldn\u2019t accept an international system that runs on Beijing\u2019s concept of power, which he described as \u201ca world in which might makes right and winners take all.\u201d That, the top American diplomat said, \u201cwould be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Yang Jiechi, China\u2019s top foreign affairs official, rejected that China should abide by the US-backed \u201crules-based international order\u201d Blinken advocated for, which Yang noted is also \u201cadvocated by a small number of countries.\u201d Instead, Yang asserted it was \u201cimportant for all of us to come together to build a new type of international relations, ensuring fairness, justice, and mutual respect.\u201d<\/p>\n
The yawning gap between the two sides makes it clear: \u201cThis is the battle for the international system,\u201d Elizabeth Economy, an expert on China at Stanford University\u2019s Hoover Institute, told me. \u201cThe challenge,\u201d she added, is \u201cfundamental.\u201d<\/p>\n
Which is why, even though discord between the two countries is higher now than it\u2019s been in decades, most experts I spoke to said the Biden administration shouldn\u2019t try to improve relations with China. Washington should instead push Beijing hard on issues such as human rights, military aggression, economic coercion, and much more. Anything less, experts said, would implicitly invite China to run roughshod over the world.<\/p>\n
Progress can still be made despite the tensions. Where interests align \u2014 on climate change, North Korea, Afghanistan, and other issues \u2014 both sides can find common ground. But the American Enterprise Institute\u2019s Zack Cooper told me cooperation for cooperation\u2019s sake shouldn\u2019t be the desired outcome. \u201cThe goal should be a results-oriented relationship,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat\u2019s the point of discussion if we\u2019re not actually going to resolve any of the problems?\u201d<\/p>\n
Experts said this isn\u2019t quite a new Cold War, though it may feel like it. That\u2019s because the real sticking points are about trade, technology, and the rules of cyberspace rather than the threat of nuclear annihilation.<\/p>\n
This is a superpower rivalry for a new era \u2014 and it\u2019s likely going to get worse before it gets better.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe relationship has deteriorated to the worst point that I\u2019ve seen in the last two decades,\u201d said Economy. While ties haven\u2019t reached rock bottom, \u201cwe\u2019ve got conflict in pretty much every single policy area.\u201d<\/p>\n
Engagement with China didn\u2019t work. Biden is pursuing a course correction.<\/p>\n
Engagement with China, meaning consistent and significant dialogue on areas of mutual interest, defined Washington-Beijing relations since the Nixon era. There was bipartisan agreement on that in the US, and recent presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both approached Beijing in this way.<\/p>\n
Both wanted China to become a \u201cresponsible stakeholder.\u201d That\u2019s a wonderfully wonky Washington term that mostly means they hoped Beijing would come to abide by the global rules of the game on everything from trade to military affairs to international relations, even as the country gained immense power.<\/p>\n
Instead of bullying or threatening China to force it to stop doing things like cheating on international trade rules, stealing other countries\u2019 intellectual property, and grievously violating human rights at home (among other things), the strategy was to develop close economic ties with China and encourage it to become more integrated into the world economy. The hope was that would lead Beijing to start acting more responsibly on its own because it would be in its self-interest to do so.<\/p>\n
That didn\u2019t happen, though. Instead, China under President Xi Jinping became more authoritarian internally and far more aggressive on the world stage. <\/p>\n
Among many acts, China has forcibly placed roughly 2 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, stripped Hong Kong of its democracy, and turned Taiwan into a global flashpoint that could erupt into a much larger conflict.<\/p>\n
And its aggressive behavior toward the US and its interests continues. Beijing has stolen US technological and personnel secrets for its own advantage, antagonized US allies in the South China Sea, killed or imprisoned more than a dozen American informants, and taken millions of US jobs over the past two decades. Most recently, China reportedly hacked America\u2019s payroll agency.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration, then, felt it was time for the US to correct course. \u201cWhat do the American people have to show now, 50 years on from engagement with China?\u201d Trump\u2019s then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asked a crowd at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum last month. \u201cThe old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won\u2019t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s team confronted China mostly via a trade war, aiming to hurt Beijing\u2019s economy by displacing it from the center of global supply chains and barring it from exporting some of its technology to the US and partner nations. <\/p>\n
That approach partially worked, in that some jobs in China moved elsewhere, Beijing suffered an economic slowdown, and certain allies were made more skeptical of Chinese technologies companies like Huawei. Trump\u2019s actions also socialized the idea in Washington that competition with China was a worthwhile endeavor, even if his methods didn\u2019t receive bipartisan support.<\/p>\n
But most experts warned that the administration\u2019s unilateral plan of attack, without significant buy-in from other countries, wouldn\u2019t be enough to compel Beijing to alter its behavior. They were right.<\/p>\n
As Trump left office, China, for example, proceeded to imprison Uyghurs and take more control of Hong Kong while doing little to change its trading practices with the US. All that bluster, then, didn\u2019t accomplish Trump\u2019s goal of fundamentally changing the way Beijing acted in the world.<\/p>\n
Enter the Biden administration.<\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s China strategy is competitive by nature<\/p>\n
Biden has been clear on the need to counter China. \u201cAmerican leadership must meet this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States,\u201d he said during a February speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ll confront China\u2019s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China\u2019s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance. But we are ready to work with Beijing when it\u2019s in America\u2019s interest to do so,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
Pushing Beijing to protect human rights and not use force or coercion to achieve its goals, while leaving the door to cooperate on areas of mutual interest, is the Biden administration\u2019s China game plan.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be,\u201d Blinken said during a March 3 foreign policy address.<\/p>\n
To do that, the Biden administration has two main plays.<\/p>\n
First, they hope to enlist allies and partners in an international effort to compel Beijing to change its ways. Biden firmly believes the US will only get the upper hand on China by proving it has a coalition of friends willing to thwart Beijing\u2019s most troublesome policies in unison.<\/p>\n
Think of it like a geopolitical gang-up: the US and its crew versus a mostly lonely China. \u201cWe need to rally the democratic world together more than ever,\u201d a former Biden staffer told me last year. \u201cIt\u2019ll be a democratic alliance to save the world.\u201d<\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s meeting earlier this month with \u201cthe Quad\u201d \u2014 a coalition of anti-China nations featuring India, Australia, and Japan \u2014 is case in point. While they don\u2019t openly say the express aim of the group is to counter Beijing\u2019s actions in the Indo-Pacific, most experts say that is very clearly the point of the group.<\/p>\n
Second, the Biden administration wants to revitalize America at home. That means, among other things, improving the nation\u2019s democracy, pursuing racial equity, becoming more competitive economically and technologically, and rebuilding trust in the US as the world\u2019s leader.<\/p>\n
This is an important part of the China plan, experts say. \u201cWe\u2019ve got a lot of work to do,\u201d said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, DC. \u201cIt\u2019s a whole issue of rejuvenating America.\u201d<\/p>\n
The thinking, most experts and US officials note, is that a stronger America working in lockstep with allies will give it more leverage to challenge China\u2019s aggressions and influence when working with Beijing on shared concerns. <\/p>\n
The problem with this competitive approach, some assert, is that it limits the opportunities for the US and China to build trust with one another. Which means the potential for conflict \u2014 even a military skirmish over Taiwan or in the South China Sea \u2014 remains very real.<\/p>\n
Another concern is that treating China like an enemy could further fuel anti-Asian sentiment and even hate crimes, which are already on the rise in the US. <\/p>\n