The China Rivalry: An All-American Myth
Former President Donald Trump attends the signing ceremony of a phase one trade deal with China’s former Vice Premier Liu He in 2020. Photo by Trump White House Archived.
Over the last decade, the US-China relationship has become increasingly precarious as the language of a “new cold war” is becoming more prevalent. “The China Threat” has emerged as a central target of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) counterintelligence operations in recent years, and surveys as recent as 2023 demonstrate that over a third of Americans perceive China as an “enemy.”
US policy reflects a growing distance from China across parties, too. Former President Donald Trump imposed severe tariffs on Chinese goods and individual sanctions as part of his trade war. President Joe Biden has retained many of those sanctions and tariffs, even implementing restrictive export controls on China’s manufacturing sector.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has poured money into domestic subsidies to rival China’s competitive industries, including electric vehicle battery and computer chip production. The CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022 explicitly aims to “counter China” among other economic growth goals, demonstrating the bipartisan appeal of anti-China economic policy.
This antagonistic attitude towards China has been mirrored by the American public. During the initial outbreak of COVID-19, which originated in China, skepticism of the Chinese government seized American political rhetoric. This language was accompanied by a drastic rise in sinophobia in the United States.
However, talk of a new cold war is not only misguided, but also self-sabotaging to American national interests. Combative language and policy against China has only served to escalate tensions and worsen the very problems that policymakers seek to avoid. The US rivalry with China is a myth of our own creation, and we bring it into sharper existence with every cold war reference and anti-China policy.
There are several reasons why US aggression towards China’s growth will only come to harm the United States. Only once those reasons are understood can policymakers begin to address the so-called “China problem.”
Chinese Interests at Stake
Like any global superpower, China must operate in accordance with its interests. When the US pits itself as an enemy of the People’s Republic, it gives China good reasons to strengthen defensive policies against the US and buff up its own military power.
The battle over Taiwan exemplifies this escalatory dynamic. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan in 2022 is said to have heightened tensions, prompting Beijing to ramp up political and military pressure on Taipei in response. Analysts are even reporting that the United States must prepare for a war with China over Taiwan, with detailed research on potential strategy.
This dynamic is not unique to Taiwan. Every time the United States antagonizes China, policymakers should expect China to respond defensively. Similar escalations have been seen in the South China Sea, where China has become more assertive in deploying coastguard vessels in response to Western support for the Philippines. Without any concessions or negotiations to accommodate Chinese interests, the likely outcome will almost always be escalation, increasing the overall likelihood of armed conflict or war.
From Friend to Foe
The US relationship with China has not always been hostile and competitive. In fact, not too long ago, US-China relations were marked by significant economic integration.
During the 2008 financial crisis, China single-handedly saved Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae mortgage lenders, buying US bonds to stabilize the global financial system. This move enabled the Chinese yuan to appreciate dramatically, incentivizing overseas investment into China. A bold observer at the time might have said that the US-China relationship seemed mutually beneficial and even promising.
In 2000, when China joined the World Trade Organization, then-president Bill Clinton expressed his hope that an economically freer China would lead to a more democratic China: “By joining the W.T.O., China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products; it is agreeing to import one of democracy’s most cherished values: economic freedom. The more China liberalizes its economy, the more fully it will liberate the potential of its people.”
Yet, as China’s economic growth has increasingly failed to meet democratic development, the rift between the two states has widened. The dissonance between America’s expectations for China and China’s authoritarian reality is causing serious tension, pushing the United States towards a confrontational stance.
While China and the United States have reason to view each other as competitors, the current dynamic is a one-way route to further escalation and possibly even military confrontation down the line. Robert Pastor noted as early as 2001 that both countries perceived themselves as the peace-lover and the other as the aggressor. These flawed perceptions, he warned, have the capacity to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
When the US positions itself in opposition to another global power in an effort to stave off escalation, the outcome is rarely deterrence. As the case of Russia proves, the result can be war. With interests around the region, the US would do well not to continue on the trajectory from friend to foe if it hopes to achieve détente with China.
The Multipolar Risk
Aggressive policy towards China risks shifting the current world order from unipolar to multipolar. At present, the United States arguably still enjoys a comfortable position as the standalone global hegemon, in what political scientists call unipolarity. However, an aggressive stance risks provoking escalatory backlash and giving China legitimacy as a global power capable of matching or even rivaling US strength, prompting the very conflict it seeks to avoid.
Recent years have seen the Global South and regional superpowers seriously shift away from the United States and its security umbrella. One such example is the economic bloc BRICS, whose primary members are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The coalition of emerging markets may have seemed like a necessary alternative for countries historically excluded or marginalized by the United States. Thus, escalating tensions now may diminish whatever opportunities remain for constructive engagement with the U.S. as the coalition grows.
U.S. opposition to the war on Ukraine has pushed Russia’s allies in BRICS closer together, providing Russia with economic relief from US and EU sanctions. Additionally, Iran joined the coalition at the beginning of this year, giving the Islamic Republic a shared platform with member states that may already view the US as a threat.
As a leading power of the organization, China’s relationship with the U.S. may be instrumental in maintaining a reasonable and negotiable stance. On the other hand, if the United States continues to push China and other countries further away, coalitions that provide an alternative to America’s power such as BRICS will continue to grow stronger, posing a very real threat to the U.S.-led world order.
Engagement as the Way Forward
Treating China as the enemy has clearly not worked in the past; an aggressive stance against China can only worsen US political and economic prospects. Instead, the US must accept that not all powers will develop towards democracy, and aggressive economic policies against them will not always help.
In the interest of preserving its position and avoiding further escalation, the US should seek to foster a positive relationship with China while continuing to advocate for democracy around the world. If the U.S. wishes to pacify the rising power that is China, the U.S.-China cold war rhetoric has got to go.
Celeste Abourjeili (GS ’24) is a staff writer at CPR studying political science and Middle Eastern affairs. She is currently working at the American University in Cairo in the Presidential Associates Program.