The Debate That’s Needed on How to Engage With China—Before It’s Too Late

The Debate That’s Needed on How to Engage With China—Before It’s Too Late

The Debate That’s Needed on How to Engage With China—Before It’s Too Late

The China cold war consensus is a recipe for calamity.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

The cold war with China is on. In a bellicose speech last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo resuscitated the rhetoric of the 20th century Cold War: “If we want to have a free 21st century and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done,” he said. “The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.”

The Trump administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy elevated China and Russia to primary national security threats. It labeled China a “revisionist” power that seeks “to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests” while “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” There is transpartisan support for confrontation with China, but the United States ought to consider alternatives to this posture before it is too late.

Not surprisingly in an election involving President Trump, China posturing has been put to partisan purpose. He has called Joe Biden’s political career a “gift to the Chinese Communist Party.” (Meanwhile, Biden ads charge that on trade and the novel coronavirus, Trump “didn’t get tough” with China but that “he got played.”) Trump’s rhetoric manifests in policy: a US-China military buildup in the South China Sea; efforts to “decouple” economic relations; targeting Huawei, TikTok, and WeChat; and blaming Beijing for what the president has called the “China plague,” even demanding that Beijing pay for damage inflicted by the coronavirus. Polls show Americans increasingly consider China a threat.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x