forbes.com
The Rivalry": Reframing US-China Relations
Van Jackson and Michael Brenes's "The Rivalry" critiques the dominant US narrative on China, arguing that characterizing China as an all-purpose adversary incurs significant domestic costs, undermines global security, and hinders progress on crucial issues like climate change and economic equality; instead, it proposes a path toward cooperation and constructive engagement.
- How does the book challenge the common assumption that great power competition strengthens American democracy, and what historical evidence is used to refute this claim?
- The authors demonstrate that the current focus on great power competition with China, mirroring Cold War strategies, carries substantial domestic costs. This includes inefficient military spending that doesn't stimulate broad economic growth and undermines efforts toward equality. The book also challenges the assumption that rivalry with China inherently strengthens American democracy.
- What alternative approach to US-China relations does the book propose, and what are the potential benefits and risks of this approach in terms of global stability and domestic policy?
- The book suggests a shift in US foreign policy, advocating for cooperation with China on global issues such as climate change and debt relief, while emphasizing that keeping China engaged in the global economy serves as a stronger check on its actions than attempting to isolate it. This approach prioritizes building a more just and sustainable society over a pursuit of global dominance through military might.
- What are the primary domestic and international costs of framing China as America's primary adversary, and how do these costs undermine efforts toward social justice and global security?
- The book "The Rivalry" challenges the prevailing narrative in Washington that views China as the primary threat to US power, arguing that this perspective exaggerates China's ambitions and hinders efforts toward equality and global security. It highlights the negative consequences of framing China as an all-purpose adversary, including increased military spending and the undermining of domestic efforts towards racial and economic justice.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the dominant narrative in Washington as exaggerating the threat posed by China. The headline and introduction clearly position the authors' perspective as a corrective to this narrative. This framing emphasizes the negative consequences of viewing China as a primary threat, potentially downplaying other perspectives or complexities.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and objective. The article uses terms like "all-purpose adversary" and "massive Pentagon spending spree" which could be considered loaded, but they are used in a context that supports a clear argument and not to promote emotional response. The overall tone is analytical and balanced, although it clearly favors the authors' perspective.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative consequences of framing China as an all-purpose adversary, but gives less attention to potential downsides of increased cooperation with China, such as overlooking human rights abuses or other problematic actions by the Chinese government. The potential benefits of a less confrontational approach are emphasized, but a balanced view of the risks is less prominent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as either viewing China as an all-purpose adversary or engaging in full-scale cooperation. It overlooks the possibility of a more nuanced approach that balances competition with cooperation in specific areas.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article advocates for a less confrontational approach to US-China relations, suggesting that treating China as an all-purpose adversary is a recipe for conflict abroad and division at home. This directly relates to SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The authors suggest that cooperation, dialogue, and diplomacy are better avenues to address concerns about China than escalating tensions and military spending.