africa.chinadaily.com.cn
US Strategy of Strategic Competition with China: Limited Success and Unintended Consequences
The US's strategic competition with China, marked by technology wars and attempts at decoupling, has yielded limited success due to internal divisions, external limitations from allies prioritizing economic ties with China, and potential negative global impacts.
- What are the key limitations and obstacles hindering the US's strategy of strategic competition with China, and what are the immediate consequences?
- The US strategy of strategic competition with China, marked by technology wars and attempts at decoupling, has yielded limited success. Despite efforts to rally allies, the approach faces internal divisions (between Democrats and Republicans) and external limitations (allies prioritizing economic ties with China). This approach has not achieved the US' goals and has the potential for negative global impacts.
- What are the long-term implications of the US's continued pursuit of strategic competition with China, considering both the domestic and international consequences?
- The long-term prospects of the US's China policy are uncertain. Continued reliance on a 'strategic competition' model risks further exacerbating global instability, hindering cooperation on critical issues like climate change, and ultimately failing to achieve its stated goals. China's capacity for technological self-reliance is also growing, undermining the effectiveness of US containment strategies.
- How do internal political divisions within the US and the varying approaches of the Democratic and Republican parties affect the consistency and effectiveness of its China policy?
- The Biden administration's 'selective decoupling' strategy, while more nuanced than Trump's approach, still faces significant hurdles. Internal political divides hinder consistent policy, while external limitations stem from allies' reluctance to fully align with US policies due to economic interdependence with China. This reflects the complexities of global relations beyond a simplistic 'Cold War' framework.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the US's strategic competition with China as largely detrimental and unlikely to achieve its goals. This framing, while presenting a valid argument, could be perceived as biased against the US's approach. The repeated emphasis on the limitations and potential negative impacts of the US strategy shapes the reader's understanding toward a critical perspective of US policy.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and descriptive, though phrases like 'strangle China's high-tech industries' and 'encirclement containing China' carry strong negative connotations and imply aggressive intent. These could be replaced with more neutral terms such as 'restrict China's high-tech industries' and 'efforts to coordinate with allies'.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on US policy toward China but lacks sufficient detail on China's perspective and actions in the strategic competition. Omitting China's viewpoint presents an incomplete picture and limits the reader's ability to understand the complexities of the relationship. The piece also doesn't explore the perspectives of other global actors significantly impacted by US-China relations, such as other countries in the Asia-Pacific region or European nations.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the US-China relationship as primarily a competition, occasionally acknowledging cooperation but not fully exploring the nuanced interplay of cooperation and competition that characterizes their relationship. The framing of 'competing without breaking ties' suggests a false dichotomy, overlooking the potential for greater degrees of cooperation or escalation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The US-China technology war and decoupling efforts exacerbate global inequalities. Restricting access to technology and hindering economic cooperation disproportionately impacts developing nations and widens the gap between developed and developing countries. The focus on national interests over global cooperation undermines efforts to reduce inequality.