US perspectives on the power shift in the Indo-Pacific

This essay examines four schools of thought about US strategy in Asia, particularly regarding China. These four viewpoints-here termed the responsible stakeholder, communist collapse, constructive cooperation, and managed competition schools-are determined largely by the answers to two questions. Fi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pacific review 2023-03, Vol.36 (2), p.284-304
Main Authors: Cooper, Zack, Carr, Emily Young
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic achievement
Asia
China
Communism
Confusion
Consensus
Cooperation
Debates
End state
International cooperation
Managed competition
Policy making
power transition
Schools
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This essay examines four schools of thought about US strategy in Asia, particularly regarding China. These four viewpoints-here termed the responsible stakeholder, communist collapse, constructive cooperation, and managed competition schools-are determined largely by the answers to two questions. First, to what degree should US policies focus on integrating China into the international order, versus mitigating the consequences of China's rise? Second, should US policy makers seek a specified end state with China, or simply focus on achieving a stable steady state? Based on a detailed analysis of existing commentary, we assert that most debates about US objectives vis-à-vis China revolve around these questions. This essay concludes that US policies are likely to incorporate aspects of all four theories, which will make it difficult-if not impossible-for the United States to adopt any clear and sustained strategy across administrations. Barring a major breakthrough or breakdown in US-China relations, Washington is destined for a muddled debate on China that will make it difficult to achieve strategic consensus. And this strategic confusion on China will have substantial implications for US regional strategy more broadly.
ISSN:0951-2748
1470-1332
DOI:10.1080/09512748.2022.2160793