A compelling argument is being made that the United States is currently engaged in a critical, global rivalry with China without the benefit of a clear, overarching strategy. This lack of a “coherent strategy,” the argument suggests, is not merely an academic concern but a dangerous reality that jeopardizes American interests and global stability.
Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, a noted voice in geopolitical analysis, is cited for his blunt assessment: the U.S. is confronting China without a defined objective. This critique forms a central pillar of the argument, highlighting the perceived aimlessness of current U.S. policy.
The current U.S. approach is characterized as a series of tactical, often reactive, measures – including tariffs, technology sanctions, military posturing, and diplomatic engagements – that lack a unified strategic vision. The absence of a clear “endgame” is a significant concern raised. Is the goal to curb China’s economic expansion, prevent military aggression, foster internal political shifts, or simply reassert U.S. dominance in the Indo-Pacific? The lack of a readily articulable answer, even among experienced policymakers, is presented as deeply problematic.
Mahbubani draws a stark contrast with the U.S. strategy during the Cold War, where the singular, clear objective of containing Soviet communism provided a guiding principle for diverse policy decisions across different domains. This historical example serves to underscore the current perceived “drift” in U.S. policy towards China.
The consequences of this strategic ambiguity are seen as far-reaching. Domestically, it can lead to a public discourse driven by fear and protectionism rather than informed planning. Internationally, it causes confusion among allies regarding U.S. intentions and risks miscalculation and escalation by adversaries. Furthermore, a lack of strategy can result in misallocated resources, focusing on short-term gains while neglecting crucial long-term investments needed to strengthen America’s global standing. It may also hinder necessary cooperation with China on critical global issues like climate change and pandemics.
To move towards a more effective approach, the article proposes three key imperatives for achieving strategic clarity:
- Define Success: The U.S. must first clearly articulate its desired end state in the rivalry with China. This requires a deliberate decision on whether the goal is peaceful coexistence, managed competition, or dominance, as each necessitates a different policy framework.
- Focus Inward: Instead of viewing China’s rise solely as an existential threat, the U.S. should prioritize strengthening its own domestic foundations through investments in education, infrastructure, research, and democratic institutions.
- Embrace Engagement where Necessary: Strategic rivalry should not preclude practical cooperation on shared global challenges. Refusing to engage China on issues like climate change and global health is framed as self-defeating.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the real challenges posed by China’s authoritarian model and assertive foreign policy, the argument strongly asserts that the U.S. needs a comprehensive, well-defined strategy to navigate this complex rivalry effectively.
Simply reacting to Beijing’s actions is deemed insufficient; the U.S. must articulate its own vision for the future global order and how it intends to lead towards it. As Mahbubani’s warning underscores, competing with a nation as significant as China requires a clear and purposeful strategy, not just improvisation.