Triangle of Perspectives on U.S.–China Relations
1. Keyu Jin (Economic Pragmatist)
-
Core View:
-
U.S. and China cannot decouple — economic interdependence is too deep.
-
-
Why:
-
Supply chains, complementary strengths, and global market integration make separation impossible.
-
-
Tone:
-
Pragmatic, cautious — stresses business and economic logic.
-
-
Policy Implication:
-
Allow selective de-risking in sensitive tech, but preserve overall engagement.
-
2. Jeffrey Sachs (Global Cooperation Advocate)
-
Core View:
-
U.S.–China conflict is unnecessary and harmful, caused largely by U.S. hegemonic ambition.
-
-
Why:
-
China’s rise is not inherently aggressive; it has focused on development and global trade.
-
The U.S. frames China as a threat to maintain dominance.
-
-
Tone:
-
Normative, moralistic — calls out U.S. militarism.
-
-
Policy Implication:
-
End U.S. containment, pursue cooperation on climate, poverty, technology, and health.
-
3. John Mearsheimer (Realist Rivalry Theorist)
-
Core View:
-
Decoupling is inevitable because great powers cannot coexist peacefully.
-
-
Why:
-
The U.S. must contain China just as it contained the USSR.
-
Security trumps economic efficiency; rivalry is structural.
-
-
Tone:
-
Hard realist, zero-sum — assumes confrontation is unavoidable.
-
-
Policy Implication:
-
Push decoupling, force allies to choose, and prepare for long-term competition (possibly war).
-
Spectrum of Thought
-
Mearsheimer → Hard Rivalry:
Conflict and decoupling inevitable. -
Jin → Structural Interdependence:
Rivalry exists, but decoupling impossible — engagement must continue. -
Sachs → Cooperative Multipolarity:
Rivalry unnecessary — problem lies in U.S. choices, not structural inevitability.
✅ This creates a conceptual triangle:
-
Top Corner (Mearsheimer): Structural inevitability of conflict.
-
Bottom Left Corner (Jin): Economic logic of interdependence.
-
Bottom Right Corner (Sachs): Political critique, vision of cooperation.