Abstract

Common pronouncements that Washington enjoys a “new consensus” on China mask wide variations in assessments of the China challenge. America’s China watchers disagree on a host of issues: How much of a threat is China? Was “Engagement” a failure? What even was Engagement? This paper maps out the dis-tinct positions on the shift to Strategic Competition. It centers America’s China watching community as a worthwhile object for understanding Engagement’s demise. Against the prevailing explanation—that China changed rendering Engagement unworkable—I show that no amount of “re-litigating” Engagement will get us to a genuine consensus on what must come next—nor, again, should it. I then analyze the four major groups among America’s watchers and their views on China and U.S. policy—the Strategic Competitors, the Engagers, the New Cold Warriors, and the Competitive Coexisters. Finally, I identify the gaps between these groups, as a first step not toward consensus but productive disagreement. 

Implications and Key Takeaways

• Undoubtedly an asset, America’s vibrant China watching community features a tendency toward polarization and politicization. The U.S. government and the community should endeavor to counter such trends;
• Congress should continue to support the development and funding of opportunities for the study of Chinese language and culture, including reinitiating the China Fulbright program, and funding people-to-people exchanges and cultural diplomacy;
• The USCC and CCE should be supported, and they should continue to hear from a broad swathe of U.S. China experts in their testimony;
• Think tanks should follow suit: promoting dialogue among China experts across the spectrum of views described below at public events and during collaborative work;
• Finally, the government promote Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues with the PRC.