Thread by @JustinTLogan

This morning my piece ran in @TheNatlInterest arguing that everybody is concerned about China and nobody has a clear idea what to do about it. Here's a thread laying out the argument: nationalinterest.org/feature/no-one…

The article takes as a given that policy elites and the public are increasingly anxious about China's rise and would like to prevent China from taking on a more active political role in Asia. But it points to three important problems with existing policy:

First, and most importantly: Economic engagement with China, which has only recently come under scrutiny, is enabling China's rise. I whined about this first in my 2013 paper at Cato, pointing out that engagement works against expansive US goals in Asia. cato.org/sites/cato.org…

As far back as 2014 or so, the business community was growing queasy about engagement in China, but remained pro-economic engagement, for obvious reasons. Increasingly, one now hears calls for "decoupling" the two economies

For example, Paula Dobriansky says the US and its partners should "set up new supply chains, restructure trade relations, and start to create an international economic order that is less dependent on China." This would be... an enormous shift. wsj.com/articles/an-al…

Efforts such as Aaron Friedberg's, here, attempt to put meat on these bones. This is admirable and overdue. At the same time, there's a lot left to determine: foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/08/uni…

Friedberg suggests using the tax code, government procurement, and the ill-will created by China's bullying of the private sector with forced tech transfers, &c, to help decouple. Ask yourself, though: Is it close to enough?

Second problem: US allies in Asia are being lapped by China in power terms. in 2009, Japan was spending roughly 75 percent as much as China on defense. By 2019, that figure was down to under 27 percent. In 2009 Taiwan spent 14 percent as much; now it's 6 percent. Is this enough?

Finally: Is everyone betting that we can extricate ourselves from the Middle East? (We should!) I'm not seeing it. If Washington, for a variety of reasons, is still hell-bent on micromanaging the region, it's going to be a real suck on attention to Asia. politico.com/magazine/story…

In short, the hawks have a big point: China is the most important issue in international politics. But I'm not satisfied with their answers on the effects of economics over time; with their water-carrying for allies, or their ability to win the domestic fight for pride of place.