Thread by @EBKania

I've been thinking about this article and the dynamics that it describes, and I wanted to share some quick thoughts. To start, I am deeply concerned that the PRC presents major threats to U.S. interests and a significant challenge to American leadership. nytimes.com/2019/07/20/us/…

However, I continue to believe the analogy of the Cold War and potential for a 'Cold War mentality' are not the right approach to strategic competition—and quite problematic, given the potential for serious negative externalities. tnsr.org/roundtable/pol…

In my experience so far, the majority of analysts, strategists, and policymakers who I know have relevant expertise and are thinking critically about these challenges tend to reject and avoid the idea of a "new Cold War" or thinking reminiscent of a "red scare" as well.

However, these ideas (or 'memes' perhaps) can take on a life of their own, particularly in headlines and popular discourse, and I do worry about the impact of rhetoric and comments that are extreme but can start to shape the narrative and mentalities about U.S.-China relations.

I believe that precision and specificity in language matter greatly and important to preserve clarity in thinking. On a similar topic, I'd recommend this article by Iain Johnston, which critiques some of the discourse on China's "assertiveness." belfercenter.org/sites/default/…

So too, when we talk and think about U.S.-China relations today, it is important to refine our use of terms and concepts. What do we mean by "revisionist"? What are our priorities and objectives in "strategic competition"? These debates are vital because the stakes are so high.

I hope these critical conversations can also remain grounded by important distinctions, such as between China as a nation and the People's Republic of China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

However, certain comments and statements from officials in the Trump administration (i.e., China as a "whole-of-society" threat, or this competition as a “a fight with a really different civilization") are deeply worrying and incredibly problematic.

I hope that the undertones of racial prejudice and tendency towards xenophobia that have at times infected and undermined this U.S. debate on China will remain fringe and will continue to be marginalized and condemned.

For instance, I am concerned about certain comments and individuals associated with the Committee on the Present Danger because I believe those who are known proponents of prejudice do not and cannot contribute constructively to critical debates about U.S. policy towards China.

The taint and, in certain incidents, reality of racism in U.S. policies and discourse on China is deeply damaging and undermines our values and interests.

This policy debate—and the process of implementation of our policies—must be inclusive and leverage the strengths of our diverse and pluralistic society.