Thread by @McFaul

Biden & team have framed their policy towards China as one of "Competition," (sometimes adding adjectives like "stiff" or "responsible.") That's a good start, but not enough. 2 more Cs need to be added explicitly -- Containment & Cooperation. THREAD 1/

On some issues, the U.S. should seek to compete with China robustly, including first & foremost regarding our different systems of governments. We should want to prove that democracy is a horrible system of government but better than the rest, including PRC autocracy. 2/

And democracy is not only a morally superior system, but also produces better social & economic outcomes. That's why bipartisan infrastructure law & Build Back Better will be the most important policy tools for competing with China initiated in several decades. 3/

In some markets, US companies also compete directly with Chinese companies. The Biden administration rightly has pledged to make the international rules governing that kind of competition fairer. That's smart policy. 4/

In some countries (but not all please!), we also should compete for influence using diplomacy, aid, trade, etc (but please use arms sales less so, especially to autocracies.) 5/

Tragically but necessarily, the US must compete with China regarding conventional military capabilities. & the US must compete more effectively with China regarding many technologies, including first and foremost artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, 6G, SynBio, etc 6/

In parallel, there are some issues & places where we dont want to compete, but to Contain China. We dont want to compete with China regarding Taiwan, South China Sea, or Huawei (within our democratic allies). We want to contain Chinese influence. Keep the SQ. 7/

More "competition" regarding Taiwan or the South China Sea is dynamic & dangerous. Instead of competition, we need to contain China both through deterrence & diplomacy. Strengthening alliances, as Biden is doing, helps to achieve that end. 8/

There are also some strategic places in the world where we want to contain/deter/block Chinese influence, not compete. (& there are many places where we should NOT seek to contain China. Trying to contain China everywhere will lead to failure.) 9/

Third, there are still many issues in which Cooperation still is the best strategy for pursuing U.S. national interests. Framing everything through the lens of "Competition" does not serve US interests. 10/

Competition during the first years of the pandemic produced bad outcomes for the US, China, and the world. Enough of that. We need to cooperate on fighting global diseases. 11/

There are no winners from "competition" regarding climate change (unless we are creating incentives for our green companies to compete against each other more effectively) 12/

Same with non-proliferation. We don't want to compete with China when trying to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, or trying to denuclearize North Korea. 13/

And even in the global economy, sometimes US firms compete with Chinese firms; other times they cooperate. Boeing is not competing with "China"; they compete with Airbus in China. Same with U.S. soybean farmers, chip makers, financial services, etc. 14/

& when the China Development Bank underwrites the sale of Boeing planes to Uzbekistan, that's not "competition." That's a win-win-win from cooperation.
iclg.com/ibr/articles/1… 15/

Academics between US and China also cooperate to produce science that is (usually, not always) good for both countries and the world. 16/

And the US almost always wins from Chinese students who come to the US to study and then stay. We should encourage that kind of cooperation. 17/

It is also not in the U.S. national interest to compete with China on another Cold War-style nuclear arms race. Arms control now is a better strategy. 18/

So instead of a one C strategy, we need a "Three C Strategy" for guiding our China policy -- Contain, Compete, and Cooperate. 19/

NB: If my suggested analytic framework doesn't fit neatly into the "hawks" versus "doves" debate on China, Ive achieved my goal. That simplistic framework distorts more than it explains. The stakes of this policy debate are too high for such superficial constructs. 20/ END THREAD