Follow us on social

google cta
Fp4a-panel-

How do you talk to an 'existential threat' (China)?

Lawmakers at a Democratic foreign policy conference today bemoaned escalating and useless rhetoric against Beijing on Capitol Hill.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

China has been the chief foreign policy and national security obsession of the 118th Congress. Members have introduced over 300 pieces of legislation aimed at confronting the rise of Beijing and created the hawkish “Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.” 

As the journalist Ed Luce, who moderated a panel on US-China relations during Foreign Policy for America’s annual Leadership Summit on Monday, noted, it is one of the few areas of bipartisanship in an increasingly polarized Congress. 

The four members of the House of Representatives who participated on the panel offered words of caution to their colleagues, warning that heightened rhetoric could leave Washington in a perilous predicament. “It’s really important that we remember, particularly when rhetoric continues to heat up, that, God forbid, we ever had to go to war with China, it is mutually assured economic destruction,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich). “At the end of the day, a war will be a disaster for them and certainly for us.” 

If anything, according to Rep. Andy Kim, who sits on the select committee, the increase in tension between the two largest economies in the world should incentivize U.S. officials to engage with their counterparts even more. “When the chairperson or when someone else on [the select] committee talks about how China is an existential threat to the United States. That's a real problem,” remarked Kim (D-N.J.) “When you call someone or something an existential threat, how do you have a conversation? How do you have engagement? How do you have diplomacy?”

Luce noted that efforts to calm tensions have so far not been particularly effective, pointing to a recent Pew Research poll that indicates that four in ten Americans consider China to be an enemy, up thirteen points from when a similar poll was conducted last year. Kim called that polling data “a huge problem,” and Rep. Veronica Escobar said it was “very disconcerting.” 

All of the members acknowledged that Beijing does pose a significant challenge to the U.S. and the Chinese government had not seemed particularly interested in constructive engagement either, but maintained that the response should not be to treat conflict as inevitable.  “Some of the challenges I’ve seen, especially being on the select committee (...) is how reactionary we’ve become in terms of our foreign policy, especially when it comes to China,” said Kim noting what he saw as a bipartisan overreaction to the Chinese spy balloon and legislation aimed at banning TikTok.

One consistent theme throughout the panel was that there may be substantial ways in which Washington can and should compete with China, but those potential U.S. policies  are too often drowned out by legislation that is only intended to antagonize Beijing. “We have not had an immediate pressing reason in my opinion, to vote on anything related to China,” so far in this Congress, said Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) She argued that all of the bills aimed at countering the CCP were messaging bills aimed at painting opponents as soft on China and “a lot of colleagues are trying to neutralize a CCP or Chinese attack in the electoral context by wrapping themselves in the blanket of bipartisanship” on the issue. 


Image: Office of Rep. Andy Kim / Twitter.
google cta
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
G7 Summit
Top photo credit: May 21, 2023, Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan: (From R to L) Comoros' President Azali Assoumani, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. (Credit Image: © POOL via ZUMA Press Wire)

Middle Powers are setting the table so they won't be 'on the menu'

Asia-Pacific

The global order was already fragmenting before Donald Trump returned to the White House. But the upended “rules” of global economic and foreign policies have now reached a point of no return.

What has changed is not direction, but speed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks in Davos last month — “Middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” — captured the consequences of not acting quickly. And Carney is not alone in those fears.

keep readingShow less
Vice President JD Vance Azerbaijan Armenia
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gets out of a car before boarding Air Force Two upon departure for Azerbaijan, at Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan, Armenia, February 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

VP Vance’s timely TRIPP to the South Caucasus

Washington Politics

Vice President JD Vance’s regional tour to Armenia and Azerbaijan this week — the highest level visit by an American official to the South Caucasus since Vice President Joe Biden went to Georgia in 2009 — demonstrates that Washington is not ignoring Yerevan and Baku and is taking an active role in their normalization process.

Vance’s stop in Armenia included an announcement that Yerevan has procured $11 million in U.S. defense systems — a first — in particular Shield AI’s V-BAT, an ISR unmanned aircraft system. It was also announced that the second stage of a groundbreaking AI supercomputer project led by Firebird, a U.S.-based AI cloud and infrastructure company, would commence after having secured American licensing for the sale and delivery of an additional 41,000 NVIDIA GB300 graphics processing units.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.