{
"authors": [
"Jake Sullivan",
"Kurt M. Campbell"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "ASP",
"programs": [
"American Statecraft"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
The United States is in the midst of the most consequential rethinking of its foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Although Washington remains bitterly divided on most issues, there is a growing consensus that the era of engagement with China has come to an unceremonious close.
Source: Foreign Affairs
The United States is in the midst of the most consequential rethinking of its foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Although Washington remains bitterly divided on most issues, there is a growing consensus that the era of engagement with China has come to an unceremonious close. The debate now is over what comes next.
Like many debates throughout the history of U.S. foreign policy, this one has elements of both productive innovation and destructive demagoguery. Most observers can agree that, as the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy put it in 2018, “strategic competition” should animate the United States’ approach to Beijing going forward. But foreign policy frameworks beginning with the word “strategic” often raise more questions than they answer. “Strategic patience” reflects uncertainty about what to do and when. “Strategic ambiguity” reflects uncertainty about what to signal. And in this case, “strategic competition” reflects uncertainty about what that competition is over and what it means to win.
The rapid coalescence of a new consensus has left these essential questions about U.S.-Chinese competition unanswered. What, exactly, is the United States competing for? And what might a plausible desired outcome of this competition look like? A failure to connect competitive means to clear ends will allow U.S. policy to drift toward competition for competition’s sake and then fall into a dangerous cycle of confrontation....
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
A new Carnegie survey of Indian Americans examines shifting vote preferences, growing political ambivalence, and rising concerns about discrimination amid U.S. policy changes and geopolitical uncertainty.
Milan Vaishnav, Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, …
In this moment of geopolitical fluidity, Türkiye and Iraq have been drawn to each other. Economic and security agreements can help solidify the relationship.
Derya Göçer, Meliha Altunışık
The main source of Russian aggression is a profound mistrust of the West and the firm belief that it intends to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. As long as this fear persists, the war will not end.
Tatiana Stanovaya
South Korea has emerged as a major weapon exporter. But its relationship with Europe will depend on more than that.
Chung Min Lee
Europe’s interests in Syria extend beyond migration management, yet the EU trails behind other players in the country’s post-Assad reconstruction. To boost its influence in Damascus, the union must upgrade its commitment to ensuring regional stability.
Bianka Speidl, Hanga Horváth-Sántha