• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "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

In The Media

Competition Without Catastrophe: How America Can Both Challenge and Coexist With China

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.

Link Copied
By Jake Sullivan and Kurt M. Campbell
Published on Sep 13, 2019

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....

Read Full Text

This article was originally published in Foreign Affairs.

About the Authors

Jake Sullivan

Former U.S. National Security Advisor to Former President Joe Biden

Jake Sullivan, a senior fellow at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey School of Public Policy, served as the United States national security advisor to former President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2025. Sullivan previously served as deputy assistant to former President Barack Obama, national security advisor to former Vice President Biden, director of policy planning in the State Department, and as deputy chief of staff to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Kurt M. Campbell

Kurt M. Campbell is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. He is 2018-19 Kissinger Fellow at the McCain Institute and was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2009 to 2013

Authors

Jake Sullivan
Former U.S. National Security Advisor to Former President Joe Biden
Jake Sullivan
Kurt M. Campbell

Kurt M. Campbell is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. He is 2018-19 Kissinger Fellow at the McCain Institute and was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2009 to 2013

Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

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.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital Ambitions

    Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.

      Aruzhan Meirkhanova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.