![\"v082111dl-0914editb\"](\"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/v082111dl-0914editb-e1386611384724.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A recent report<\/a> from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace advocates several policy recommendations which aim to rectify the “threat” that a rising China\u00a0poses to “the foundations of the U.S.-backed global order.” Traditional strategies of “containment,” as used against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, won’t work, the report argues, so Washington needs to “balance” China instead.<\/p>\n The report offers four broad strategies<\/a> for the U.S. approach to China, all of which are awful and all of which take for granted that U.S. foreign policy ought to be about world domination.<\/p>\n Bolster Regional Actors.\u00a0<\/strong>By increasing the national power of China\u2019s neighbors, the United States can constrain Beijing\u2019s behavior and limit its capacity for aggressiveness. This investment is in Washington\u2019s best interest irrespective of whether it is repaid in kind because it will diminish China\u2019s ability to misuse its growing strength and increase American geopolitical maneuverability in the Indo-Pacific. But the United States must be wary of Chinese tactics to subvert these efforts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is already causing problems. The U.S.’s bolstering of all of China’s neighboring rivals has helped exacerbate regional tensions, prompting Japan and the Philippines to take a much more aggressive posture in confronting China. The naval jockeying in the East and South China Seas could be extremely dangerous: \u201cMy biggest fear is that a small mishap is going to blow up into something much bigger,\u201d says Elizabeth C. Economy of the\u00a0Council on Foreign Relations<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even if this policy did tend to stabilize things instead of make them more dangerous, the bias underlying this recommendation is that these weaker states are better off under U.S. hegemony than under Chinese hegemony. While some will argue the U.S. has promoted democracy and free markets (contrasted with whatever China would encourage), there’s really very little evidence for that<\/a>, given the U.S.’s history of backing dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, and corrupt\/closed markets.<\/p>\n The report, again, takes for granted the legitimacy of U.S. meddling. Suppose we reverse the recommendations for China, instead of the U.S. Is it legitimate for China to begin to “bolster” all of America’s neighboring rivals in, say, Latin America? Would Washington accept that? No. So, why is it ok for us to do the same?<\/p>\n Selectively Deepen Globalization.<\/strong>\u00a0The United States should make trade liberalization a top priority. Since comprehensive global liberalization remains a distant goal, Washington should work to quickly conclude key regional trade pacts, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which promise increased relative gains to the United States and its allies vis-\u00e0-vis China.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The contradictions inherent in this recommendation are almost laughable. We should impose so-called “free trade deals” that exclude or at least marginalize China\u00a0vis-\u00e0-vis the U.S. and its allies? If it’s “selective” how can we honestly call it “free trade”? More like subtle economic warfare.\u00a0Not only is this categorically anti-free market, but it represents the interests of Washington’s own global power<\/a>, not the interests of consumers in the market.<\/p>\n Bolster U.S. Military Capabilities.\u00a0<\/strong>To preserve its military superiority in the face of growing Chinese power, Washington should invest in improving U.S. power projection capabilities that will allow it to defeat challenges posed by China\u2019s new strategic denial systems and regain U.S. freedom of action in the Indo-Pacific.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n