All issues · Global Affairs · No. 34

China Policy

Is China a competitor to be managed, a rival to be contained, or a partner on shared problems?

The relationship spans trade, technology, military competition in the Pacific, human rights, and cooperation on global problems. Policy debate turns on whether these can be handled separately or whether the relationship is fundamentally adversarial.

Economic integration is deep. The two economies are each other's major trading partners in many categories, and supply chains for electronics, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals cross between them extensively.

Competition is sharpest in advanced technology. Export controls on semiconductors and equipment, restrictions on investment, and controls on critical mineral exports have all been used by both sides as instruments of policy.

Taiwan is the most dangerous flashpoint. American policy has long combined recognition of one China with unofficial support for Taiwan and deliberate ambiguity about whether it would intervene militarily. Whether that ambiguity still deters or now invites miscalculation is actively debated.

The positionsFind your officials →

POSITION 1 / 3

Compete and constrain

China's trajectory poses a direct challenge, and policy should aim to preserve American advantage across technology and defense.

Export controls slow military-relevant technological progress.
Supply chain dependence in critical goods is a strategic vulnerability.
Industrial policy and subsidies distort competition in ways trade rules did not anticipate.
Allied coordination multiplies the effect of any restriction.

POSITION 2 / 3

Engage and stabilize

Decoupling two deeply integrated economies is costly and may create the confrontation it aims to prevent.

Trade restrictions raise costs for consumers and manufacturers alike.
Climate, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation require cooperation.
Military and diplomatic channels reduce the risk of accidental escalation.
Restrictions can accelerate domestic substitution rather than prevent it.

POSITION 3 / 3

Selective decoupling

Separate what is genuinely strategic from what is ordinary commerce, and treat the two differently.

A narrow set of technologies warrants restriction; most trade does not.
Diversifying supply chains reduces exposure without ending trade.
Reciprocity on market access is a defensible standard.
Clear rules give firms the predictability to plan investment.

Terms you will hearFind your officials →

Export controls: Restrictions on selling specified technologies to particular countries or entities.
Strategic ambiguity: Deliberately not stating whether the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily.
Decoupling: Reducing economic interdependence between two economies.
Critical minerals: Materials essential to advanced manufacturing where supply is concentrated in few countries.

What people actually disagree aboutFind your officials →

Does economic interdependence reduce the risk of conflict or create leverage against us?
Does strategic ambiguity over Taiwan still deter?
Which technologies are strategic enough to justify restricting trade?

Do something about itFind your officials →

Know where you stand? The people who actually vote on this are reachable, and a message in your own words carries more weight than a form letter.

Find your officials →

Was this page balanced?

We are not asking whether you agree with any position — only whether each one was stated fairly. That is the standard this site is built to meet.

Think a position here is stated unfairly? Tell us what an advocate for that view would say instead.