An ideal strategy toward China’s aggression

US scholars of China who once hoped for its peaceful rise now advocate ‘constructive vigilance’ – one based on transparency, integrity, and reciprocity.

People in Beijing walk past a display of Chinese President Xi Jinping at an exhibition marking the 40th anniversary of China's opening up and reforms.

One of the critical choices that will shape the 21st century is how the United States responds to a more assertive China. Bilateral trade between the two giants now surpasses that between any other pair of countries. More than 430,000 Chinese now study in the US. And their two militaries often face off in Asian hot spots.

Should the US, for example, respond harshly to China’s technology theft? Should it ban the country’s Confucius Institutes and China-tied student groups on US campuses if they impinge on academic freedom? Should it restrict Chinese investments in US firms if they disable America’s commercial and military advantages?

Sensible answers to such questions can be found in a new report from some two dozen China specialists in the US who had long advocated for constructive engagement with Beijing. They admit a “mood shift” in attitudes toward China among Americans.

Alarmed at the “sharp power” wielded by Communist Party leader Xi Jinping since 2012, these scholars now advocate “constructive vigilance” of China – but not necessarily by pursuing narrow self-interests or relying on fearful demonization of the Chinese.

The report, organized by the Hoover Institution and the Asia Society, insists the US and its allies stick to universal principles, in part because China often rejects them. “There is ... a growing body of evidence that the Chinese Communist Party views the American ideals of freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and association as direct challenges to its defense of its own form of one-party rule,” the report states.

The scholars suggest three principles as the best defense to covert or aggressive Chinese behavior: transparency, integrity, and reciprocity.

Transparency is the best protection against China’s attempted manipulation of media, think tanks, college faculty, and government officials. Maintaining the integrity of US institutions, such as schools not compromising in exchanges with Chinese counterparts, is essential.

And with Beijing denying foreign access to China in so many spheres from business to scholarship, the US must insist on a level playing field, or reciprocity. China must not force foreign firms to hand over their technological secrets, for example, and should improve its respect for protection of intellectual property. Treating each other equally will help ensure the US-China relationship is “more stable and thus durable,” the report states.

Big powers often need buffers when they pursue their particular interests. The best buffers are not always defensive weapons, trade tariffs, bans on people exchanges, or regulatory walls. The best vigilance toward China right now may be the US sticking to its ideals.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to An ideal strategy toward China’s aggression
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today