Michael Beckley, et al.
This month, we’re zeroing in on a core tension in U.S. strategy toward China: how to strike the right balance between deterrence and reassurance. As Washington strengthens military postures, deepens coalitions, and hardens supply chains, it also faces the challenge of managing escalation risks and preventing unintended conflict. The dual imperatives of signaling resolve while maintaining bilateral stability have become central to U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
The contributors to this roundtable examine whether Washington has emphasized one pillar—deterrence—at the expense of the other. Nikolas Gvosdev argues that global overstretch has undermined U.S. credibility in Asia, as Beijing and regional partners question Washington’s ability to prioritize the Indo-Pacific in a crisis. Takuya Matsuda emphasizes the importance of assurance and diplomatic clarity to avoid miscalculation, especially across the Taiwan Strait.
Aaron Glasserman and Josh Freedman point to China’s economic challenges as a strategic opportunity for the United States to use economic statecraft and restraint to lower the risk of confrontation. Terry Cooke explores the semiconductor battle as a case of inconsistent policy signaling. Carlos Salazar proposes a strategy of “restraint and resolve,” combining diplomatic flexibility with long-term investments in American hard power. Collectively, these essays underscore that deterrence without reassurance risks hardening the very tensions the United States seeks to manage.
Credibility in the Crossfire—Nikolas Gvosdev
Does U.S. resolve to confront other competitors in other regions of the world impact Beijing’s deterrence calculus? Proponents of robust action to defend Ukraine or remain engaged in the Middle East argue against the “Asia Firsters” in the administration that upholding U.S. credibility elsewhere is necessary for deterring China and reassuring U.S. partners in the Pacific.
No comments:
Post a Comment