The China debate: Are US and Chinese long-term interests fundamentally incompatible?

On Tuesday, October 30, Evan Osnos moderated a public debate about the future of U.S.-China relations.

Follow Brookings on social media!

[harryloo]

Rising Chinese living standard, poverty alleviation and technological innovation is not in the US interest.

[William_sJazzLoft]

'Are U.S. and Chinese long-term interests fundamentally incompatible?' Imho that is essentially the wrong question to ask !! The right question to ask is why are the U.S. and Chinese worldviews so divergent? And are they reconcilable? Far too many in the West are asking the wrong questions. As a consequence there are few who understand the Chinese mindset.

[ginger]

The sooner we stop meddling in other countries affairs the better off we all will be.

[鬼谷子-kd]

This debate is like two men debating whether women can or cannot have abortion.

[NangongReng]

If US could tolerate Saudi Arabia kingdom rule and harsh Wahabi rules, what right do they have to lecture others? Yes, they have.Hegmonic rights!

[originalideas]

1:23 in the bar chart, bar of 47% looks shorter than 35% . something weird happened.

[bowlampar]

Since you are so clueless about China long term intention, basically it is meaningless to make comparison between both countries base on uncertainty and assumption.

[censorshipbites]

Zzzz. A largely esoteric debate, and especially for the Con side. I was particularly amused by David Lampton at 29:30 : "the other side is treating China as a monolith, and as I look at what's going on in China now, I see a lot of debate about what their interests are." Any Western belief in or hope that China is in any way divided is Pollyanna-ish at best and dangerous at worst. The Communist Party is firmly dedicated to restoring China as the preeminent power in Asia, and possibly the world; the only disagreement is in which policy mix will lead to that goal. There was, for example, "debate" on eliminating term limits so Xi can be president for life: out of 2, 964 votes, there were 3 abstentions and 2 nays.
The Chinese gov't operates SOEs in high tech and bans foreign entry, all media is state controlled and access to foreign media impossible without a workaround, foreigners are dissuaded from long-term residence and their activities strictly controlled, every lawyer and judge is a member of the Communist Party, the vast majority of banks are state-owned and even quants must be Party members, every Chinese uni student regardless of major must take classes in Marxist-Leninist thought, every website on a Chinese server must be registered with and approved by the Govt, all foreign social media are blocked and local counterparts are vigilantly patrolled by state monitors...And that's without mention of the "social credit" system. Just what else is needed for Lampton to acknowledge that the Chinese state is in fact a monolith?!?

[magnaviator]

China has explicitly said it has zero interest in challenging the US in hegemonic primacy, an obsession that only the US is concerned with. From all the facts on the ground, China is more interested in promoting economic growth and bringing it's people out of poverty than the sort of hegemonic competition that the anti-China crowd is calling for prophylactic action (despite absence of any real facts of Chinese hostility). This one sided China-bashing is a selective turning of a friend to an enemy which is both unnecessary, short sighted, and stupid.

[xiangmingzhang]

How does that compare to violent bombing of iraq, vietnam, korea, afganastan, if you like to talk about being violent.

[tomchen]

American Indians: As you give up more to the Americans, you get more pressure from them.
This is factual.

[chfgbp]

Two sides of the same coin, impossible for one to destory the other without destroying itself. Compatibility has nothing to do with it.

[tsbm]

many chinese trolls in the comment section.

[luigili]

US promote international law and order. What a big laughing!

[audnu]

Chinese people want peace and prosperity. On the other hand, US had shown their interests pretty clearly in Vietnam, Korea, South America, Iraq, Lybia, and many many other countries.

[howaykahn]

dude, US economy is based on huge consumption and huge waste, and they're used to it.
average Americans turn on their air conditioners 24/7, drive a big car for small distance like a few hundred feet, and throw half of their food in dustbin
and they take it for granted
that's the biggest weakness of America

[woodensurfer]

Given that hot conflict is preventable, what really is the substance of this whole debate? This debate is mere pontificating by the intellectuals.
The question is not so much about compatibility, although there is; rather, the fact is that US will do as much as it can on balance with sanity in order to counter China's influence and contain China's growth. Meaningful debate should center on the effectiveness of such balanced and sane American approach.

[ivanshim]

The net difference between the two teams boils down to shades of gray. The suggestion of a US led global infrastructure conference is good, basically in support of the BeltandRoad initiative. No good suggestions on how to counteract or curtail China's technology advances other than to say it's a big problem.

[somerealnews]

24:01 "combating pandemic disease" wow I had to double check, this is from 2018 lol

[asianshoegaze]

Why would Chinese trolls waste their time breaking through the firewall just to shitpost on a think tank debate video?