Embrace the Moment: Why Pragmatism Is Shaping the Next Phase of US China Relations
A realist view from a seasoned diplomat
Former US ambassador to Vietnam Daniel Kritenbrink has urged policymakers to approach China with realism rather than nostalgia, arguing that a return to earlier eras of US China relations is neither possible nor productive. His message is grounded in experience across Asia and reflects a broader reassessment taking place in Washington and other capitals. The global environment has changed, and so have the interests, capabilities, and expectations of both countries. According to this view, the challenge is not to restore an imagined past but to manage a complex present.
Why the past cannot be recreated
Calls to return to periods of deep engagement overlook structural shifts that now define the bilateral relationship. China’s economic scale, technological capacity, and geopolitical reach are far greater than they were during earlier phases of cooperation. At the same time, domestic politics in the United States have hardened toward Beijing, with bipartisan skepticism shaping trade, security, and technology policy. Kritenbrink’s argument recognizes that these realities make sweeping resets unrealistic. Instead, progress must come from targeted cooperation and disciplined competition.
Economic interdependence still matters
Despite rising tensions, the economic relationship between the two countries remains deeply intertwined. Supply chains, financial markets, and consumer demand link American and Chinese firms in ways that are difficult to unwind without significant cost. Kritenbrink emphasizes that both sides continue to benefit from stable economic ties, even as they diversify and protect sensitive sectors. Pragmatism here means acknowledging mutual benefit while managing risk, rather than pursuing abrupt decoupling that could destabilize global markets.
Pragmatism over ideology
A key element of the former ambassador’s message is the need to prioritize outcomes over ideological purity. This does not imply ignoring differences on governance, human rights, or security, but it does suggest separating areas of disagreement from areas where cooperation is possible. Climate change, public health, and macroeconomic stability are frequently cited examples where engagement serves shared interests. Pragmatism, in this sense, is about sequencing and focus rather than concession.
Managing competition without escalation
Another dimension of the pragmatic approach is crisis management. As strategic competition intensifies, the risk of miscalculation grows, particularly in flashpoints involving Taiwan, the South China Sea, and advanced technology. Kritenbrink’s stance aligns with calls for clearer communication channels and guardrails that reduce the chance of accidental escalation. Accepting that rivalry is a long term condition allows both sides to invest in mechanisms that keep competition bounded.
Implications for global partners
US China relations do not exist in isolation. Allies and partners across Asia, Europe, and the Global South are watching closely, often seeking stability rather than alignment with confrontation. A pragmatic approach reassures these actors that engagement and trade will not be sacrificed to symbolic posturing. It also reflects the reality that many countries depend on both economies and prefer a predictable relationship between them.
Embracing the moment ahead
Kritenbrink’s message to embrace the moment is ultimately a call for strategic maturity. It recognizes limits, accepts complexity, and focuses on achievable goals. The future of US China relations is unlikely to be defined by dramatic breakthroughs or total breakdowns. Instead, it will be shaped by incremental decisions that balance competition with cooperation. In a world marked by uncertainty, pragmatism may be less inspiring than grand visions, but it is increasingly the path most likely to deliver stability.
