Debating the dragon: Priorities in United States policy towards China, 1989--1998

International transitions such as the end of the Cold War open up political space for fundamental debates about foreign policy. These debates produce competing interpretations of the new international environment and political conflict over foreign policy priorities. This ideational approach to foreign policy analysis explains why US China policy was so inconsistent from 1989–1998. A coherent foreign policy requires a shared set of ideas—a foreign policy paradigm—to help formulate policy, coordinate implementation, and mobilize resources. Lack of consensus results in increased conflict over goals, disagreements about the effectiveness of means, and greater scope for bureaucratic and domestic interests. Political leaders must consciously shape foreign policy beliefs in order to implement a consistent foreign policy.; From 1989–1998 China policy became the battleground for a broader debate about priorities in American foreign policy. Normative, causal, and cost ideas became vital tools as individuals and groups sought to shape beliefs and preferences to build support for their policy goals. This dissertation shows how this debate about ideas affected China policy. Normative arguments about the importance of human rights were widely accepted, but human rights groups were unable to show how rapid improvements in human lights conditions in China could be achieved. Business groups defeated efforts to link trade and human rights by successfully promoting the alternative causal argument that economic engagement with China would eventually improve human rights conditions and promote political change.; The China threat arguments that have dominated the policy debate since 1996 involve competing causal beliefs about the positive or negative impact of economic growth on future Chinese intentions. Uncertainty about which beliefs are right led the Clinton administration to adopt a strategy of engaging China while maintaining a strong military presence in Asia as a hedge. The administration's failure to articulate the proper relationship between economic and security interests made it vulnerable to charges that it was neglecting American security, resulting in partisan attacks that undercut efforts to stabilize relations with China. Inconsistent US policy has fueled Chinese nationalism, making it harder for engagement to succeed in moderating Chinese behavior.