What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy
How the U.S. policy of competition with China is detrimental to democracy, peace, and prosperity—and how a saner approach is possible
For close to a decade, the U.S. government has been preoccupied with the threat of China, fearing that the country will “eat our lunch,” in the words of Joe Biden. The United States has crafted its foreign and domestic policy to help constrain China’s military power and economic growth. Van Jackson and Michael Brenes argue that great-power competition with China is misguided and vastly underestimates the costs and risks that geopolitical rivalry poses to economic prosperity, the quality of democracy, and, ultimately, global stability.
This in-depth assessment of the trade-offs and pitfalls of protracted competition with China reveals how such a policy exacerbates inequality, leads to xenophobia, and increases the likelihood of violence around the world. In addition, it distracts from the priority of addressing such issues as climate change while at the same time undercutting democratic pluralism and sacrificing liberty in the name of prevailing against an enemy “other.” Jackson and Brenes provide an informed and urgent critique of current U.S. foreign policy and a road map toward a saner, more democratically accountable strategy of easing tension and achieving effective diplomacy.
For close to a decade, the U.S. government has been preoccupied with the threat of China, fearing that the country will “eat our lunch,” in the words of Joe Biden. The United States has crafted its foreign and domestic policy to help constrain China’s military power and economic growth. Van Jackson and Michael Brenes argue that great-power competition with China is misguided and vastly underestimates the costs and risks that geopolitical rivalry poses to economic prosperity, the quality of democracy, and, ultimately, global stability.
This in-depth assessment of the trade-offs and pitfalls of protracted competition with China reveals how such a policy exacerbates inequality, leads to xenophobia, and increases the likelihood of violence around the world. In addition, it distracts from the priority of addressing such issues as climate change while at the same time undercutting democratic pluralism and sacrificing liberty in the name of prevailing against an enemy “other.” Jackson and Brenes provide an informed and urgent critique of current U.S. foreign policy and a road map toward a saner, more democratically accountable strategy of easing tension and achieving effective diplomacy.
- GenresPoliticsNonfictionChina
248 pages, Hardcover
Published January 28, 2025
5 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 3, 2025
Excellent book. "A less romantic view of international struggles - past and present - is the starting point for a saner foreign policy" I've been saying that for years. In this book, Jackson and Brenes take on Washington, DC's bipartisan obsession with "confronting China". The two professors dismantle this obsession comprehensively. It doesn't take much to argue against Trump's atavistic aggression, which is why this book seems laser-focused on the intellectual arguments behind Joe Biden's nearly identical, or even more aggressive policies towards China.
It turns out there isn't much to the intellectual arguments of the Biden team. All "New Cold Warriors" imagine that the United States experienced a great victory against the Soviets, and that that victory helped us better organize ourselves politically at home. Biden's people went further and resurrected older arguments claiming that defense build-ups for great power competition actually help the working classes. Jackson, and Brenes in particular, one of the more accomplished young historians of the cold war at Yale, are well situated to point out that these justifications are mostly bullshit.
Their clear-eyed picture of the cold war and its mostly negative effects on the US home front, as well as the diminished (vanished?) returns to defense expenditure in a post-union work culture is pretty devastating. After setting the scene, they dive into the details of the China challenge and the security dilemma it poses for both countries. It turns out China is not what Fox News wants us to believe it is.
I'd say I agreed with 95% of what this book suggests. The idea of fighting for Taiwan militarily is impracticably costly, and our attempts to encircle China and openly kill its industries must stop. I do think that some of the authors' suggestions were a bit too starry-eyed, however. I don't think, for example, that the United States should completely open its market up to China again, in order to fund debt forgiveness for poor global south countries. We should do that debt relief! But, no matter how poorly expressed the rest of their China policy is, I don't believe Biden and Trump are wrong that we should have a different trade policy to the China of today than we did when it was a tiny economy that was super excited to make our t-shirts.
Everybody, especially everybody in Washington, DC should read this book. I really appreciated the way that the authors pointed out how US-China competition makes everything worse for developing countries. Being forced to choose, or participate in a New Cold War they never asked for adds burdens smaller countries don't need, to no real benefit to the United States and China. You can look at Panama's targeting by Trump this week as a clear example. Though this book is more focused on a policy with intellectual underpinnings like Biden's the difference between Biden's and Trump's China mistakes isn't that large. This book is uncomfortably relevant today, and will remain so for years to come. A good short read.
It turns out there isn't much to the intellectual arguments of the Biden team. All "New Cold Warriors" imagine that the United States experienced a great victory against the Soviets, and that that victory helped us better organize ourselves politically at home. Biden's people went further and resurrected older arguments claiming that defense build-ups for great power competition actually help the working classes. Jackson, and Brenes in particular, one of the more accomplished young historians of the cold war at Yale, are well situated to point out that these justifications are mostly bullshit.
Their clear-eyed picture of the cold war and its mostly negative effects on the US home front, as well as the diminished (vanished?) returns to defense expenditure in a post-union work culture is pretty devastating. After setting the scene, they dive into the details of the China challenge and the security dilemma it poses for both countries. It turns out China is not what Fox News wants us to believe it is.
I'd say I agreed with 95% of what this book suggests. The idea of fighting for Taiwan militarily is impracticably costly, and our attempts to encircle China and openly kill its industries must stop. I do think that some of the authors' suggestions were a bit too starry-eyed, however. I don't think, for example, that the United States should completely open its market up to China again, in order to fund debt forgiveness for poor global south countries. We should do that debt relief! But, no matter how poorly expressed the rest of their China policy is, I don't believe Biden and Trump are wrong that we should have a different trade policy to the China of today than we did when it was a tiny economy that was super excited to make our t-shirts.
Everybody, especially everybody in Washington, DC should read this book. I really appreciated the way that the authors pointed out how US-China competition makes everything worse for developing countries. Being forced to choose, or participate in a New Cold War they never asked for adds burdens smaller countries don't need, to no real benefit to the United States and China. You can look at Panama's targeting by Trump this week as a clear example. Though this book is more focused on a policy with intellectual underpinnings like Biden's the difference between Biden's and Trump's China mistakes isn't that large. This book is uncomfortably relevant today, and will remain so for years to come. A good short read.
April 12, 2025
Definitely a book that I’ll continue to think about—an important perspective to consider as hostility between China and the US continues to develop.
September 10, 2025
A book that makes a lot of strong points, but with numerous mistakes that serve to undermine its primary points. Did this book have a serious editor? It also gobbles up the US security apparatus’s anti China propaganda, even as it claims to stand against that sort of rhetoric.
For example, the Tudeh party is described as “Mossadegh’s political party” which they most definitely were not.
On page 25, the authors negotiations between the US and Soviets were thwarted because of a fear of catastrophic nuclear confrontation, which makes no sense. Did they mean to say negotiations did not occur *despite* this fear?
The book wades deeply into anti-China propaganda, sadly eating it up hook, line, and sinker. The book actually cites Adrian Zenz in its segment about the Uyghurs. For those not in know, Zenz is a Christian anti-communist fanatic and much of his reporting on uyghurs is exaggerated and highly suspect. There is also needless alarmism about the Belt and Road Initiative and AIIB.
I have a lot of respect for the authors and it is disappointing that they waded into this suspect territory. This is a book that makes a cogent case for peaceful competition with China, but suffers from perpetuating from what I would consider to be sinophobic tropes.
For example, the Tudeh party is described as “Mossadegh’s political party” which they most definitely were not.
On page 25, the authors negotiations between the US and Soviets were thwarted because of a fear of catastrophic nuclear confrontation, which makes no sense. Did they mean to say negotiations did not occur *despite* this fear?
The book wades deeply into anti-China propaganda, sadly eating it up hook, line, and sinker. The book actually cites Adrian Zenz in its segment about the Uyghurs. For those not in know, Zenz is a Christian anti-communist fanatic and much of his reporting on uyghurs is exaggerated and highly suspect. There is also needless alarmism about the Belt and Road Initiative and AIIB.
I have a lot of respect for the authors and it is disappointing that they waded into this suspect territory. This is a book that makes a cogent case for peaceful competition with China, but suffers from perpetuating from what I would consider to be sinophobic tropes.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews