Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In today's geopolitical context, advocates of multilateralism in the US contend that it serves to manage conflicts, prevent escalation, and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. Detractors point to national security concerns and unfair economic competition. In the case of multilateralism and China, critics argue that Beijing's technological advancements, particularly in areas such as 5G, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity, pose risks to US national security. Critics further point to China's state-led industrial policies and practices, such as subsidies, market access restrictions, and forced technology transfers, as unfair. Differing views amongst the US foreign policy elite lead to three coalitions vying for policy adoption in the case of multilateralism and China: one arguing for continued engagement, believing that integration and collaboration can lead to shared benefits, improved global standards, and the diffusion of technological advancements. A second group wants to weaponise strategic technologies to gain advantages in the great power competition. The third coalition advocates for a flexilateral approach that employs selective decoupling to limit technological interdependence and reduce reliance on Chinese critical supply chains. This paper employs the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to examine the policy beliefs held by these three coalitions in the US dialogue during the Biden era. It uses media and document analyses to examine specific policy positions and goals and to measure coalition strengths and limitations. The findings reveal the dominance of a flexilateral approach in US foreign policy towards multilateralism and China, reflecting continued geopolitical concerns that technological competition has become a primary arena of great-power rivalry.
Haar et al. (Thu,) studied this question.