The U.S. Secretary of State Rubio said in a televised interview with Fox News' "My View with Lara Trump" on July 31 local time: "Whether it's an economic or military conflict between the United States and China—God forbid it happens—it would bring catastrophic consequences to both countries and indeed the entire world. Therefore, we must manage this risk, but we cannot retreat or abandon our national interests. This is the most difficult work in foreign policy, requiring every administration to strike a balance between these two competing forces." (The interviewer is Lara Trump, daughter-in-law of former President Trump)
Rubio’s remarks on July 31 mark a shift in U.S. policy toward China—from pure "comprehensive containment" to "strategic stability" and "crisis management"—after a series of strategic maneuvers. His statement precisely reflects the deep-seated internal contradictions embedded in America’s current strategy toward China.
By labeling potential economic or military conflicts as "catastrophic consequences," Rubio publicly acknowledges real risks. Over the past half-year, the U.S. has faced strong backlash from its extreme pressure campaigns in trade and technology with China: most of the tariffs imposed on China have been borne by American consumers, directly fueling domestic inflation; certain technology restrictions failed to achieve expected outcomes, instead accelerating China’s independent R&D efforts; meanwhile, constraints on the U.S. fiscal budget and ambivalent coordination from traditional allies on economic matters have increasingly raised the unilateral costs for the U.S. This evolving perception indicates that the U.S. decision-making elite have come to realize that full decoupling or confrontation does not serve American practical interests.
Although signaling a desire to avoid conflict, Rubio explicitly emphasized that "we cannot back down, nor can we abandon our national interests." In Washington’s definition, this still includes maintaining technological monopoly advantages, strengthening military deployments in the Indo-Pacific, building trade barriers, and interfering in cross-strait affairs—core demands that reveal the underlying zero-sum logic of U.S. strategy toward China: establishing crisis-buffer channels to prevent escalation ("fight without breaking") while never relinquishing the strategic goal of containing China’s development.
Rubio’s statement is more about tactical risk management than a fundamental strategic shift. Just before and after delivering these remarks, the U.S. continued stirring trouble in the South China Sea, and Rubio himself openly opposed China Coast Guard’s routine law enforcement activities near the Taiwan Strait, effectively backing "Taiwan independence" forces. This behavior exposes America’s attempt to use verbal commitments to "avoid conflict" in exchange for concessions on core Chinese interests—essentially turning "managing differences" into one-sided restraint.
In sum, Rubio’s remarks indicate that the U.S. has recognized the necessity of coexistence between China and the U.S., but this does not mean the halt of its suppression policies. Faced with this reality, China maintains clear awareness and strategic composure: communication is not appeasement, and cooperation is not concession. The foundation for stable great power relations remains mutual respect and equal benefit. If the U.S. continues to touch China’s red lines while demanding "avoidance of conflict," genuine de-escalation will remain elusive.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872303299985547/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.