Editor's note: Tom Fowdy graduated from Oxford University's China Studies Program and majored in politics at Durham University. He writes about international relations focusing on China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Several days ago it was announced in major American newspapers that the United States Army would be seeking to invest in new sources of "rare earths" - defined as "chemically similar metallic elements" in the construction of military equipment and hardware. Although the reports didn't focus in any particular country or source, two days later the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed and in it, the name "China" appeared 69 times. A goal was stipulated "that the United States will eliminate dependency on rare earth materials from China by the fiscal year 2035."

Thus, the provision calls for America once again to diversify its supply chains and follow the agenda of "decoupling"  which is being pushed by several hawkish congressmen, with the goal of completely detaching the economies of China and the United States, which may intensify global competition and a "Cold War" like environment. On this matter, congressmen are obviously arguing that the supply of Chinese minerals and metals to American military manufacturing is a threat to their national security and making it "dependent" upon a hostile power.

But is this true? History shows their provisions are misleading. Interdependence is not threatening, but it is instead moderating, perhaps that is why certain congressmen don't want such. Ties with China do not constrain or overwhelm the United States but push both countries to come to terms with the existence of the other. It is a mantra which works both ways, and the history of European integration should be used as a model to follow this and secure American interests, rather than the fanatical belief that the only way forward is "confrontation" and the misleading hype that Beijing is a threat to American values.

The logic behind this phenomenon of "decoupling" is derived from the misleading depiction of China-U.S. relations as a zero-sum game that is hurting America. Since the Trump Administration came into power, there is a persistent belief that the U.S. does not benefit from a robust relationship with Beijing, with the status quo being misrendered into threatening terms. It stems from the belief that ties with China were supposed to "change" the country to suit an American vision, and that co-existence was therefore conditional on the progressive evolution of the country to U.S. terms.

This sentiment has developed into sporadic "China threat" rhetoric and thus the goal of some politicians that for the U.S. to stand up for itself, stop "strengthening China" and thus a move to "decouple" itself from it, prevent "dependency" upon and pursue confrontation on the global stage. This has been a driving motivation behind the technology war Washington has pursued against Beijing, in terms of blacklistings, and now in its latest manifestation that the United States should not depend on "rare earths" from China be it in the fields of both military and non-military matters.

But is it all true? It seems some are unwilling to accept co-existence with China and the recognition that these kinds of policies create a vicious circle, or perhaps that is the goal. Interdependence is not a threat, but a moderating and mutually constraining incentive. After World War II, West Germany sought to remilitarize itself, however France having been invaded by its neighbor for centuries, feared this prospect. To resolve this matter, the countries commenced the process of European integration along with others by reaching an agreement in the Treaty of Paris in 1951 that stipulated joint sharing of coal and steel communities to induce interdependence, thus making the prospect of war strategically unthinkable, and like that the European Coal and Steel Community, a predecessor of the European Union was born.

What does this teach us? It teaches us that there are ways, mechanisms, and ideas whereby the United States and China could resolve their mutual suspicions by effectively becoming more, not less dependent on each other. What U.S. politicians ignore when pursuing this "decoupling" agenda is that China is not exploiting the United States, but is reliant upon it: therefore Beijing cannot and does not desire to "displace" or challenge the U.S. in terms of its hegemonic capabilities. Instability and turmoil in America hurt China. This is why having a comprehensive trade deal is more important, than not having one.

Therefore, if hawkish congressmen continue to get their way, the agenda of decoupling does not make America safer, more secure or prosperous, but instead creates a more uncertain, insecure, and unstable global order more prone to conflict, disruption, and turmoil. This aspiration of a new Cold War environment is not beneficial to anyone, the need for the two countries to secure a space for co-existence is more urgent than ever before.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)