Guest blogger Roy Kamphausen is the director and vice president for political and security affairs of the Washington Office of the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR).

Perhaps the issue that inspired the most discussion at Monday’s Asia Policy Debate was over the degree and type of engagement that the next U.S. administration should pursue with China. In contrast to some previous U.S. presidential elections, there was agreement between the campaigns that the United States should pursue the broadest and deepest engagement possible with China across a wide range of issues.

Both campaigns agreed that including China is critical to the addressing of any number of regional and global challenges, from trade and economic development, to counterterrorism and climate change, to regional peace and security. Both teams of advisers said they would urge their respective candidate to visit Asia – and especially China – early and often in their administration. They agreed that the first stops on the president’s trip should be to U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. They both also agreed that the areas of overlap and cooperation between the United States and China will only continue to grow, and that the United States should encourage and build on these positive areas of engagement, while at the same time reinvigorating our traditional alliances and relationships in the region to hedge against any potentially negative outcomes of China’s rise.

Obama/Biden argued that U.S.-China cooperation is especially important in addressing the current financial challenges, given China’s ownership of $400 billion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alone. They also spoke of potential ways to further integrate China into the global architecture, such as by exploring its potential membership in the G-8. However, they argued that the United States should encourage more sustained and sustainable growth in China, including increased domestic consumption, that it should pursue trade adjustment assistance to protect American workers, and that we must address the continued economic distortions of countries like China as they grow and integrate into the global economy.

The McCain/Palin camp focused on the need to stand up for free trade and open markets in Asia in the wake of the financial crisis, including agreements such as that with South Korea. They noted that even though areas of shared interests with China are growing, until there is a transition in government the two countries’ shared interests will not be based on the same set of values. They argued that in order to get China “right” we must first get Asia right, which includes strengthening our bilateral alliances, particularly with Japan and South Korea, as a way to ensure a stable balance of power in the region. Thus even though the United States should welcome China’s rise and increase our engagement, there remains uncertainty about China’s future in the region, its military buildup and relations with countries like Sudan.

What do you think about China’s rise and the future of U.S.-China relations? What is the proper type and degree of engagement with China? Please post your comments below.