Phrasing and terminological distinctions possess substantive importance. In foreign policy, conversations sometimes involve references to “the Chinese,” “the Russians," etc. that are at best lazy and imprecise—and at worst offensive, counterproductive, even potentially dangerous.

Now more than ever, words matter, especially in discussions of U.S.-China relations in a moment of rising xenophobia in both countries. Say “the Chinese military,” "the Chinese government,” or “the Chinese Communist Party”—or Xi Jinping himself— when that’s the intended meaning.

Those of us who work in foreign policy and national security must be better in emphasizing such distinctions in our speaking, writing, and discussion of complex issues in U.S.-China relations for clarity and to avoid inadvertently exacerbating prejudice and discrimination.

Often there is a tendency to view concerns of civil rights and national security as at odds or unrelated, but we must recognize the inextricable entanglement of these issues—and the potential consequences when we fail to consider risks of negative externalities in policy debates.

I'd urge against careless references to "our adversaries," since an image of "China" as "the enemy" in public perception can have consequences. Some Americans, especially those acting from hate, can't or won't differentiate—and may direct enmity toward Asian American communities.

Those of us who focus on U.S.-China relations must listen to and learn from the concerns and important initiatives of AAPI community organizations, including @AAAJ_AAJC and @NCAPAtweets, that have been sounding the alarm about the surge of hate crimes in the midst of the crisis.

And within the field of foreign policy and national security professionals, we must listen to the concerns and amplify the voices of our colleagues from the AAPI community about not only current concerns but also systemic issues and prejudices within and beyond the field.

As someone who seeks to be an ally and to become more active and engaged as an ally, I recognize that I have so much to learn about these issues, and I'm trying to do the work to continue that learning. I hope we can continue such difficult and important discussions in the field.

As a point to start from, the very least that we can do in day-to-day discussions of foreign policy and national security is to choose our words with care—and to be open to hearing critiques and concerns about the connotation or potential externalities of our words and our work.