- China is challenging U.S. dominance over the international economic structure but doesn’t possess any danger to the United States’ various security partnerships.
- Despite being the second-largest military spender in the world, China still lags behind the United States and Russia in weapons sophistication.
- Cold War 2.0 must be analyzed in a multipolar framework instead of through a focus on any one state.
Instead of focusing on a single state, Cold War 2.0 must be examined through a multipolar lens as reported by National Interest.
New global competition
During Donald Trump’s presidency, the term “Cold War 2.0” was popularized in the context of U.S.-China rivalry, which has been spurned by China’s economic rise.
As the second-largest military spender after the United States with a speculated military expenditure of nearly $250 billion, China is using its military might to assert its territorial claims in the South China Sea.
China is constructing artificial islands across the SCS while also establishing its first-ever foreign military base in Djibouti at the strategic chokepoint of Bab el-Mandeb.
These actions are influencing U.S. perceptions that China’s rise as a threat and a new global competition between the United States and China for hegemonic status has begun.
Parallels Between Past and Present
The Cold War 2.0 shares similarities with the original Cold War (1945-1991) in many aspects.
First, during the Cold War, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were the two leading candidates for the title of superpower. Nuclear deterrence, on the other hand, has substantially defused the possibility of an active military conflict between the two. As a result, the US and the USSR were able to work together on key global issues such as the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis. Nonetheless, the current “trade war” between the United States and China has diminished their mutual reliance, allowing for more varied foreign policy behaviour. China has also tried to keep the US out of its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to boost China’s economic influence through a multi-channel, interconnected global framework.
Second, the United States and the Soviet Union’s Cold War competition was centred in Europe’s western and eastern sections, respectively. The United States sent military assets to Europe and founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance to prevent the USSR from expanding. The core of the US-China conflict in Asia in Cold War 2.0. To “encircle” China, the US has developed new networks of aligned states, such as the Quad (composed of the US, Japan, India, and Australia) and AUKUS (the US, United Kingdom, and Australia), and puts the US Navy into contested sea lanes on a regular basis to prevent Chinese military adventurism. Furthermore, the US has strategic partnerships with South Korea and Japan, as well as troops stationed on their soil. This force deployment follows the concept of “extended deterrence,” which entails bringing friendly governments under the US “security umbrella” in order to discourage hostile powers like China.
Third, proxy warfare was a major feature of the Cold War all over the world. Rather than participating in direct military engagement, the US and USSR funded and armed opposing groups on foreign soil, culminating in three major proxy wars: the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1955-1975), and the Afghanistan War (1979-1990). Although there is no such proxy battle between the US and China at the moment, both countries are militarily and politically supporting competing factions abroad. The “East Turkestan Islamic Movement” was recently removed from the US list of designated foreign terrorist organisations, a move that China views with scepticism. As a result, despite the fact that there is no actual proxy conflict between the US and China, their foreign policies are drawing them closer together.
Functionalism of Cold War 2.0
In today’s proceedings, ideological differences between the US and China are less noticeable.
China is also viewed by the US as a geopolitical competitor rather than an ideological threat.
Smaller countries, while influenced by Western liberalism, regard China as a business opportunity rather than a security concern.
China is challenging the United States’ supremacy over the world economic framework, but it poses no threat to the US’ multiple security alliances.
As a result, China is the world’s largest energy consumer, primarily from the Middle East, and the rapid transit of oil and gas to China has been assured thus far thanks to the presence of the US naval fleet, which is seen as a security guarantor by regional states.
Despite having the world’s second-largest military budget, China remains trails the US and Russia in terms of weapon complexity.
China, on the other hand, is reliant on a few states to expand its economic relations across different regions.
Reassessing the Future
The above discussion assesses the idea of Cold War 2.0’s uncertainties.
China is putting pressure on the United States’ economic dominance, while Russia’s strong nuclear and conventional military might represent a threat to the American military might.
To summarise, a prospective Cold War 2.0 differs from the original Cold War in that bloc politics have been replaced by nexus politics, in which contending great powers seek equidistance from middle powers.
As stated in its September 2021 Indo-Pacific policy paper, the EU’s strategic relations with the US did not hinder it from engaging China.
Second, while Sino-American rivalry is evident in the South China Sea, Russia’s role in opposing the US should not be underestimated, particularly in light of the Ukraine crisis.
Instead of focusing on a single state, Cold War 2.0 must be examined through a multipolar lens.
Did you subscribe to our newsletter?
It’s free! Click here to subscribe!
Source: National Interest
