Introduction:
The rise of China as an economic and geopolitical powerhouse has challenged the dominance of the United States, giving rise to a complex rivalry that extends across various domains. The intensifying rivalry between the United States and China has increasingly drawn other countries into a delicate balancing act. As the two largest economies vie for dominance in various domains, there is a growing tendency to compel other nations to take sides. However, this approach carries significant dangers, not only for the countries involved but also for global stability and prosperity. The idea is to explore the risks and consequences of compelling countries to take sides in the U.S.-China rivalry and advocates for a more nuanced and constructive approach to international relations. The significance of understanding the evolving dynamics between China and the United States drew many lessons from Cold War-era and how the Sino-American competition should be managed to avoid any déjà-vu crises in the future while shedding light on the dangers of compelling countries to take sides. (1)
In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, often described as a new Cold War, the rivalry between the U.S. and China presents unique challenges that differ from the historical US-Soviet confrontation. While direct conflict was avoided, the superpowers engaged in numerous proxy wars in third-party countries, such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. These conflicts allowed the U.S. and the Soviet Union to assert their dominance and influence without direct confrontation. Unlike the ideological divide of the old Cold War, the new tensions are driven by a complex interplay of economic competition, technological dominance, and regional influence.
The Danger of Compulsion:
Compelling countries to take sides in the U.S.-China rivalry poses several dangers, both for the countries involved and for the broader international community. For smaller and less powerful nations, just casting the perception of a choice or being forced to choose between the two superpowers can result in a loss of agency and autonomy, as well as increased vulnerability to coercion and manipulation. Moreover, taking sides risks exacerbating existing tensions and conflicts, leading to regional instability and even military confrontation. (2)
Therefore, any efforts to rally like-minded countries and pressure nations to take one side against the other are unlikely to persuade countries to give up their neutrality and strategic flexibility. At the worst, it may lead to more tension and end up alienating some countries or even driving them into the other side’s embrace. On the one hand, there is little that the U.S. can do that would significantly reduce China’s already deeply entrenched economic and political influence in Asia, Latin America or Africa. In the other hand, it is difficult for China to break the security and military bond that the U.S. had built over the years with Europe or countries like Japan, South Keoria, and Taiwan. Thus, insisting on countries to side with one of them will only highlight the limitations of both superpowers in learning from the Cold War-era crise. (3)
Navigating Economic Decoupling Between China and the United States
A scenario of an economic decoupling has emerged as the process of reducing interdependence between the two largest economies. Several factors drive the growing momentum towards economic decoupling between China and the United States. Geopolitical tensions, particularly regarding issues such as trade imbalances, intellectual property rights, and national security concerns, all of them have led both countries to reassess their economic relationship. As national security and geopolitical considerations move to the forefront for both, multilateral options will likely struggle for attention. Furthermore, many developing countries risk being caught in the crossfire of trade disputes or face growing pressure to take sides in economic conflicts they neither want nor need. (4)
The Trump administration’s “America First” policies, including tariffs and restrictions on Chinese technology companies, accelerated the process of decoupling by prioritizing domestic interests over global integration. Additionally, divergent economic ideologies and regulatory frameworks, such as China’s state-led development model versus America’s market-oriented approach, have exacerbated tensions and fueled calls for decoupling.
From the Chinese perspective, decoupling represents a strategic shift characterized by China’s transition from a focus on economic growth to one centered around economic control. This shift entails pursuing three key objectives: First, reducing Dependence: China aims to diminish its reliance on foreign countries and corporations for critical technology and products, thereby enhancing its economic resilience and sovereignty. Second, promoting indigenous firms: Another goal is to facilitate the dominance of domestic companies within China’s economy, fostering the growth and competitiveness of indigenous firms across various sectors. Third, enhancing Global Competitiveness: By leveraging the dominance of its domestic companies, China seeks to bolster its position in the global marketplace, enabling its firms to compete more effectively on the international stage. (5)
However, several challenges to economic decoupling hinder its realization, leading to the emergence of a new scenario: “derisking” instead of “decoupling.” This pragmatic approach to managing relations between China and the United States acknowledges the complexities and benefits of their economic interdependence while seeking to mitigate associated risks. Unlike decoupling, which entails a complete severance of economic ties, derisking aims to reduce vulnerability to potential disruptions while maintaining avenues for cooperation and engagement.
Derisking involves diversifying supply chains, enhancing regulatory frameworks, and promoting resilience in key sectors to mitigate geopolitical and economic risks. By adopting these measures, derisking offers a more balanced path towards stability, sustainability, and cooperation, thereby avoiding tensions that might lead to confrontation in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. In essence, derisking strives to safeguard the benefits of economic interdependence while addressing its potential drawbacks, ensuring a more secure and cooperative global economic environment.
Xi Jinping’s Global Ambition:
President Xi Jinping has always strived for equal footing with the United States’ president. As Wang Jiangyu, a law professor at City University of Hong Kong, aptly put it: “Xi would want to be seen on the global stage as a statesman whose influence at least equals that of the U.S. leader.”
Xi sees himself not merely as a national leader but as a global statesman who aims to elevate China’s position on the world stage to rival, if not equal, that of the United States. He envisions China as an alternative to the current world system, promoting new initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to enhance its influence and create a network of economic dependencies. This initiative is not only a source of national pride but also a tool for extending China’s geopolitical reach. Xi’s ambition is deeply rooted in a historical context referred to as the “Century of Humiliation,” a period from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century during which China faced subjugation by foreign powers. Xi often references this period to emphasize the importance of national rejuvenation, or the “Chinese Dream.” Understanding Xi’s vision requires an examination of China’s domestic achievements, strategic initiatives, and the implications for global politics.
Xi’s strategy involves a multifaceted approach to positioning China as a global leader, which includes military modernization, diplomatic engagement, and technological leadership. This approach heralds a new era of competition and potential collaboration between the two superpowers, visible in several areas:
Trade and Economics: The trade war initiated during the Trump administration and continued tensions under Biden reflect the economic rivalry between China and the U.S. Each nation is striving to protect its economic interests and technological advancements.
Geopolitical Alliances: Countries around the world are increasingly being drawn into the sphere of influence of either China or the U.S. Nations must navigate this complex landscape, balancing economic benefits from China’s investments against traditional alliances with the U.S.
Global Governance: The push for influence in international organizations by both countries could lead to either a reformed multilateral system that incorporates the interests of both powers or a fragmented global order with competing blocs. (6)
The Future of Rivalry:
Looking ahead, the rivalry between China and the United States is expected to intensify, driven by competing interests and ideological differences. Exploring various scenarios for future developments, including the possibility of conflict escalation and the potential for diplomatic resolution, requires examining the role of other global actors and the implications for the broader international order. This involves understanding how countries may align themselves, the strategies they might adopt to navigate the evolving geopolitical landscape, and the potential impacts on global stability and cooperation.
Furthermore, instead of compelling countries to take sides, a more nuanced approach to international relations is needed—one that prioritizes dialogue, cooperation, and respect for diversity and sovereignty. This approach recognizes that countries have different interests, values, and priorities, and seeks to find common ground and build partnerships based on mutual respect and benefit. Moreover, it acknowledges that global challenges require collective solutions and emphasizes the importance of multilateralism and inclusive decision-making processes.
Conclusion:
The remarkable achievement of avoiding direct conflict during the old Cold War was the result of a complex interplay of deterrence, diplomacy, and pragmatic engagement. As the world navigates a new era of geopolitical rivalry, drawing lessons from the past and adapting to present realities is crucial for the international community to avoid falling into the trap of taking sides in the unfolding rivalry between the two superpowers. Establishing new frameworks for dialogue, enhancing transparency, and building mutual trust are essential steps in preventing the new Cold War from escalating into a proxy war or, worse, a direct conflict that could threaten global peace.
However, China’s quest to be seen as a global superpower whose influence equals that of the U.S. will likely escalate tensions, creating a level of distrust that could lead to direct confrontation in the future. China’s ambition, supported by economic growth and military modernization, while rooted in historical context and national pride, aims to position itself as a formidable power on the world stage. This will have far-reaching implications for global trade, geopolitical alliances, and international governance. As the U.S. continues to assert its dominance and China seeks a more prominent role, we will witness a complex interplay of competition, cooperation, and recalibration of global power dynamics.
In conclusion, while the old Cold War provides valuable lessons, the unique dynamics of the U.S.-China rivalry require innovative approaches and sustained efforts to ensure that history does not repeat itself in a more dangerous and uncertain context. Understanding these dynamics and preparing for their implications will be key to maintaining stability and promoting growth in the evolving global landscape. Ensuring that nations work collaboratively, prioritize dialogue, and embrace multilateral solutions will be essential in navigating the complexities of the new world order and fostering a more stable and prosperous future.
CpVRqrBsTWnX