The global economy is collapsing, exacerbated by the
epidemic. While the global economic slowdown is being felt, the question of
whether the intensifying competition between the United States and China will
spark a possible war in the Asia-Pacific
region remains on the agenda.
Although the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine are
causing concern in the West, Biden and his team continue to see China as the greatest threat to the United States.
The USA, which attempted to integrate China into the
system in the early 2000s, was replaced by the USA, which attempted to separate
China from the system and substitute Western-centered/discursive
structures.
In this case, we can argue that China benefits from
the existing system. However, we must acknowledge that, while it benefits from
the system as a whole, the free market has its own rules, such as regulating it with state-owned enterprises.
The fact that China, which provides cheap labor to the
United States and other Western countries, has begun to defy the international
liberal order by enlisting Russia as a partner has raised fears that the United
States will lose its global leadership.
On the other hand, following the conflict in Ukraine,
a militarist approach began to dominate in the Asia-Pacific region. The
region's armament gradually increased. SIPRI
statistics published in 2022 confirm this.
The US has shifted a significant portion of its
military weight to the region for a long time.
In fact, we can trace the origins of this process back
to Barack Obama's -pivot to Asia- strategy.
This process, which has become increasingly complex
with the "trade wars" of
the Trump era and with the persistent "Chinese
threat" discourse that continued under Biden, it has become closer to
conflict.
Although Australia once had a very close trade
relationship with China, it has now adopted the most hawkish stance toward China. Similarly, Japan is trying to make
armament and reactivating its military power.
While a more nationalist administration takes power in
South Korea, North Korea is about to ignite the region by focusing on missile tests.
In their competition with China, the United States
appears to have focused solely on military elements and strategies. It is also
busy taking practical steps to strengthen the regional allied structure and
organize more quickly.
In this context, it is necessary to assess the steps
taken in relation to AUKUS and QUAD.
The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the most
recent ASEAN summit are examples of
trade initiatives. However, it is important to note that these are not/cannot
be very effective in the strategic context of the overall fight against China.
On the other
hand, there is a new normal in which global trust in politics and diplomacy has
declined.
The popularity of autocratic approaches among the
public and administrators, as well as the prominence of action-oriented
political approaches and interventionist military strategies over values,
demonstrates this.
The competition between the United States and China
adds to the weight of this approach. Both sides' language about the competition
is extremely harsh and devoid of compromise.
On the
coming decades of competition, there are three points of view:
Graham
Allison proposes the Thucydides Trap approach as the first.
Based on a historical analogy, this approach contends
that the United States will try to prevent China's rise, just as Sparta
attacked Athens because she was afraid of Athens' rise, and thus fall into Thucydides' trap.
Some may find it analogical, but Allison's work is a
coherent piece based on historical examples. He is, however, a reductionist. As
a result, concrete conditions, their transformation, and the effects of
independent factors are all important.
The second approach to the US-China rivalry is that it
is a new cold war. With his periodic statements, Henry Kissinger, in particular, inflames this debate. There are
also numerous viewpoints that compare the current situation to that of
pre-World War I and World War II.
Those who oppose this model generally argue that the
USSR and China are distinct structures and that the great powers' economic
dependence has never been greater than it is today.
They also mention game-changing element, such as technology.
The third approach contends that this model of
competition has a distinct structure, and that conceptual frameworks such as
the Thucydides Trap or the Cold War are "ineffective" for
comprehending it.
While I am wary of analogical frameworks, I see no
harm in employing the concept of the New Cold War. Furthermore, I do not
believe that any researcher who attempts to explain this model within the
context of the 'Cold War' does so
with a clear definition of the concept.
On the contrary, by including the word
"new," the concept of "new
cold war" attempts to explain how the cold war, which has categorical
features in some ways, has become more complex and unique with the addition of
new dimensions today.
There is no ideological center of gravity in this new
Cold War. There is a conflict that is based on 'interests' rather than values.
The United States, on the other hand, believes that the battle can be won on a
more ideological basis, with values taking precedence over interests.
However, the United States' biggest blunder may be
right here. Rather than ideological competition, there is a situation that is
structured more on interests and their effects on real-politics, such as supply
chains, which cause major problems in the event of disruption.
As a result, the complex and new rivalry model that
has emerged between the United States and China stands out as one with hybrid
characteristics, but also includes the characteristics and potential effects of
the cold war, which have spread to almost every aspect of relations.
The post-World War II consensus has long been
fractured. The fault lines formed as a result of this fragmentation have a
significant impact on geopolitics. There is a trend toward multipolarity, and
the interesting thing is that the United States is strengthening this process
with every move it makes, exacerbating the existing uncertainty.
In such an uncertain environment, a war between the
United States and China in the Asia-Pacific region is not ruled out. Existing
evidence suggests that the process is moving in that direction. However, the
costs and prolonged fatigue brought on by the economic slowdown are pushing the
parties into an protracted hybrid war.
This is also advantageous for allies who want to
suffer the least amount of damage on a global scale.
As a result, the ongoing rivalry between the US and
China is “an unrestricted and strategic Hybrid Cold War
(HSS). Unlimited because it happens on all fronts, from health to
economy.It is cold because it is inclined towards bloc politics.
It’s hybrid because it is not based on ‘conventional warfare.’
Dr.Hüseyin Korkmaz. The author is a researcher focusing on China and geopolitics in the Asia, primarily related to the US-China relations.
0 Comments