In this week’s edition of the “Diplomat”, there is an examination of “how the US and China perceive the nature of their contest and plot their paths to success, (so) we can better anticipate the trajectory of this competition” into which we are inevitably embroiled.
“The US’ theory of victory centres on comprehensively undermining China’s rise while preserving US global pre-eminence. Ultimately, it seeks to force China to accept a subordinate role in the US-led global order or risk economic stagnation and diplomatic isolation. In the technological realm, it has implemented stringent measures to maintain its superiority – such as in advanced semiconductor chips. Economically, it is employing a multi-pronged approach to “de-risk” its economy while constraining China’s growth and its ability to fund military expansion – by developing alternative supply chains, etc. Diplomatically, it is strengthening its position through a network of alliances and partnerships, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, such as with QUAD.
In contrast, as the challenger, China’s theory of victory revolves around the concept of comprehensive national power and a more indirect approach to outgrowing the US. A cornerstone of China’s approach is achieving technological self-reliance. Economically, China is focused on expanding its global presence and influence, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Militarily, it is modernising its conventional and nuclear forces with a focus on anti-access/area denial capabilities. China believes that as more countries align with it economically and diplomatically, the US will find itself increasingly isolated and unable to dictate global norms.
The contrasting theories of victory adopted by the United States and China reflect fundamentally different worldviews and strategic cultures. While the US adopts a more direct containment approach, China pursues a more indirect, multifaceted strategy of accumulating comprehensive national power. This divergence largely stems from their respective positions – the US as the incumbent superpower seeking to maintain its primacy, and China as the rising challenger aiming to reshape the international order in its favour.
The effectiveness of these strategies remains to be seen. The US approach may succeed in slowing China’s technological advancement and limiting its global influence in the short term. However, it risks alienating allies and neutral countries who may be reluctant to choose sides. China’s more subtle approach could gradually erode US influence, but it may struggle to overcome growing international scepticism about its intentions and methods, particularly as its economic growth slows and its demographic challenges intensify.
For the global order and smaller countries, this strategic competition has profound implications. The world is likely to see increased fragmentation in technology standards, trade networks, and even value systems. Smaller nations may find themselves under stronger pressure to align with either the United States or China in different domains, potentially leading to a new form of bloc politics. However, this also presents opportunities for astute middle powers to leverage the competition to their advantage, potentially by playing both sides or forming their own coalitions.
The intensifying rivalry could accelerate technological innovation but also raise the risks of conflict, particularly in flashpoints like Taiwan or the South China Sea. It may also complicate global cooperation on pressing issues such as climate change, pandemic preparedness, and nuclear non-proliferation.
Even if not complete, attempts at economic de-risking may lead to the creation of parallel systems in finance, technology, and trade. This could increase resilience in some areas, but also reduce overall global economic efficiency and potentially slow growth.
Ultimately, the outcome of this contest will shape the rules, norms, and power dynamics of the 21st century. As the theories of victory of both powers continue to play out, the world must navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by this new era of great power competition. Other nations’ ability to defend their autonomy and foster cooperation in critical areas may determine whether this strategic competition leads to a more fragmented and conflict-prone world or to a new, stable international order that accommodates both established and rising powers.”
