<
https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/imagining-the-endgame-of-the-us-china-rivalry/>
"The American rivalry with China continues to deepen, characterised on both
sides by zero-sum expectations and paranoia. Tensions are rising over Taiwan
and the South China Sea. There is an increasingly bitter contest for the
commanding heights of science and technology, disputes over economic and cyber
strategies, and much else. More concerning may be that neither side appears to
have any vision of a world beyond their rivalry. America’s strategy seems
predicated on relentless, unending competition; its definition of success is
getting and staying ahead of China in a dozen areas. There is no concept, in
other words, of how this rivalry might end.
Yet most rivalries do end. In 1805 the leaders of Britain and France could
hardly have imagined that within a few decades they would transcend their
age-old hostility to become geopolitical partners. Not every rivalry produces
such comprehensive reversals, but even the most intractable stand-offs can
evolve into something less volatile. In
How Rivalries End, Karen Rasler,
William Thompson, and Sumit Ganguly explain that, of all great power rivalries
since 1816, only three endured for a century. On average, they lasted about 60
years. If we take the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 as the
starting point, the current US-China contest has already lasted longer than
that. Even using the more recent intensification of the rivalry of around 2010
as a starting point, we’re almost a quarter of the way through the average
length.
It is a mistake, therefore, to approach this rivalry without any theory of how
it might conclude. The case for competing vigorously to deny certain Chinese
ambitions is self-evident, and the US-China relationship has distinct features
– such as stark cultural differences – that will complicate any effort to
transcend the rivalry. Adding a conception of an endgame would strengthen the
US hand in the ongoing competition and help steer the contest in ways that
prevent disaster.
American strategy today focuses on progressively outperforming China in a
series of ongoing competitions: military, economic, technological and
diplomatic. Endgames are left mostly unstated, out of a belief that too much
focus on outcomes is pointless and may even be counterproductive.
Current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Deputy Secretary of State
Kurt Campbell laid out a version of this approach in a 2019 essay in
Foreign
Affairs. ‘Rather than relying on assumptions about China’s trajectory’, they
wrote, ‘American strategy should be durable whatever the future brings for the
Chinese system. It should seek to achieve not a definitive end state akin to
the Cold War’s ultimate conclusion but a steady state of clear-eyed coexistence
on terms favorable to US interests and values.’
A steady state of clear-eyed coexistence – this is the long-term vision, an
endless struggle for predominance with elements of self-interested cooperation
mixed in. Coexistence, they concluded, ‘means accepting competition as a
condition to be managed rather than a problem to be solved’."
Via
Fix the News:
<
https://fixthenews.com/goodnews-aids-lgbtq-south-korea-canada-marine-protection/>
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
