China and Multilateralism Amid Era of Great Power Competition

December 18, 2023

About the author:

 

Introduction

The world is in the process of profound and complex changes. Global challenges are becoming more prominent, and security threats are becoming increasingly integrated, complex, and volatile. Economic globalization, multi-polarity, and rapid advancement in science and technology are three major driving forces transforming the global security landscape today. International strategic competition and contradictions are intensifying, but trends toward peace, development, and cooperation are also emerging.

Phrases like "America is back" blared following President Joe Biden's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2021, an address clearly designed to draw a line under the Donald Trump presidency and mark a new start. "We are not looking backward," Biden promised. "We are looking forward together." Yet a cornerstone of the Trump's foreign policy was: "great-power competition." "We must prepare together for a long-term strategic competition," Biden told the conference, adding that "competition with China is going to be stiff."

Unfortunately, while "great-power competition" has been Washington's favorite buzzword in recent years, it remains frustratingly narrowly defined. Indeed, most commentators skip the big questions (Why are we competing? Competing over what?) and go straight to arguing about how to achieve victory. Since possible answers to these questions range from the entirely reasonable i.e., that states should be able to conduct domestic affairs without interference, to the dangerous and utterly unrealistic i.e., that Washington should be pursuing regime change in Beijing and Moscow, it's hardly something which can be ignored in our strategic calculus.

The 2017 National Security Strategy, for example, describes the world as an "arena of continuous competition" for which the United States must prepare. This is the global strategic landscape we are confronted with today. Despite this, peaceful coexistence is still possible and attainable in spite of rhetoric, coercion, and zero-sum mentality demonstrated by the U.S.-led status quo.

 

Understanding the Enigma of Great Power Competition

In today's international order, triangular relations between China, Russia, and the U.S. are of great importance. Due to intense China-U.S. competition and the Russia-Ukraine war, many international relations scholars concur that the world has become more uncertain and dangerous. Such developments indicate that the future will be riven with divisions, with countries separated into hostile competing blocs, and geopolitics becoming a zero-sum game.  However, states have cooperated and competed in the past as well. The last century was punctuated by periodic violence: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, several wars between Israel and Arab states, and numerous small-scale wars in the Global South amongst others. During the Cold War, the risk of nuclear escalation made direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington too dangerous, but their rivalry sparked many hot conflicts and proxy wars around the world. Even the so-called unipolar moment, when the United States reigned supreme, was not free of conflict: vicious genocidal wars erupted in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia; the United States invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya; and conflict developed in Ukraine, amongst other examples.

The main drivers behind US war mongering and Great Power Competition are drastic shifts in US National Security Strategy (NSS) priorities from the 2010 NSS onwards. In NSS 2010, President Obama welcomed peaceful development of China and acknowledged China as an important actor in international affairs. However, US NSS 2017 issued by President Trump brought a drastic change, where Great Power Competition with China and Russia was unveiled as the new direction of US foreign and defense policy. A similar line with even harsher rhetoric has been adopted by President Biden in US NSS 2022. The quantitative analysis indicates that NSS 2017 contained the words "competition with China" 33 times while NSS 2022 mentions the phrase 55 times. This reality must be acknowledged when analyzing US global priorities for the future.

 

Decoding International Relations Theory and Great Power Competition
It is pertinent to refer to Security Dilemma and Power Transition Theory to decode Great Power Competition. The security dilemma in IR (international relations) refers to increase in the security of one state might result in insecurity of the other state, while A. F. K. Organski's Power Transition Theory helps in identifying the changing pattern of polarity by analyzing the factors that are contributing to systemic changes at international, domestic, societal, and individual levels. 

In the context of U.S.-China relations, we must consider the widely debated concepts "Thucydides Trap" and "Kindleberger Trap." Thucydides Trap, a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison, describes a tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon. This term has gained popularity since 2015. In contrast, the Kindleberger Trap highlights that status-quo powers' miscalculation that rising powers are not strong enough, therefore creating preemption to displace rising powers. Both these paradigms are overwhelming the US State Department and Pentagon; therefore, inevitable rivalry may escalate to a level of direct conflict between the U.S. and China when viewed from the US perspective.

US policy makers are underpinned by warmongering research from US scholars, especially, since the end of cold war in 1991 and elevation of U.S. as a unipolar power. For instance, Graham Allison's book Destined for War is a best-seller in U.S. and around the world, but the work can at best be regarded as a fiction when analyzed from the Chinese perspective, as war though possibility is not a preferred option in any scenario, but the US impetus for trumpeting war hysteria to achieve the ends of National Security Strategy to justify Great Power Competition analogy.

The U.S. has embarked upon a China containment strategy. Starting in 2012, the US Pivot to Asia strategy announced by Barack Obama's administration, aimed to build an alliance partnership in Asia-Pacific region, enhancing the presence of all three US military service personnel and capabilities around China. It also aimed to flip narratives on regional hot spot issues and create uneasy situations in the garb of freedom of navigation in air and maritime domains. Aggressive US strategies like the Indo-Pacific Strategy, AUKUS, QUAD and recently formulated trilateral U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance are intimidating and point towards unnecessary hostile posturing. The ongoing trade war, tech war, U.S.-Taiwan defense cooperation and exchange visits are highly provocative and create dangerous scenarios of miscalculation, which need to be handled pragmatically and cautiously. 

There is little to say about U.S.-Russia relations. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, US Secretary of State James Baker assured Boris Yeltsin that if Russia removed its nuclear arsenal from Eastern European countries, NATO would not move an inch eastward.

However, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in January 1995, creating a roadmap of expansion for NATO and the security architecture of Europe, which was later amplified in his book in 1997, titled "The Grand Chessboard." The NATO enlargement in 1999, 2004, and 2008 almost confirmed this roadmap.

The next stage of expansion involves countries surrounding the Black Sea, including NATO member Turkiye, and others such as Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine. If this happens, Russia would be denied its Black Sea fleet. Similarly, the proposed NATO liaison office in Japan moving from North Atlantic to North Pacific would deny or at least constrain the Russian Pacific fleet near Vladivostok. US policy makers may be overwhelmed by Mackinder's theory of Heartland and Mahan's theory of Sea Power for controlling Sea Lines of Communication in containing Russia by all means.
The outcome of Ukraine conflict will decide the future of U.S.-Russia relations. As of now, it is being portrayed as an ideological war by Russia, to strong public support. Popular terms like Neo-Nazism and attack on liberal world order have become international buzzwords. In the context of a security dilemma, NATO's eastward expansion is an existential threat for Russia; therefore, it cannot be ignored. U.S.-Russia relations in the evolving international order will continue to be a confrontational zero-sum game.

China and Multilateralism
A prominent feature of international relations post-Cold War is a notable increase in the practice of multilateral diplomacy across several levels, including the global, cross-regional, regional, and sub-regional domains. The concept of multilateral diplomacy, as used in this context, refers to the interactions that take place between nation states inside both permanent and temporary global and regional international institutions, conferences, and negotiations, involving the simultaneous participation of more than two actors. The inception of multilateral diplomacy can be traced back to the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. Nevertheless, the process of globalization during the Cold War era quickly transformed the United Nations into a platform where the East and West engaged in confrontations. The function of multilateral diplomacy was significantly limited because of an inflexible bipolar framework.

The dissolution of the bipolar global framework has ushered in a new epoch characterized by the prominence of multilateralism. The recent improvement in ties among the dominant global powers has reinvigorated the role of the United Nations Security Council. This development has led to an increased likelihood of the five permanent members, commonly referred to as the P5, reaching a consensus on significant matters pertaining to global peace and security.

Furthermore, the conclusion of the Cold War has generated impetus for the advancement of regionalism in once rigidly delineated areas characterized by opposing political and military alliances, hence augmenting intra-regional multilateral engagements. Furthermore, the feasibility and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to resolving interstate and internal disputes have increased because of the reduction in superpower competition in several geographically volatile regions.

China's support for multilateralism can be traced in the Chinese leaders' speeches at international forums. In a speech at the United Nations, the Chinese President emphasized that multilateralism is an effective measure to maintain peace and promote world development, adding that "pursuing multilateralism is inseparable from the United Nations, international law, and cooperation among countries." The world needs genuine multilateralism, and all countries should act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, refrain from pursuing unilateralism and hegemony, and should not use multilateralism as a pretext to form small circles or stir up ideological confrontation. China will continue to support the work of the United Nations and that of Secretary-General António Guterres, as well as uphold genuine multilateralism, the Chinese President highlighted.

The maintenance of multilateralism is crucial for the effective resolution of global issues, particularly when contrasted with the approaches of empire, hegemony, and balance-of-power politics. To foster effective governance and establish a durable global framework, it is crucial for the international community to prioritize the principles of multilateralism, while concurrently addressing issues pertaining to governance deficiencies. There is urgent need for reform addressing societal divides between the relevant groups.

The necessity of reform is indicated by a minimum of three dimensions within contemporary multilateralism. Initially, the establishment of multilateral institutions was undertaken with the goal of addressing challenges that emerged from intergovernmental interactions. The sole membership of these institutions was intentionally limited to nation states. Insufficient engagement has been notably evident as an increasing number and diverse range of people assume significant roles in global affairs within the context of globalization. Furthermore, the presence of hegemony casts a looming shadow over the contemporary implementation of multilateralism. The establishment of international institutions is frequently contingent upon the presence of hegemonic capacities. Furthermore, it incorporates aspects of hegemony as defined by Antonio Gramsci. The governing principles and structures of the post-war global order, which mostly emerged from European and American contexts, are commonly perceived as possessing a universal nature, implying their applicability to all nations. The current system fails to accurately represent the true nature of the rising global society, which is characterized by diversity. Furthermore, the present state of multilateralism heavily relies on the underlying assumption of individual rationality. Member states perceive multilateral institutions as an additional avenue for pursuing their national interests.

 

 

Conclusion
In this era of interdependence and economic globalization, a new cold war, though possible, seems a difficult proposition, despite continuing irritants like decoupling, de-risking and others. China has created three excellent visions for global goods, the GCI (Global Civilization Initiative), GDI (Global Development Initiative) and GSI (Global Security Initiative), which provide global net positives, and should be prioritized instead of attaching geopolitics. Through exchange of civilizations and mutual accommodation, we can create a community with a shared destiny and future, through mutually beneficial cooperation. We can create a world free of suffering, wars, and conflicts, only if we respect individual core national interests and build a prosperous world with common agenda of global good through multilateral forums and conduct international relations out of zero-sum game.
 

 

 

 

 

Please note: The above contents only represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of Taihe Institute.

 

This article is from the November issue of TI Observer (TIO), which explores global views on multipolarity for both China and the rest of the world. If you are interested in knowing more about the November issue, please click here:

http://www.taiheinstitute.org/Content/2023/12-04/1212075245.html

 

——————————————

ON TIMES WE FOCUS.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org