Is the World Moving towards A Hot War?
An analysis of the new cold war between USA and China-Russia
Ushna Tahir
The hyperbolic risks pointed out by the Congressional Committee are not merely rhetoric in nature but are based on substantial international certainties. It is common knowledge that since the dawn of the new millennium, the world is living in a new era of cold war between great powers. The contours and delineations of this new cold war are diverse and somewhat distinctive from the Cold War of the 20th century. The bigger question, however, is whether the peril of a conventional war among nuclear powers exists or this cold war will also end in the economic and political disintegration of another great power again.
The previous Cold War was marked by critical geopolitical pacts, civil rights movements, espionage crimes, diplomatic manoeuvres and proxy wars among the superpowers of the time, i.e. USA and the USSR. After the end of World War II in 1945, the hegemonic military doctrines and ideological animosities among the two great powers soon led the world into political and armed conflicts for the next four decades. As the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill pointed out: “An Iron Curtain has descended across the (European) continent …”.
The political alignment of the world wasn’t restricted to Europe; rather, it spread to all continents, nations and regions. Although there were brief periods of détente by US President Nixon and astute policy reforms by his Russian counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev in the form of ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’, yet unspeakable human tragedies occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars. Bilateral treaties and multinational pacts, such as the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (1963), the Outer Space Treaty (1967), the Seabed Arms Control Treaty (1971), the Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972), subsequently played a significant role in lowering the risk of war and proliferation of arms. Eventually, trade liberalism and free-market movements promoted financial interconnectedness among nations which slowly deteriorated the communist economic agenda. With the disintegration of the Soviet Republic on 25th Dec. 1991, the Cold War finally ended and nations across the globe hoped for long-awaited world peace and harmony.
The post-Cold War interlude was short-lived and Machiavellian political framework took over with yet another Thucydides trap in place. This time, however, there are two rising powers, i.e. China and Russia, against an established superpower, the USA. It is debatable, but most analysts would agree that after the elections of President Vladimir Putin in Russia (2000) and President Xi Jinping in China (2012), both China and Russia have effectively challenged the international status quo. Russia has abandoned the Gorbachevian political philosophies and has become more belligerent and aggressive in its intercontinental claims. China, on the other hand, has deserted the openness of Dengism and is pursuing hardline economic and political initiatives which can be harked back to Maoism. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, seizure of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and war with Ukraine in 2022 reflect that Russia under President Putin has cornered the USA and broken its monopoly over international undertakings. The People’s Republic of China, in a similar fashion, has confronted the economic prowess of the United States by surpassing its GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) and is showing a consistent pattern of economic growth the world has never seen before. China has also been aggressively reinforcing its claims of territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. Both the USA and PRC have clashed over the Chinese use of subsidies to protect the indigenous strategic industries, forced technology transfers, currency manipulation, theft of intellectual property, labour conditions in Chinese factories and impacts of imported Chinese goods on the US manufacturing sector. These objections escalated into a full-blown trade war in 2018 with the USA imposing tariffs on Chinese products with China also paying back in kind.
The ideological aspect of this new cold war is highly significant. In the past century, the communists were pitted against the capitalists and both sides ensured the expansion of their political and economic models to their satellite states as well. Resultantly, the world became highly bipolar. Today, the philosophical barriers are lesser ingratiated and severe. The USA, today, champions for liberal democracy, while the PRC, though economically capitalist, is run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that has very robust governance and institutional dominance over the Chinese political landscape, state-owned enterprises and private industries.
It is said that the Cold War of the 20th century didn’t turn into a hot war due to the persistent factor of nuclear deterrence. Today, the same principle of mutually-assured destruction is, however, prevalent among the three superpowers, i.e. USA, Russia and the PRC, as they all have the arsenal, missiles and tactical capability to deploy nuclear warheads. As per Global Zero, the International Movement for Nuclear Abolition, China is the only country with a clear “No First Use” policy of nukes under any circumstances, although the PRC continues to consistently modernize its nuclear stockpile. Russia, on the other hand, is the only nation that has long-range delivery systems, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missile systems with the ability to directly target US territories. According to the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, “Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use force to alter the map of Europe … backed by implicit and explicit nuclear first use threats.”
The USA, like Russia, doesn’t comply with the NFU policy and relies heavily on nuclear deterrence. The US Department of Defense officially states the US nuclear strategy as:
“Tailored deterrence with flexible capabilities including appropriate mix of nuclear capability and limited graduated response options”.
These nuclear doctrines indicate that superpowers, although propagating non-proliferation, consider nuclear warheads as a retaliatory potential and destructive force.
The Cold War between the USA and the USSR generated a highly bipartisan and an ideologically bipolar world. Today, however, the scenario is much altered. The United Nations of 1945 has grown from 55 members to a 193-member body in 2023. Most emerging economies, like India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, are not rallying strongly behind superpowers; they are rather sitting on the fence and resisting being drawn into military conflicts directly. The world no longer has a singular guarantor of global peace, a rule-maker of the international economy and an undisputed security hegemon. Geopolitically and financially, we are living in a multipolar world where non-state actors, multinational corporations, tech giants and multilateral forums play a pivotal role in impacting the thought process of decision-makers.
The elephant in the room, however, remains the risk of a conventional war among the superpowers of today, as they possess, display and often operationalise the competencies of a full-blown war. Will the cold war remain cold and if so, for how long? The answer is complex and convoluted. According to the Council on Foreign Relations’ Global Conflict Tracker, there are more than 25 ongoing conflicts, ranging from civil wars in Sudan, Afghanistan, Sahel, Haiti and Yemen to the tense and dangerous standoff between China and Taiwan. Whether it is Ukraine or Gaza, superpowers are once again at loggerheads, patronizing states and guarding their vested interests in regional conflicts. The head of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, has rightly warned so in his gloomy speech to the UN General Assembly this year:
“I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open.”
As of today, world leaders are making cautious and informed decisions to avoid a direct military confrontation among the nuclear-armed superpowers. The patience and prudence of politicians and bureaucrats are, nonetheless, prone to miscalculations, conflict escalation and populist rhetoric.
Wars always bring catastrophic economic consequences, geopolitical instability and widespread human sufferings. It is estimated that about 56 million civilian and military fatalities occurred during Second Great War alone. Instead, the international bodies like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union should employ dialogue and diplomatic means to de-escalate the long-standing conflicts like the Palestinian cause and Kashmir. It is also pertinent for the superpowers to realise the risks of a direct armed engagement and take substantial and immediate measures to elude it. The USA, the PRC and the Russian Republic should voluntarily slash the range of their nuclear arsenals and redirect financial and scientific resources to peacekeeping missions and utilitarian causes. It is said that history repeats itself but in this case this is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes.
The author is a civil servant (PMS-8), currently serving as Assistant Commissioner in District Chakwal.