Zhou Bo: "Extreme competition" is only one step away from conflict

On September 28, Zhou Bo, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and Security Studies at Tsinghua University and a special expert of the China Forum, published an opinion piece in the South China Morning Post entitled "As the US focuses on 'extreme competition' with China, conflict is just a step away." Zhou Bo believes that Biden hopes to engage in "extreme competition" with China without military conflict, but when competition reaches its limit, it is only one step away from conflict. The China Forum has authorized translations for the benefit of readers.

【Text/ China Forum Special Expert Zhou Bo】

The war in Afghanistan has not yet settled, but its effects are clear. With the end of the global fight against terrorism in the United States, president Biden has begun the prelude to China's "extreme competition". The question is: How long will this competition last?

If the 20-year war in Afghanistan is an "eternal war" for the United States, then the Sino-US competition will last longer, which can be described as "eternal competition." Gone are the days when China was able to "raise light and cultivate obscurity."

As the world's second largest economy, China's size can no longer be hidden. When the United States sees China as a major strategic competitor, China cannot brake statically.

But in the economic sphere, the big picture is set. At the end of last year, China's economy was 70 percent that of the United States. It is widely believed that China will surpass the United States as the world's largest economy by around 2030 in terms of gross domestic product.

Paul Kennedy, a professor at Yale University, said this would be something that had never been seen since the U.S. economy surpassed Britain's in the 1880s. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. economy was about 2 to 4 times larger than any other great power.

As former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pointed out, when China becomes the world's largest economy, it will be the first time since George III (1738-1820) that a non-English, non-Democratic, non-Western country has become the largest economy.

That would be a huge change for Americans. Americans have been indoctrinated from birth with the myth that America is "extraordinary" or "indispensable." They will have to accept a common sense: the rise and fall of nations; Americans are no different from others.

When the economy of a so-called "authoritarian state" like China surpasses that of the United States, the influence of Western democracy will fall to the bottom. According to Freedom House, global democracy has been declining since 2006. Polls show that most Americans are not satisfied with the status quo.

Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for those that have already been tried." If this suggests that democracy is better than other forms of government despite its problems, the January 6 riots in the Capitol show that democracy can be harmful, even deadly, violence.

It's hard to believe that the Capitol, the pinnacle of American democracy, will be violently attacked by a group of supporters at the call of former President Donald Trump and false accusations of electoral fraud.

Before 2030, the competition between China and the United States will inevitably intensify, because the United States will use it as the last chance to bring down a rising power. The recent "Aukus" agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia allowed the United States to share its tightly protected nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia, leading Australia to tear up billions of dollars in submarine deals with France.

Australia has always followed the United States. Image source: The Wall Street Journal

French Foreign Minister Le Derian described the unusual act as a "stab in the back." This shows that the United States has been able to do whatever it takes to sacrifice important allies in order to make a desperate bet against its competitors.

But while a few nuclear submarines may indeed complicate Beijing's decisions, they will not change the big picture. Balance can be too difficult for Australia to learn, and historically, Australian soldiers have mostly fought as "big brothers" as minions.

This time, the Morrison administration has apparently decided to side with the United States at the risk of a military conflict with China. Given australia's inevitable dependence on U.S. and British nuclear technology for decades to come, successive Australian governments will be subject to the Morrison administration's decision.

Even with the help of Britain and Australia, time is not on the American side. The Pentagon's previous computer simulations of Taiwan have shown that the United States has repeatedly lost to China. Of course, this is not a reason for China to be complacent, but if there is a conflict in China's surrounding areas, the Chinese People's Liberation Army has complete home field advantage.

Today's U.S. armed forces are smaller and older than they were in the 1980s, while the PLA is the opposite. As of 2019, the PLA Navy has about 350 ships, more than the U.S. Navy's about 293 ships. Although quantity is not the same as quality, quantity itself also reflects a certain quality.

Nothing speaks volumes about a country's assessment of the security situation than defense spending. For three decades, China's military spending has remained below 2 percent of gross domestic product, demonstrating china's confidence in the security challenges it faces.

If China feels threatened to increase defense spending, the world's second-largest economy could easily double its defense budget; but with U.S. military spending already three times that of China, will it be able to double its military spending?

Biden said the United States will take the form of "extreme competition" with China, but there will be no conflict. However, when competition goes to extremes, it is only one step away from conflict. In contrast to the United States, which emphasizes competition, China has loudly called for cooperation, but a slap in the face has not sounded. Countries cannot compete without strength; in the same way, they can cooperate only if they have strength.

U.S. foreign and defense policy is like a pendulum, always swinging sideways between tensions. The question is, when will the United States, which has already contracted strategically, swing back, or will it be possible for it to swing back? The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is seen as a means for the United States to focus on competing with China, and only time will tell if it is a wise decision.

But if this were a foolish strategic blunder, it would be a fatal mistake worse than the Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. It will put an end to America's hegemony since the end of the 19th century forever and make it gone forever.

Translation: Zubaidia

Proofreaders: Xu Xinyun, Han Hua

ZHOU Bo: As the US focuses on ‘extreme competition’ with China, conflict is just a step away

The dust from the Afghan war has yet to settle but the fallout is clear. With the ending of the US global crusade on terrorism, the prelude to President Joe Biden’s “extreme competition” with China has begun. The question is: how long will it last?

If the 20-year war in Afghanistan is a “forever war” for the United States, then its competition with China could be described as “forever competition”, because it will surely last longer. Gone are the days when China could “hide its strength and bide its time”.

The second-largest economy in the world is simply too big to hide. And it is impossible for Beijing to bide its time when Washington takes it as its primary strategic competitor.

But in the economic field, the die is cast. At the end of last year, China’s economy was 70 per cent of America’s. It is widely assumed that, by around 2030, China will overtake the US to become the world’s largest economy in terms of gross domestic product.

According to Yale professor Paul Kennedy, this will be a situation that has not existed since the 1880s, when America’s economy overtook Britain’s. For the entire 20th century, the American economy was about two to four times larger than that of any other great power.

When China emerges as the world’s largest economy, as former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd pointed out, it will be the first time since George III (1738-1820) that the world will have a non-English-speaking, non-democratic, non-Western state as its largest economy.

This will be a seismic change for Americans, who have been fed the myth since they were born that America is “exceptional” or “indispensable”. They will have to come to terms with common sense: nations rise and fall; Americans are like everyone else.

When the economy of an “authoritarian state” such as China surpasses that of the US, the influence of Western democracy will be looking at its nadir. According to Freedom House, democracy around the globe has been declining since 2006. Polls show that most Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the US.

Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”. If this suggests that, in spite of its problems, democracy is still better than other forms of government, then the Capitol insurrection on January 6 showed how democracy can be virulent or even deadly violent.

It is hard to believe the Capitol building – the supreme seat of American democracy – would be violently attacked by a mob of supporters at the call of former president Donald Trump and false allegations of election fraud.

Until 2030, China-US competition will most certainly intensify in that the US will take it as the last chance to bring down a rising power. The recent “Aukus” agreement between the US, Britain and Australia allows the US to share its jealously guarded nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia, which meant scrapping Australia’s multibillion-dollar submarine deal with France.

Such an unusual move, described by French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian as a “stab in the back”, shows how the US could resort to desperate measures against a competitor at the cost of an important ally.

But while a few nuclear subs might indeed complicate decision-making in Beijing, they are not necessarily game-changers. For Australia, balancing is probably an art too delicate to learn. Historically, most of the wars that Australian soldiers fought are other people’s wars which they joined as junior partners.

This time, the Morrison government has obviously decided to risk taking America’s side in a military conflict with China. Given Australia’s inevitable reliance on US and British nuclear technologies in the decades to come, the Morrison government has left succeeding Australian governments hostage to its decision.

Even with some British and Australian help, time is not on America’s side. The Pentagon’s war games over Taiwan showed the US losing repeatedly to China. Of course, this is no reason for China to be complacent, but should a conflict occur in China’s periphery, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has all the advantages of being on home turf.

Today, America’s armed forces are considerably smaller and older than they were in the 1980s. The PLA is just the opposite. By 2019, the PLA Navy had about 350 ships, outnumbering the US Navy’s around 293 ships. Although quantity is not quality, it has a quality all its own.

Nothing speaks of a country’s security assessment more than its defence expenditure. For three decades, China’s military expenditure has stayed below 2 per cent of GDP. It speaks volumes about China’s self-confidence about its security challenges.

If China feels threatened to the extent that it has to increase its defence spending, the second-largest economy could easily afford to double the defence budget; but can the US double its military spending, which is already three times larger than China’s?

Biden said that US rivalry with China will take the form of “extreme competition” rather than conflict. But when competition becomes extreme, it is one step away from conflict. Contrary to the US, which emphasises competition, China has righteously called for cooperation. But it takes two to tango. A country cannot compete without strength; likewise, it can only cooperate with strength.

The pendulum of US foreign and defence policy traditionally swings between assertiveness and pullbacks. The question is when will an America in retrenchment swing back, or will it swing back at all? The US pull-out from Afghanistan was justified as a means for America to focus on competition with China. Only time will tell if this is a wise decision.

But if it is a boneheaded strategic blunder, then it is a monumental error more consequential than the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan wars combined. It will doom America’s hegemonic status, held since the late 19th century, for good.

Zhou Bo is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University and a China Forum expert

This article is the exclusive manuscript of the observer network, the content of the article is purely the author's personal views, does not represent the platform views, unauthorized, may not be reproduced, otherwise will be investigated for legal responsibility. Pay attention to the observer network WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.