Military Rivals of the US in the Second Cold War

By JASON SIBERT

Those who follow foreign policy understand our divided world and how this division impacts the idea of a world governed by the rule of law.

In the later part of the first Cold War, the United States and Russia (in its Soviet and post-Soviet forms) cooperated in several landmark treaties to draw down the number of nuclear weapons in the world and limit the number of conventional forces in Europe. The new Cold War pits the US and its allies against the Russia/China orbit. One issue surrounding this Cold War is how much we spend on defense compared to the People’s Republic of China — the second leading power in the world, defining power in military, diplomatic and economic terms. Russia is a distant third.

US military spending dwarfs that of the People’s Republic of China. Writers William Hartung and Christopher Preble stated in their Feb. 22 article at NationalInterest.org, “The US Is Playing the Wrong Game in the Competition with China,” that the US defense budget is at least four times larger than China’s official number ($905.5 billion vs. $219.5 billion) and more than twice as large as the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimate for China’s spending, adjusting for differences in purchasing power ($407.9 billion). Remember, the PRC supposedly gets more bang for its buck, spending less for an equivalent amount of military power, an issue rarely mentioned.

Hartung and Preble stated: “The just-released edition of IISS’s Military Balance notes that China’s ‘official defense budgets have fallen as a percentage of GDP to an average of 1.23% between 2019 and 2023, from 1.28% between 2014 and 2018. The small increase in national-defense burden in 2023 to 1.24% of GDP mainly stems from the relative slowdown in economic growth.’ By contrast, US defense spending as a share of GDP has risen in the last three years, from 3.26% in 2021 to 3.36% in 2023.”

Does Beijing pose a military challenge to the US? China has nothing approaching our network of 750 overseas military bases, its 170,000 troops abroad, or its regular engagement in counter-terror operations—78 in all during the Biden years, according to an estimate by the Brown University Costs of War project, as stated by Hartung and Preble. The best way to head off a US-China war over Taiwan is through diplomacy, not military build-ups. The two writers said: “The balance close to China’s shores, as in a potential conflict with Taiwan, is a different matter, but the best way to head off a US-China war over Taiwan is through diplomacy, not military build-ups. Credible deterrence is not simply a matter of military capability but also a function of reassurance. As Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss, and Thomas Christensen explained in Foreign Affairs late last year, ‘A threatened state has little incentive to avoid war if it fears the unacceptable consequences of not fighting.’ Paradoxically, an overemphasis on matching or overmatching an adversary’s military capabilities might undermine the effectiveness of deterrent threats by making credible assurance less believable.”

The PRC’s strategy for being a player on the world stage involves diplomacy, trade and development assistance on a global scale. Through these weapons, China influences world events. Countries with relatively meager militaries have outsized influence in international law (Canada), economics (Switzerland) and culture (Nigeria, with its Nollywood film center). Working-level relationships, even at the level of engagement among civilians, build trust, an invaluable asset in international relations. Contrast the PRC’s approach to the US’ — an overmilitarized approach to international relations has other harmful side effects, as involvement in major conflicts, either on the ground or through arms sales, inevitably causes tensions with some nations, especially the Global South. Remember, China has not fought a war in over 50 years.

Hartung and Preble criticize our PRC policy for being too concentrated on how to win a war. Our country should find ways to lower tensions and cooperate despite profound differences on issues like human rights and the military balance in the Western Pacific. Hartung and Preble said: “A better approach would involve finding ways to lower tensions and cooperate even in the face of profound differences on issues like human rights and the military balance in the Western Pacific.”

If the tensions between the US and the Russia/China block subside, then maybe the world’s great power blocks can cooperate and create a strong system of international law.

Jason Sibert of St. Louis, Mo., is Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, April 1, 2024

Populist.com