People’s Republic of China: The Lord of the Ring

By Rana Danish Nisar

The forefather of “Offensive Realism”, Mr. John Mearsheimer takes the International Relations as “horrid, disgusting, nauseating, horrible, unsafe and hazardous”.

In the opinion of  Mearsheimer the states are the main key actors/players in the anarchic edifice of International Relations and the only foremost objective of the states are their sure survival by any means.  He argued that this anarchic uncertainty because no one state knows well about the intention of other ones either it would be “Harmonious or nasty”. This uncertainty compels the states to maximize their power (mostly Military power) to build up their potent dominance, supremacy, omnipotence, control, hegemony, power and influence to counter the anticipated challenges of the other ones. 

Moreover, he argues that in the contemporary era, to become a wide-reaching hegemon or making global dominance seems quite difficult for any state. Thus, states try their best to seek regional dominance. Moving ahead, in his renowned piece of writing titled “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” he argue that the United States of America Should really very care about the rise of China particular in military, geo-economic geo-political, geo-strategic domains which seems that the intentions of China are equivalent to replace USA supremacy globally because China has already marked it as Asian hegemon (Superpower).  According to J. M., the USA should think carefully about this rising threat in Asia regarding Chinese military modernization, building up armed forces, developing nuclear stockpiles, spending more on defense, strategically increasing its influence in peripheries. 

According to J. M., “The rise of China is not peaceful”. He argues that rising Chinese influence in Asia is likely to kick out the USA from Asian domain, just like the USA kicked out the western powers from the Region previously. Further he asserts that currently, China is following its own version of “Monroe Doctrine” same as the Japanese did in the decades of 1930s and onward. He avows that the Chinese still remember their nasty times, when the Japanese were so resilient and the Chinese were so in pathetic condition. Thus, China knocks on the door of the twenty-first century with new dreams and goals which are taken by western powers, particularly the USA as offensive to China. 

Reciprocally, China denies all western as well as American statements & allegations. China argues that its rise is surely peaceful. The Chinese policies are following the gestures of a harmonious world along with a multipolar world system. China denies the unipolar or bi-polar world structure. According to China, the structure should be multipolar and every state should have the right to live independently with full sovereignty and securely in this anarchic world without any uncertainty and threat of other enemies. Every state has the right  for its defense because in the time of emergency and if you dial 911, no one will pick up the call for your help. Thus, the state should be prepared itself defensively by following Waltz defensive realism. Purely, the Chinese military modernization, rising nuclear stockpiles, build up naval forces for its defense purpose and China has not any offensive motives “now and forthcoming” decades. China has one policy towards the globe that is “Win-Win ” or “Peace”. 

Additionally, the USA has trust issues with rising china and is taking possible threats in upcoming decades. Currently, the American defense department has restiveness regarding Chinese rising nuclear stockpiles. According to the American defense department perspective, the Chinese will have approximately one thousand nuclear munitions near 2030. These munitions can be used through “Long-Mid-Short Range Missiles”. Although, till now the USA have almost more than three thousands deployed nuclear munitions/warheads, the Pentagon or defense department has been nervous vis-à-vis continually Chinese growth in advanced technology and weapons as well as military modernization. This Chinese strategic force growth makes the USA in-depth worried. As compared to China, Russia has more nuclear stockpiles and warheads but the USA has not much uneasiness about Russia now. According to The SIPRI, the following tables can show the statistics of the nuclear stockpiles of three countries: the USA, Russia and China.

As mentioned above, Russia has more nuclear warheads as compared to China but the USA is much vexed about China. According to American security specialists, China is not only making much progress in military modernization but China is now the world’s rising economic power too. According to World Bank statistics, China will replace the USA economically in the upcoming years. The Pentagon has argued that Russia is not a direct threat for the USA interests because Russian main focus is towards former “SOVIET STATES” but China has some other motives which seems offensive according to Mearsheimer. The global security pundits argue that Russian military pressure on former “SOVIET STATES” has not posed a direct threat to western powers particularly American global interests but the rising China is a question mark on the USA and its western ally’s interests.  

The global strategic & security commentators argue that if China get more power militarily which seems half of the USA strategic muscle in the next one and half decade then China can put pressure massively on the American allies in Pacific e.g., South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia and Australia and others and can do challenge all the states geographically, geo-politically and geo-strategically. Along this, China will get more supremacy in South China Sea. Reciprocally, in this setting, the US needs more deployment of armed forces e.g., aircrafts carriers, naval forces, air power in the wider Indo-Pacific along with the advancement in intelligence, surveillance and artificial intelligence.

The American C3 “command, control and Communications” should also be perfect to deter the anti-American entities. No doubt, till now there is no comparison between the military power of the USA and China because the USA is more powerful militarily. The following table shed lights the military power strength between two competitors of Cold War 2.0.     

Table: I

Table: II

Table: III

Source: www.globalfirepower.com (accessed on November 14, 2021)

In fact, there’s no military comparison between the two countries but the mounting Chinese military modernization day-by-day gives a red signal to the Pentagon. In addition, now, the USA has one more psychological anxiety: if China moves towards Taiwan with a massive deployment of armed forces in the next few years, what will be the reaction of the American Pacific’s allies on this Chinese action? Will they counter China in this matter or the possible full-fledged destructive war will be started? Washington knows the worth of Taiwan and the loss of Taiwan is directly proportional to loss of American global respect and supremacy as well. The decline of this supremacy means the call of unexpected transition in power in global economic, finance, military, strategic, political and geographically dominions and this transition of power from A state (USA) to B state (China) could be destructive, catastrophic, disastrous, calamitous, ruinous, devastating and harmful. 

On the other hand, as a sensible and mature global power, China is playing well the game of International Politics. China don’t want any direct or indirect war or conflict in any domain. China is following the peaceful notion. Currently, China is global market. China is global factory. China is global mega economic hub. Any direct or indirect war or conflict with any state could be decline of this global factory and China don’t want this decline or China is not in this condition to bear the decline of its economy. China wants to win the global “Respect-RealPolitik” without any major and minor conflict. China knows the reality that the result of any conflict will be on parallel basis (loss-loss) which could be very hazardous for China’s economy. 

Chinese security and strategic specialists know the contemporary history of Cold War that How one superpower defeat the other one with different strategies without inclusion of direct war. Interestingly, this time or in Cold War 2.0, the economic game is in the favor of China and China knows well how to win this game with more maturity. Now, this time, the Cold War 2.0 is between 2500 ancient China and 225 years ancient United States of America and the time will decide who will win this war. Remarkably, China is playing the Chess game of “Realpolitik” and without any direct appearance of “Feral” in the jungle, China will hunt the “prey” psychologically with different warfare strategies and 2500 ancient combat dogmas. 

On the other hand, the USA is adopting “Buck-Passing or Balancing” strategies and using the shoulders of its allies, particularly India for firing against China. The India-USA nuclear collaboration, India-USA defense Cooperation, sharing of strategic dual-use technology, exchange of advance Combat drones, in-depth support India in MECRs cartels “MTCR, AG, WA and NSG”, support India in UNSC permanent seat seem that USA take the India as counterbalance power against rising Chinese threat.

The recently India-USA security agreements LEMOA, COMCASA, ISA, and BECA are giving strength to Indian intelligence power against China and arch-rival Pakistan but the global International relations commentators particular Indian strategic maharishis has confusion about this ongoing India-USA strategic partnership that either in time of emergency when any one state dial the number “911”, the other state will help or not? It is quite a slipup that If any conflict takes place between India and China, the USA makes possible support in the favor of India or not because the founder of modern American foreign policy H. Kissinger once said that “America has no friend but its national interests”.

This statement makes it sound that it might be possible that the US will not help India in the need of hour. Reciprocally, if the USA needs Indian help in India’s “Indian Ocean” or in wider Indo-Pacific, will India be there for the USA in the milieu of military, politically, economically and strategically support?  Some International security pundits argue that this ongoing strategic romance between India and the USA is just increasing Indian offensive power which seems an accomplishment of India’s long-headed hegemonic motives in South Asia and beyond. Further they assert that the growing Indian nuclear postures could be fatal for regional security and it might be more fatal for the USA as well in the coming decades same as like the tale of Iraq. It might be possible that India will stand against the USA in upcoming decades on International or regional forums. 

They make their argument more valid and think that it seems possible that India is only getting benefits from the USA and in the time of emergency India will not stand with the USA but join the second party. Moreover, in the context of countering China, India knows the power of China in Asia. China has the biggest market, strong regional and neighbor power, military advancement, nuclear power, economic giant and India knows this reality very well. India can’t afford any conflict with China and really doesn’t want to lose the biggest economic hub. Reciprocally, China is playing the psychological war against India. The deployment of armed forces on the India-China border, rising naval appearance in the Indo-Pacific seems putting strategic pressure on India which is also a warfare/combat strategy against the enemy.

Till now, China can bear the highest defense budget and inclusion of advanced munitions in armed forces due to strong economic power but India couldn’t. The rising defense budgets of India against Powerful neighbor China could be fatal for India’s economy. Thus, India can’t bear the enmity with China.  Additionally, on the behalf of the USA, India can’t bear the powerful enemy in its periphery. In fact, Indian growing power in the Indian Ocean will be in the favor of India and its interests not for the USA. Additionally, the formation of QUAD Security Nexus among (USA-JAPAN-INDIA-AUSTRALIA) may not helpful for the USA aim to counter China because every state has its own national interests and no one state is ready to do compromise on their own national interests on the behalf of other state. The “BLUE-DOT” network and “BUILD-BACK-BETTER WORLD B3W” are also the efforts of the USA to counter Chinese made globalization version BELT & ROAD INITIATIVE (BRI). Apart from “B-D” and “B3W”, the USA is adopting different strategies to counter rising China but China is following the proverb “Slow and Steady wins the race” which seems in the formation of BRICS, SCO, ADB, BRI etc. The inauguration of all these institutions is equal to the Chinese version of globalization or Chinese-orientated World order. 

Owing to the changing domains in warfare strategies, today’s era is related to 5th generation warfare techniques, proxies’ wars, media wars, artificial intelligence wars and others. This time the USA has psychological pressure regarding rising China and on the other hand China is still waiting for any mistake which could be done by the USA in the condition of anxiety, nervousness, tenseness and uneasiness as same like during the “Boxing Match” when player A make a minor mistake and Player B get benefit and kick out massively Player A from the ring and get the crown of “Lord of the Ring”.            

Rana Danish Nisar  – The author is a PhD (International Relations) Student at the School of Politics and International Studies (SPIS). He holds Mphil in (International Relations), Masters in (Pakistan Studies), and Masters in (International Relations) degrees. He won acceptance Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations HPAIR (USA), 2017.  His research interests are broadly in South Asian Affairs, South Asia Geo-Politics, India-Pakistan Relations, South Asian Nuclear Politics, US and South Asia, Indian Ocean, Security studies, South Asian developments studies.

(The views expressed in this article belong  only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the  views of World Geostrategic Insights).