World Geostrategic Insights interview with Sharyl Cross on whether the U.S. can still claim global hegemony, the risks arising from the iron curtain that once again divides Russia and the West, why the U.S. considers China the real enemy, and whether there are still conditions for a peaceful establishment of a new international order.
Sharyl Cross, PhD is Director of the Kozmetsky Center of Excellence and Distinguished Professor of Political Science and International Security Studies at St. Edward’s University (Austin, USA) and is Co-Chair of the Research Committee on Geopolitics of the International Political Science Association (IPSA)
Q1 – Before the midterm elections, Trump called the United States a “country in decline.” Biden also spoke of stopping the “destruction” of the country. In addition, the Heritage Foundation’s 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength report found that Washington’s military strength is now “weak” and that, militarily, Washington “may not be able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict while managing a range of presence and engagement activities.” What is your view? Is there a meaningful interaction in the United States between domestic policy and foreign projection capabilities? Is the United States really in decline as a leading superpower? Or can it still claim the role of global hegemon?
The United States remains a leading world military and economic power, but the international system has transitioned from a unipolar configuration in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet empire to a multipolar order today. China as a peer competitor for the United States, Russia and other major powers are challenging American influence and the preeminence of the liberal international order that has provided the basis for U.S. leadership and stability in the international system since the end of the Second World War. The United States expends enormous resources attempting to maintain global presence and control, but the international system has witnessed cyclical patterns of rise and decline of hegemonic powers that become overextended competing with other major power contenders.
On the domestic front, the American political system is more polarized today than at any point in the 200 year history of the nation with the exception of the civil war period. The extreme right and left of the major parties find little to unite them as “Americans.” Partisan antipathy was exacerbated over the response to the COVID19 pandemic, but the society remains sharply divided on a range of political, economic and social issues. The January 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection, an upheaval that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago, revealed the intensity and threat of division within the country. There is a strong public perception that the Washington elite are far removed from the realities and difficulties of the mainstream public. The U.S. national debt just surpassed $31 trillion in 2022 and many citizens suffer from violence, crime, economic insecurity and declining health and education standards. Nonetheless, Washington continues to commit resources to supporting costly wars and projecting U.S. military force throughout the world with only limited participation on the part of the wider democratic society weighing in on these decisions requiring considerable allocations of resources.
The United States continues to vastly outspend every other nation on defense. Following the abrupt exodus from the twenty- year war in Afghanistan, the United States pivoted to commit substantial military assistance to Ukraine. While the U.S. military could not be described as “weak,” there are limits to the ways military force can be utilized to support national security interests in an increasingly complex and interdependent global environment. The lack of adequate retrospective evaluation of successes and failures of U.S./NATO military involvement in Afghanistan following decades of costly U.S. engagement in regional wars in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and beyond is regrettable. Even given U.S. military advantage, it is certainly possible that the United States could be challenged in supporting single or simultaneous regional conflicts involving other major powers (Ukraine and Taiwan, or others).
The American leadership and public must harness greater intellectual expertise and reflection on how U.S. military or alternative instruments of statecraft could be employed to advance national security interests. In every instance requiring commitment of U.S. military support, rigorous assessment is necessary to identify and prioritize American interests. What is the “end-state” for U.S. military engagements? What are the vital interests and threat perceptions for other major powers in any regional conflict situation and the risks for U.S. involvement? Are there alternatives to the use of military force for influencing developments that might reduce risks and costs for the United States and its allies? These are practical core questions that are obvious, but it is not at all clear that such fundamental questions are always being adequately considered.
Q2 – Biden ruled out the direct use of U.S. and NATO armed forces to defend Ukraine, seeking primarily to strengthen the position of the Ukrainian armed forces on the battlefield through massive arms and intelligence support. In addition, the United States, European Union and other Western powers have imposed heavy sanctions to support Ukraine and make Russia “pay a price” by isolating it as a “rogue state” cut off from the economic, political, educational and cultural dynamics of international society. Incommunicability now seems to be the hallmark of Russia’s relations with the West, and a military showdown, including the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out. What is your opinion? Is it possible to isolate, albeit in defense of a just cause, a power that controls thousands of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the world several times over?
Although President Joe Biden ruled out the direct use of U.S. and NATO armed forces to defend Ukraine, there is still a significant possibility of escalation of U.S./NATO clashes with Russia. The United States has made a substantial investment in support of Volodymyr Zelensky’s defense of his nation and Washington appears to be prepared for a protracted proxy war in Ukraine. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has responded to each round of Western sanctions and escalation of military support from the United States and its allies by intensifying attacks on Ukraine’s population and infrastructure.
Mikhail Gorbachev and every Russian President since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. consistently expressed disappointment objecting to NATO expansion. George F. Kennan, architect of America’s post-World War II Soviet containment strategy, had warned that expansion of NATO would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Moscow’s calls for forging a post-Cold War security architecture in Europe taking account of Russia’s interests were mostly dismissed on the part of the United States and NATO allies. The reality is that Ukraine was not a likely candidate for NATO membership in the foreseeable future. Moscow tolerated the first rounds of NATO enlargement in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, but claimed that NATO’s military involvement in Ukraine and Kyiv’s aspirations to join the Western security alliance crossed a line constituting a serious immediate and long-term potential existential threat to Russia’s interests.
Sadly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cost thousands of lives, displaced much of the Ukrainian population, disrupted the European and Eurasian security and economic communities and jeopardized energy and food supplies that have and will continue to bring tremendous suffering to all populations involved especially for the citizens of Ukraine. There will be no winners in the war and the tragic circumstances might have been avoided if all nations were fully committed to preserving peace and the United States and its NATO allies were willing to work with Moscow to find a viable solution for addressing concerns regarding the European security architecture in exchange for ensuring that Ukraine’s sovereignty and security would be protected.
Unfortunately, further loss and devastation is likely in the Russo-Ukrainian war since there are no clear terms of settlement at this juncture that would be acceptable to both sides. The recent deaths resulting from a stray S-300 missile from Ukraine falling into Polish territory that was originally believed to have been launched from Russia demonstrated the vulnerability of NATO nations being drawn into direct confrontation with Moscow. Recent Ukrainian drone strikes on air bases within Russia could have evoked a retaliatory response against NATO nations providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Moscow’s leadership contends that this is not simply a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but that the West is engaged in a war aimed to destroy Russia. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s public statement that the United States seeks to “weaken Russia” by providing military support to Ukraine and Western policy officials and analysts’ frequent comments on prospects for regime change in Moscow serve to reinforce the Kremlin’s assessments regarding U.S./Western intentions.
Russia is not isolated. While the United States and other Western democracies are united in strong opposition to Moscow’s military intervention and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, other major powers and smaller nations abstained from condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is describing the war as a struggle asserting Russia’s independence from the influence of the West that might signal a shift prompting other nations to challenge Western dominance and advantages in the world system. China’s leadership has called for diplomatic negotiations to resolve the conflict, but believes that Western interference in toppling Ukraine’s former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and NATO expansion provoked Russia. Vladimir Putin met with China’s President Xi Jinping via video link on December 30 referring to one another as “dear friend” pledging to expand their “no limits” strategic partnership. Putin called for further strengthening interaction between the armed forces of Russia and China and Xi Jinping responded that he was “ready to increase strategic cooperation with Russia” to “stand against hegemonism and power politics.”
Any strategy aimed to destabilize and drive a major world nuclear power into a rogue nation status is obviously extremely dangerous. We can only hope that all parties will continue to exercise full restraint in refraining from the use of nuclear weapons. NATO nations bordering Russia and Ukraine could be deliberately or accidently targeted as the military campaign continues to grind on evoking an Article V NATO response and the threat of escalation to a wider NATO-Russia conventional or even nuclear war should not be ruled out.
An iron curtain once again divides Russia and the West. The current period is even more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War where the rules were clear and Moscow and Washington maintained the communication channels and diplomatic cooperation necessary to responsibly manage shared interests in nuclear arms control and other security areas. Russia’s influence will remain consequential for European and wider global security. The current period of geopolitical upheaval in Europe and Eurasia is fraught with danger and at a minimum it will be important for the United States and its allies to support Ukraine in returning to some state of normalcy and to stabilize relationships with Russia in order to prevent spiraling of circumstances into a wider Russia-NATO or world war.
Q3 – In the American strategic conception, the center of gravity of hegemonic confrontation is now the Indo-Pacific and no longer the Atlantic. Admiral Charles A. Richard, one of the highest-ranking U.S. military officers heading the U.S. Strategic Command, has stated that “the war in Ukraine is just a warm-up for a major war between the United States and China.” President Biden in turn has repeatedly reiterated his commitment to defend Taiwan and promised to send U.S. troops in the event of a Chinese invasion, implying that Taiwan’s defense would be worth the price of a war with China. What is his opinion? Is the United States determined to counter Beijing’s ambitions even at the cost of a war that could seriously harm the United States? Why is China considered the “real enemy” of the United States?
The U.S. National Security Strategy issued in 2022 defined China as the most significant threat to America’s standing in the world contending that Beijing intends to “reshape the world order” and possesses the economic, military, diplomatic and technical power to do so. China is in fact the only nation with the potential to equal or surpass America’s capacity for global influence over the next decades. Beijing has been especially assertive in Asia generating concern about potential belligerence on the part of the Chinese Communist Party against U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific theater.
Tensions between China and the United States have escalated during the Biden era over Taiwan. Joe Biden has defined the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism as the central feature of the contemporary world system leaving Beijing to anticipate whether the United States would be more motivated by ideological concerns in forming policy. Biden’s statements that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a PLA military attack raised concerns in China regarding America’s commitment to the “one China policy” that has been in place since the Nixon-Kissinger era as a means of maintaining peace and equilibrium in the China-U.S.-Taiwan relationship.
Xi Jinping reaffirmed at the 20th Party Congress in 2022 that reunification with Taiwan was inevitable and necessary for China’s “rejuvenation” and that while peaceful means would be preferable, military force remains an option for achieving the objective. Recent significant advances in China’s military capabilities might contribute to greater willingness to resort to force or to confront the United States over Taiwan. Projections indicate that the Chinese economy will overtake the United States by 2030, but there are suggestions among China’s leadership and foreign policy community that this process could be accelerated. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinkin has concluded that China might move to attempt to annex Taiwan sooner than anticipated.
The highly publicized visit of U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to Taipei in August 2022 emphasizing that she had come to affirm America’s commitment to supporting democracy and that the United States stands with Taiwan brought vehement condemnation from the Chinese leadership. China conducted the largest-scale military exercises in 2022 to date around the Taiwan Strait and carried out cyber and disinformation assaults on the island considered a test-run for a possible blockade or invasion.
The danger of a U.S.-China military clash over Taiwan is greater today than at any point in the past. If there is no easing of tensions it is certainly possible that military confrontation involving China, the United States, Taiwan and other regional nations could result in a war exceeding the loss of lives and destruction incurred in Ukraine. Supporting both Ukraine and Taiwan simultaneously in protracted military conflicts in the immediate neighboring regions of major powers would certainly present a daunting challenge for the United States.
Both the United States and China should appreciate the high stakes in a major power kinetic confrontation. Any hope for managing the most serious contemporary and emerging security threats facing humanity in our highly interconnected world community will require willingness to collaborate and some degree of trust and confidence among major world powers with different political systems and values. U.S. -China cooperation will be essential for addressing climate change, pandemics and much more affecting the security and stability of the entire world.
The United States has been able to avert war with China over Taiwan during the past decades by employing skilled statecraft, offering timely assurances to both China and Taiwan and making substantive adjustments in military aid. The “strategic ambiguity” approach leaving some uncertainty regarding a U.S. response was effective for sustaining peace and it remains incumbent among policymakers to carefully calibrate actions and responses to avert war. In the current period of high tension, the United States could avoid unnecessary provocations and might reinforce American intentions by clearly underscoring that all U.S. actions with respect to Taiwan reflect the commitment to continue to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait. Significant differences in values among democratic and authoritarian regimes should not discount the need for pragmatism in forging viable diplomatic solutions and robust engagement to guard against further deterioration or crisis in the bilateral relationship of the world’s two most powerful nations.
Beijing’s leadership assumes that the United States seeks to contain China. Measures such as the recent U.S. initiative affecting semiconductor technology exports to China confirms views that America seeks to thwart China’s development. U.S. officials should carefully consider the impact of all initiatives across the spectrum of the U.S.-China bilateral security and economic agenda assessing the extent to which various policy choices are driving China and Russia closer together, strengthening the ability of these two authoritarian global powers to constitute a counter-weight to vital U.S. interests.
Q4 – Former President Barack Obama said, referring to Chinese expansion in Africa, “China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest growing region (Africa). Why should we allow them to do that? We should be the ones writing the rules.” It is understandable that the United States, as the world’s leading power, does not intend to lose its economic, cultural, financial and military hegemony over the world. But it also seems clear that the intense rivalry and confrontation between the great powers could degenerate, as never before, into a large-scale conventional or nuclear war. In your view, is there still room to create the conditions for the establishment of a new international order in which Washington, Beijing (and Moscow) can compete within a framework of coexistence and mutual respect and commonly agreed rules?
The influence of the United States has declined in Africa while China has become the leading external trading partner for the continent providing substantial investments in infrastructure. Russia has made inroads in Africa as a major food and energy supplier and arms exporter. In addition to the United States and Europe, Turkey, India and several other nations have been successful in expanding cooperation with nations of Africa.
Africa has traditionally fallen behind other theaters or regional priorities for the United States. Washington’s approach to the diverse nations of the continent of Africa overwhelmingly concentrated on problems such as corruption, terrorism, disease and poverty. U.S. government officials have been faulted for lecturing African nations and failing to work with Africa’s leadership on a mutually respectful basis. It has become clear that Washington must recognize the potential of a continent of more than 1.2 billion people with the largest younger generation population on the planet positioned to exert greater influence in the emerging global economy and world security.
The fact that many African nations abstained from condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine generated concerns in Washington contributing to reconsideration of the geostrategic significance the United States assigns to Africa. In December 2022, the United States brought together 49 leaders of nations of the continent for a second Africa Leadership Summit promising to address issues on a basis of partnership yielding substantive deliverables exceeding the accomplishments of the prior first summit hosted by the Obama Administration in 2014. In addition, the Biden Administration will push for expanding the U.N. Security Council to include representation from Africa and support the African Union joining the G-20.
The Biden Administration remains committed to promoting democracy and rule of law among African nations. The strength of the American private sector and the African diaspora community in the United States provides potential for broadening constructive U.S. engagement in Africa, but much will depend on offering concrete actions to support recent policy directions.
China and Russia are not so concerned with promoting values and influencing domestic politics within nations of Africa. Also, national discourse about Africa in both China and Russia often reference the colonial and imperialist heritage of the United States and Europe in Africa as major factors impeding development on the continent. The United States will continue to face competition for geostrategic and economic influence in Africa and the reassessment of U.S. policy and strategy for Africa does seem wise though perhaps long overdue. The United States should anticipate that nations of Africa will make decisions on building partnerships with other countries based on their respective interests. The United States certainly has a lot to offer in Africa, but African nations should not have to be faced with either-or choices in working with a diversity of international partners.
China’s rise was supported by the liberal international order, but both China and Russia object to a world order and rules for governing the international system that were established by Western nations. The Biden Administration’s focus on the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism and Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine makes it difficult to envision the United States and its allies being amenable to considering revision of the liberal world order or compromise in establishing common agreed rules for the global system even if it might reduce tensions averting war among major powers. At the same time, failing to take account of the preferences of other nations with differing political systems, values and diverse cultures in an increasingly interconnected world community could entail serious adverse consequences for U.S. national interests and global security over the longer-term.
Sharyl Cross, PhD – Director of the Kozmetsky Center of Excellence and Distinguished Professor of Political Science and International Security Studies at St. Edward’s University (Austin, USA); Co-Chair of the Research Committee on Geopolitics of the International Political Science Association (IPSA)