By Rana Danish Nisar
Perhaps the most pernicious intoxication of all is the quest for dominance and power. The need for power and control, unlike other intoxicants that might finally bring calm and relaxation, only drags one further into its grip.
Ambition for ultimate power and hegemony has been a constant force in human history, leading individuals and nations to seek supremacy over others from the earliest days of the stone civilization to the present era. A testimony to the inherent desire for hegemony and power is the first known conflict in human history, which took place around 2700 BC between the Sumerians and the Elamites.
Since then, human history has been characterized by endless conflicts, massacres and conquests, as those in positions of authority sought to increase their dominance and control. The powerful have shaped the history of these conflicts according to their preferences, while the story of the losers and their alleged betrayal has been told. The message is unequivocal: ‘the quest for power and hegemony’ is imprinted in human and state DNA.
The Cold War between the USSR and the United States, which aspired to global supremacy and influence, dominated the post-World War II period. A closer examination reveals that the Cold War was driven more by a race to modernize and improve strategic weaponry than by economic and political goals. This period of ‘bipolarism 1.0’ evolved from the painful consequences of World War II and multilateralism. It was characterized by the acquisition of sophisticated weapons, the creation of alliances and the determination to defeat each other. But after the Cold War, the United States emerged as the sole superpower, ushering in a unipolar international order.
The United States proclaimed itself the master of the world, and literature in its favor followed the reverberations of the Cold War and the American victory.One of these literary masterpieces was ‘The End of History 1.0’, which depicted America as the sole holder of the key to world peace, progress and wealth.
The notion of ‘The End of History 1.0’ was based on the belief that humanity had reached the apex of its ideological development and that liberal democracy was the ultimate and ideal system of government. Francis Fukuyama advanced this hypothesis in 1989, as response to the fall of the “Berlin-Wall” and the dissolution of the USSR, in his article “The End of History 1.0.” According to Fukuyama, the conclusion of the Cold War symbolized liberal democracy’s victory over all other kinds of government. He claimed that liberal democracy had defeated communism in the conflict between the two philosophies of capitalism and communism. Liberal democracy, in Fukuyama’s view, represented the pinnacle of freedom and wealth for all people, and the long-running conflict between many ideologies had come to a historical equilibrium. He believed that the encroachment of capitalism and democracy would result in a “End of History 1.0,” obliterating chief battles over partisan thinking or scheme of government.
People who disagree with Fukuyama’s ‘end of history 1.0’ theory have strongly criticised it for its gloomy and oversimplified view of history. Critics of the theory have pointed out that history is not linear and that new problems and conflicts will always arise in the course of time. They also argue that the development of democracy and capitalism has not always led to greater freedom and wealth and that many nations have not been able to benefit from the advantages that these systems were supposed to bring. Some scholars argue that the emergence of new global concerns, such as economic inequality and climate change, may require the development of new types of political collaboration and organization that go beyond the ideals of liberal democracy. They argue that the idea of the ‘end of history 1.0’ may not represent a final victory, but rather an ongoing process of adaptation and development. These scholars argue that the idea that liberal democracy represents the pinnacle of political evolution has been belied by increasing political polarization and identity politics. Because of these trends, many believe that the liberal democratic paradigm is seriously threatened and that a new period of political struggle may begin.
Critics’ prophecies may come true in the twenty-first century as China becomes a powerful force that challenges the worldwide hegemony of the Washington current. China claims in its white paper that it has no plans to challenge the United States as the world’s superpower, but the American government appears to have a different perspective. Another obstacle/challenge to the idea of the “End of History 1.0” is China’s expanding influence on the international scene. Many developing nations have begun to favor China’s autocratic political system and rapid economic development as an alternative development strategy. Some claim that China’s growth puts the liberal democratic model under threat and that we are now entering a new period of ideological competition between various forms of government. But as history has demonstrated, the world is constantly changing, and the idea of “The End of History 1.0” has turned out to be a false one.
The emergence of ‘have’ states such as China, which seem to be clashing with liberal democracy in many regions of the world, has shown that the global political environment is still rather fluid and unpredictable. The rivalry between Washington and Beijing and the advent of ‘bipolarism 2.0’ show that the international order is in a state of flux and that the future is uncertain. The final outcome of this conflict and how it will influence the course of world history are still uncertain.
Understanding the dynamics and possible results of the current struggle between Washington and Beijing is crucial given its enormous ramifications for the future of global politics and the international order. Given the upsurge of a new bipolarity, a nearer aspect at how the two superpowers interrelate is indispensable. This skirmish is triggered by their diverse roles as worldwide superpowers, somewhat by philosophical variances. In both the political and economic spheres, the two biggest economies in the world are vying for supremacy. Both sides of the heated struggle between the Eagle and the Dragon for dominance have taken calculated tactics. While China has launched a strategy to challenge American dominance by extending its influence throughout the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, the US has used economic penalties and military posturing to slow down China’s rise. One of the most important geopolitical developments of the twenty-first century is the current “Bipolarity-2.0” between the Eagle and the Dragon.
China asserts in a new white paper that it has no plans to challenge America’s position as the world’s superpower. The United States, though, continues to be dubious about China’s genuine objectives. According to researcher John Mearsheimer, the world’s superpowers need to exercise caution in light of the growing threat that China poses in Asia due to its modernization of its military, development of nuclear arsenals, increase in defense budget, and extension of its strategic influence in neighboring nations. Mearsheimer, an advocate of “Offensive Realism,” contends in his influential book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” that the international community needs to pay close attention to China’s rise, particularly in the military, geo-economic, geo-political, geo-strategic, and computational/digital domains, as its actions point to a desire for hegemony. He argues that the international community should be extremely concerned since China’s ascent may not always be peaceful.
In the “Bipolarity 2.0” era that we are currently experiencing, the two most potent forces of our time are competing for domination. The United States has a number of advantages over China when it comes to military might, making it more powerful in this area. These include an extensive network of allies, more nuclear warheads (3,750 versus 350 for China, and perhaps 1,000 by 2030), and advanced technologies.
Furthermore, compared to China’s lone base in Djibouti, the US has at least 65 more military installations abroad. Given the enormous rift between the two nations, these considerations have helped to create strategic stability and discouraged China from trying to compete with the United States on a global scale in the military sphere. The situation is improving in the Indo-Pacific region, though, as China is making significant efforts to achieve parity or perhaps surpass Eagle’s power in Taiwan’s canal region. The Dragon is overtaking the Eagle’s power in the area in terms of midair dominance and canister attention, but the US still has an advantage in terms of its ability to project power and conduct combined combat operations.
The Chinese military has expanded recently as well. With over 2 million active-duty soldiers, it has the largest standing army in the world and has been investing in new weaponry and technology. The Indo-Pacific area, where China is rapidly challenging the United States for dominance, is where its military impact is most noticeable. It has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile system that could potentially attack US naval assets in the area while also enhancing its naval capabilities by constructing new submarines and aircraft carriers. Taiwan’s relationship with China also bears the military weight of China. The nation has stepped up its military drills in the Taiwan Strait and threatened to use force to annex Taiwan, which may entice the US military to the area. Furthermore, China has outperformed the US in non-kinetic competition and modern technology. In comparison to the US, China is seen as being at the forefront of acquiring cutting-edge technology and weaponry like EMP. Given the security issues China faces in the Taiwan Straits, South China Sea, and the Indo-Pacific area, China claims that the purchase of cutting-edge weapons and military might is purely for its own protection.
Later, China emerged as a major economic power that captured the world’s attention despite not having the military might, numerous bases and alliances of the United States. China’s rise as an official player in the international system has been significantly influenced by its rapid economic expansion since the late 1970s. Its economy grew very rapidly, ranking second in the world in nominal GDP and first in PPP. This expansion has been supported by government spending on infrastructure, a large manufacturing sector and low labour costs. The effects of China’s economic growth are manifold. It has allowed China to increase its influence in various fields, such as technology, security and diplomacy, beyond the economic sphere. For example, the BRI, a major initiative linking China to Europe, Africa and Asia, aspires to increase China’s influence in world politics and economics. China now has great influence in international financial markets, challenging the United States and the captive institutions of its allies, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. China’s economic power is felt around the world, with a GDP of over $14 trillion and exports expected to reach $2.4 trillion in 2020. Key components of its economic power include its investments in infrastructure, leadership as the largest holder of foreign exchange reserves with over $3 trillion in reserves, and position as a significant exporter of goods and services to several nations.
There are a number of reasons for China’s changing place in the world order, one of which is the rise of its political power. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has maintained a solid hold on power since 1949, has ruled China. The CCP’s centralized control has made it possible for China to pursue long-term goals with a level of consistency and continuity that is frequently lacking in more democratic systems, despite accusations of the Chinese political system for its lack of democracy and human rights violations (according to west).
China’s foreign policy under President Xi demonstrates the country’s growing political influence. In an attempt to spread its authority beyond national borders, the Dragon’s power has become increasingly strong in its approach to foreign affairs. China has built artificial atolls, placed military bases there and been involved in disputes in the South China Sea. Moreover, the Dragon has been active in promoting its illusion of a more multipolar ecosystem to international institutions such as the UN. The Indo-Pacific region is where China’s political influence is most evident in its interactions with its neighbors.
The ownership of atolls in the East and South China Seas is the crux of China’s disputes with a number of its neighbors, notably Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Furthermore, China has increased its assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait, where it makes claims to Taiwan’s sovereignty. Regular military drills have been held in the area, and China has boosted its naval presence. These all show the truthfulness of John’s claim regarding china’s rise. The relationship between China and the continent of Africa is another indication of China’s expanding political power. China has grown to be a substantial investor in Africa, and praise has been heaped upon it for its readiness to fund infrastructure and other initiatives that Western countries have shied away from. However, due to its lack of transparency and propensity to lead to debt traps, China’s investment in Africa has also come under fire. West claims that China’s expanding role in the international order is significantly influenced by its growing political influence, and its assertive foreign policy is especially evident in the Indo-Pacific region and Africa.
The main characteristic of this “Bipolarity 2.0” is a clash of ideals and interests. As an advocate of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism, the United States views China’s authoritarianism and state-run capitalism as a threat to global peace and stability. China, on the other hand, perceives the United States as a dying superpower attempting to maintain its hegemony in the face of China’s rise. This value-based skirmish has shown itself in a variety of arenas, including trade, technology, human rights, and territorial disputes. China has responded with its particular dealings and exertions to inflate its stimulus in the Indo-Pacific region and outside, while the United States has bidden to edge China’s progress through an amalgamation of economic & military maneuvers.
This confrontation will have far-reaching implications for the rest of the world system. This new bipolarity has been nicknamed “Bipolarity 2.0,” and it raises concerns about the future of the global organism. Will the “Cold War 2.0” era of two states competing for supremacy return? Or will a new world order arise, with abundant rule cores and stimuli? Although it is too early to mark firm prophecies about the future, it is ostensible that we are in a retro of alteration. The emergence of this new bipolarity signals that history has reached a crucial turning point, and the result of this battle will have lasting repercussions for the future. We are living in the “End of History 2.0,” a period of modern world politics characterized by conflict between democracy and authoritarianism, capitalism and socialism, and globalization and nationalism. If this theory is correct, only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: the world is changing, and we must be prepared to adapt.
In conclusion, the US objective may be to put pressure on China by drawing it into conflicts of any size to stifle its ability to grow economically. China, on the other hand, pursues a peaceful climb through its stated philosophy of a peaceful world. Given the competing forces in ‘Bipolarism 2.0’, whoever eventually prevails will write the ‘End of History 2.0’. Since a new version, ‘End of History 3.0’, may appear decades or centuries from now, the ‘End of History 2.0’ may be the definitive one. It is unclear how long ‘Bipolarism 2.0’ will last and when the ‘End of History 2.0’ will occur. However, China has a chance to triumph and write its own version of the ‘End of History 2.0’ during its centenary celebration in 2050, defeating the US to experience defeat and perhaps leaving a lasting mark on history. However, the US will not easily accept the PRC’s attempts to write the ‘End of History 2.0’ in its favor.
Author: Rana Danish Nisar – The author holds high academic credentials in the field of international relations. He has deep expertise in security, defense and military studies.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)