Continuations of the Cold War
Although much has changed, the anarchy of the international political system has remained constant and states are still vying for power. During the Cold War, this was a battle between the United States and Russia, or capitalism and communism, while now the fight has shifted to the U.S. and China. While the end goal for dominance has not faltered, China and the U.S. are fighting much differently than Russia and the U.S. were, where economic power becomes
increasingly important and shows a weakness in the U.S.’s current strategy. In John Ikenberry’s “The Rise of China and the Future of the West,” Ikenberry argues that while China is growing in power, the West is ultimately a strong body governed by rules and bonded by a history of fighting security threats (Ikenberry, 2008). As long as the west can hold its soft power over the rest of the world, characterized through its cultural influences in cuisine, fashion, and media, its hard power in economic strength and military capabilities will keep the United States as a formidable enemy to China and its rising power. Ikenberry’s faith in the influence of soft power coincides with the increased reliance on social legitimacy during a time of prevalent unconventional warfare. While the Cold War did experience elements of unconventional warfare, especially through nuclear developments and the insurgencies in Vietnam, both parties mainly resorted to conventional warfare, when military intervention was necessary.
Another continuation from the Cold War era surrounds military spending and nuclear proliferation. Despite most nations focusing on counterinsurgency tactics, cybersecurity, and other forms of combat which emphasize military might less and less, the U.S. still dominates in military spending internationally. Therefore, the continued devotion to conventional and nuclear warfare points to the imminent threat of international warfare. As for nuclear proliferation, global superpowers such as the U.S., China, and Russia all have their personal arsenals (BBC News, 2020). Although different nuclear agreements such as the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty have been a diplomatic jab at the growing concern that nations have too many weapons of mass destruction, these treaties have ultimately failed in encouraging states to denuclearize. Therefore, the trend of unregulated nuclear weapons has been an added layer on international conflicts since the Cold War.
For example, tensions between China and the United States are high, even without discussion of nuclear weapons. Political scientists have been presented with the question of what a war between the two countries could look like, and whether or not it will transform into reality (Lungu, 2020). Nuclear weapons add an existential threat to their rivalry, should the U.S. and China engage in military warfare over their arguments. Lungu also argues this same point, where with previous wars, nuclear weapons were nonexistent. Afterwards, going to war was “no longer possible,” and not only did “large-scale wars” become impossible, they became feared and have forced nations to take new avenues in gaining influence over other states (Lungu). Lungu goes as far to argue that due to the sheer size and economic capability China possesses, the way in which the U.S. finally confronts their rise must end with full-scale warfare or a “negotiated settlement” (Lungu). This is extremely different from the Cold War, which eventually resulted in the deterioration of the Soviet Union and without a war against the United States and allied nations. The current state of affairs in the international political ecosystem has become significantly more polarized, and current pressure will only increase rather than fizz out as the Cold War did. Nuclear weapons have remained a focus in international conflict, but their role has only served to change the way in which nations fight for power, let alone stifle states’ ambitions.
A Changing Balance of Power
Disputes regarding regional influence have also challenged the fundamental change in international security since the Cold War. As it relates to the U.S. and China again, as these are our new two superpowers, the question of whether or not the U.S. or China will fight for political power in specific territories arises: How will the U.S. make decisions on advocating for smaller nations in the South China sea, or will the U.S. defend Taiwan from a Chinese government takeover? In the aftermath of China’s move to control Hong Kong, U.S. influence
Anti-Chinese government protesters in Hong Kong, January 2020 (NBC News, Isaac Lawrence / AFP – Getty Images)
and restraint will be put to the test, should China begin looking to Taiwan. As China looks to expand its influence, the U.S. may need to militarily back specific parts of the East in order to maintain influence in the region where a significant portion of consumer goods are still manufactured, or find a way to lose economic dependence on the East.
During the Cold War, Vietnam was a hard fought yet ultimately lost battle over regional influence. If the U.S. does not diplomatically ease rising tensions, U.S. troops may be drawn back to the East, where they lost so harshly previously. However, while the Vietnam War was viewed as a conventional loss, today the U.S. faces pressures to adapt to counter-insurgency tactics due to their long-lasting presence in the Middle East amidst thousands of insurgent and terrorist organizations (Nagl 22). Furthermore, a war in East Asia may encourage the international community to resort to all-out warfare by superpowers we last saw in the 1940’s. This prediction, while large scale warfare must always be considered, is flawed and does not entirely refute our claims. International conflict is now shaped by Fourth Generation Warfare, where conventional war becomes less and less critical in determining outcomes during political strife. This phenomenon, paired with the global pressure to avoid nuclear weapons in conflict by all means, complicates the matter of total war. In the new generation of warfare, civilian opinion and swaying the masses has become more important than ever. Therefore, states must always factor in total war when assessing their security, but even in disputes surrounding political spheres of influence, the risk of two global superpowers at war is much more costly in terms of human lives and resources. While some areas have not fundamentally changed, it is imperative to nuance these areas of stagnation in order to adapt our military and diplomatic tactics in international security.