Foreign Affairs Article: The Perils of Isolationism. The World Still Needs America—and America Still Needs the World
In times of geopolitical tension, historical analogies often surface as a way to make sense of the present. After the 9/11 attacks, for example, U.S. officials reached for comparisons to Pearl Harbor, seeking to understand the intelligence failures that led to the tragedy. Today, as the U.S. faces off against China, the favored analogy is the Cold War. The United States finds itself in a new rivalry with a nation of global reach and insatiable ambition, much like its historic standoff with the Soviet Union. But the truth is, this isn't a simple redux of Cold War 2.0. It’s something much more complex and potentially far more dangerous.
China vs. Soviet Union: Key Differences That Matter
To understand the gravity of the current U.S.-China struggle, it's important to recognize the key differences between China and the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union adopted a strategy of self-isolation, preferring economic self-sufficiency to global integration. Its rigid ideological stance meant that any ally had to conform strictly to Soviet-style communism, leading to a tightly controlled but brittle alliance system.
China, by contrast, ended its isolation in the late 1970s and has since woven itself into the fabric of the global economy. This integration is a double-edged sword; while it makes China more powerful and connected, it also makes it more vulnerable to global economic shifts. Unlike the Soviet Union, China does not insist on ideological conformity among its partners. It promotes the superiority of the Chinese Communist Party but is largely indifferent to the internal political systems of other nations. This pragmatism allows China to support authoritarian regimes by exporting its surveillance technology and social media services without demanding that they adopt Chinese-style governance.
This ideological flexibility makes China a more insidious and effective rival. While the Soviet Union's rigid stance eventually led to its economic stagnation and collapse, China's hybrid model of state capitalism combined with authoritarian control has so far proven resilient and adaptable.
The Growing Risk of Direct Military Conflict
While the Cold War was characterized largely by proxy wars in distant lands, today’s U.S.-China rivalry is marked by the growing risk of direct military conflict, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The Cold War’s most dangerous moments, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, were resolved through high-stakes diplomacy and a shared understanding of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war. The situation today is far more precarious.
China’s territorial ambitions, particularly in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, pose a direct challenge to U.S. interests and those of its allies. The strategic ambiguity that has long governed U.S. policy towards Taiwan is eroding, as China’s military maneuvers around the island become increasingly aggressive. Beijing could opt for a full-scale invasion, but it might also choose less overt methods, such as a blockade, the seizure of smaller Taiwanese islands, or cyberattacks. Each of these scenarios presents complex challenges for the United States, which would be compelled to respond, potentially triggering a broader conflict.
The situation is further complicated by the lack of established deconfliction mechanisms between the U.S. and China. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet relationship, which developed robust channels of communication to prevent accidental war, the U.S.-China military relationship is still in its infancy. The lack of communication increases the risk of miscalculation—a perilous scenario when both nations are nuclear-armed.
The Technological Arms Race: A New and Dangerous Frontier
One of the most alarming aspects of the U.S.-China rivalry is the technological arms race. During the Cold War, the primary focus was on nuclear parity. While the danger of nuclear war has not disappeared, today’s race includes a broader spectrum of revolutionary technologies—artificial intelligence, quantum computing, synthetic biology, robotics, and space technologies, among others.
In 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that China would surpass the United States in these frontier technologies by 2035. This bold claim was reminiscent of the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957, which jolted the United States into a race for technological supremacy. However, the stakes are arguably higher today. The United States faces the real possibility of falling behind in areas that will define military and economic power for the rest of the 21st century.
Unlike the nuclear arms race, where the focus was on maintaining a balance of terror, the technological race is about achieving outright dominance. The nation that leads in artificial intelligence, for example, will have unprecedented advantages in everything from military strategy to economic management. The U.S. cannot afford to lose this race, yet it faces significant challenges in maintaining its technological edge. Bureaucratic inertia, underinvestment in research and development, and a less coordinated national strategy compared to China are all hurdles that need to be overcome.
The Global Economy: A New Battleground for Power
The economic dimension of the U.S.-China rivalry is another area where the stakes are higher than they were during the Cold War. The U.S. and Soviet economies were largely separate, with minimal trade or investment ties. In contrast, the U.S. and China are deeply intertwined economically, making the prospect of decoupling both daunting and potentially destabilizing for the global economy.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities in the U.S. reliance on Chinese supply chains, from pharmaceuticals to rare-earth minerals. This has led to a bipartisan consensus in Washington that economic decoupling from China is necessary for national security. The process is already underway, with the U.S. imposing restrictions on Chinese technology companies, limiting exports of critical technologies, and encouraging American companies to diversify their supply chains.
However, decoupling is a double-edged sword. While it may reduce certain security risks, it also threatens to disrupt global trade and could lead to higher costs for American consumers and businesses. Moreover, decoupling could push China to accelerate its own efforts to become self-sufficient in key technologies, further intensifying the rivalry.
The Russian Factor: An Unstable Ally for China
Complicating the U.S.-China rivalry is the increasingly close relationship between China and Russia. Russia, isolated by the West due to its invasion of Ukraine, has found a willing partner in Beijing. However, this alliance is uneasy at best. China is pragmatic and sees Russia as a useful partner in countering U.S. influence, but it has little interest in supporting Russia’s imperial ambitions in Europe. Moscow’s actions complicate China’s relationships with other important players like India, which has long been a Russian military partner but is now moving closer to the United States.
Russia’s growing cooperation with China, Iran, and North Korea presents a formidable challenge to the U.S.-led international order. These nations share a common goal: to undermine and eventually replace the U.S.-dominated global system. Yet their alliance is fraught with contradictions and competing interests. For instance, China’s growing influence in Central Asia is unlikely to be welcomed by Russia, which sees the region as part of its sphere of influence. Similarly, China’s and Russia’s relationships with North Korea and Iran are more about convenience than genuine partnership, as both regimes are seen as unpredictable and potentially destabilizing.
The Crumbling Liberal Order: Lessons from History
The post-World War II liberal order, which brought unprecedented global stability and economic growth, is under threat. The institutions and norms that underpinned this order are weakening, challenged by the rise of authoritarian powers like China and Russia and by growing disillusionment with globalization in the West.
The breakdown of the international order in the early 20th century led to two world wars and the Great Depression. The current erosion of global institutions and norms could lead to similarly catastrophic outcomes if not addressed. The rise of protectionism, economic nationalism, and territorial expansionism are all signs that the world is moving away from the cooperative norms that have kept the peace for the past 70 years.
What It Will Take: U.S. Investments for National Security
To navigate this challenging global security environment, the United States must make significant and strategic investments. First and foremost, there needs to be a substantial increase in defense spending focused on modernizing the military, including the development of next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced robotics. The U.S. must also invest heavily in cybersecurity to protect its critical infrastructure and maintain its edge in digital warfare.
Moreover, the defense industrial base requires revitalization to ensure the U.S. can sustain long-term military engagements if necessary. This involves not only upgrading manufacturing capabilities but also streamlining procurement processes to bring cutting-edge technologies to the battlefield faster. Investment in human capital is equally crucial; the U.S. must expand STEM education and create pathways for the best and brightest to contribute to national security efforts.
In addition to military and technological investments, the U.S. must strengthen its alliances and partnerships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. This includes supporting allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia in enhancing their defense capabilities, as well as deepening security ties with India and Vietnam.
Finally, the U.S. must lead in developing international norms for emerging technologies, ensuring that advancements in AI, biotechnology, and other fields are governed by rules that reflect democratic values and protect global stability. These investments, while costly, are essential for the U.S. to maintain its global leadership and counter the multifaceted threats posed by China, Russia, and other revisionist powers.
A New Era of Global Engagement
The post-World War II era was marked by U.S. global leadership, which brought stability and prosperity to much of the world. However, the United States is a different country now—exhausted by decades of military engagements, facing deep domestic divisions, and less confident in its institutions and future.
Yet, the American people still carry the DNA of a great power. There is a tension between the desire to withdraw from global conflicts and the recognition that U.S. leadership is often necessary to prevent greater evils. The rise of populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism—what can be seen as the new Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—threaten to drag the U.S. back into a pre-World War II mindset. Only the U.S. can counter their advance by reminding the world that a reluctant America has repeatedly been drawn into conflict, and that isolation has never been the answer to national security or prosperity.
The question now is: Can the U.S. adapt its strategy and make the necessary investments to meet the unique challenges of this new era, or will history repeat itself with even more devastating consequences?
Comments