From 1947 at the end of World War 2 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—and their allies—were locked in a geopolitical, ideological, and economic conflict known as the Cold War. Though the parties were technically at peace, the period was characterized by an aggressive arms race, proxy wars, and ideological bids for world dominance. The conflict was called “Cold War” because neither the USSR nor the US officially declared war on each other.
In June 1950, the Cold War’s first military action began when the Soviet-backed North Korean People’s Army invaded its pro-Western neighbor to the south. US officials feared this was the first step in a communist campaign to take over the world, and they decided nonintervention was not an option. As a result, the Cold War split the world into two rival sides that came into conflict with each other in many parts of the world. The Cold War has left the world with a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, particularly in the US and in Russia.
From the Associated Press: “Warning of a potential new Cold War, the head of the United Nations implored China and the United States to repair their “completely dysfunctional” relationship before problems between the two large and deeply influential countries spill over even further into the rest of the planet.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said a new Cold War could be more perilous because the Soviet-US antipathy created clear rules, and both sides were conscious of the risk of nuclear destruction. That produced back channels “to guarantee that things would not get out of control.”
Dr. Alan Dupont, CEO of the geopolitical risk consultancy the Cognoscenti Group, said the clashing geopolitical ambitions of the US and China are fueling a rivalry that could be even more dangerous than the original Cold War. In an article published by The Diplomat—The US-China Cold War Has Already Started—Dupont said the shift from cooperation to strategic rivalry has triggered an intensifying debate about whether the world is on the precipice of a new Cold War.
To bolster his thesis, Dupont cited six clear parallels with the Cold War. First, US-China rivalry is between the world’s two most powerful states, one a liberal democracy and the other avowedly communist. Second, it is a system-wide contest for supremacy. Third, it is about values as well as power. Fourth, it will be a multi-decade struggle for global ascendancy. Fifth, a second geopolitical bifurcation of the world is likely. Sixth, neither side wants a full-scale military confrontation.
A common misperception is that mounting differences over trade and technology are primarily responsible for the spike in hostilities. But while important in themselves, the US-China trade and tech wars are symptomatic of a deeper and more dangerous geopolitical divide rooted in their clashing strategic ambitions and contrasting political systems, according to Dupont.
“Beijing thinks Washington is bent on containing China to prolong the declining power of the United States while denying China its rightful place in the sun. Americans increasingly believe that Beijing is threatening US security interests, undermining its prosperity, interfering in its democracy, and challenging its values. Anti-China sentiment unites an otherwise divided and partisan Washington,” he said.
The core problem in US-China relations is their diametrically opposed political systems and associated values, compounded by their sense of exceptionalism. But the main contest between the US and China is economic, which means that trade, investment, technology, and strategic industries are central to the rivalry.
Although more corrosive than explosive, the conflict would usher in an extended period of great power competition that could roll back the gains from more than 70 years of trade liberalization, disrupt global supply chains, Balkanize the Internet, and divide the world into two mutually incompatible political systems, Dupont said.
Although a Cold War is below the threshold of a military confrontation, it could result in one unless carefully managed.
Fortunately, we are still in the foothills of a second Cold War rather than its frigid heights. Dupont said there is still time to flatten the spiking hostility curve. Those who argue that a democracy and an authoritarian state can never find the requisite accommodations ignore the lessons of history, he said, adding that “despite their differences and a few close calls, the US and the Soviet Union found ways to work together and avoid a major war during their multi-decade confrontation.”