Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55 doi:10.1093/cjip/pol003 Power Transition and China-US Conflicts Ronald L.Tammen*and Jacek Kugler The United States places at risk its opportunity to remain the world's pre- eminent nation by focusing all of its energy,time and capabilities on the war against terrorism and on its ancillary action in Iraq,despite compelling reasons otherwise.This myopia,conditioned by unambiguous security threats and the emotion of the moment,is abetted by a stubborn resistance to the maintenance of a long-term focus in foreign policy.Thus a combination of forces,imposed internally and externally,handicap American leadership and threaten the United States'strategic interests. The attacks of 9/11 and subsequent events in the Middle East have created a condition of immediacy in US foreign policy.The crisis de jure atmosphere dominates our attention and concentrates our intellectual resources.Short-term benefits do exist;for example,as a nation,America has been resilient in its response to the terrorist threat.However,the other pre-occupation,the debate over Iraq,has been notably near-term in its content.The strategic consequences of this action are being understood only now. Behind the facade of these all-consuming national priorities,American strategic thinking has grown stale.This is partly the result of the Cold War generation of policy makers failing to anticipate the new world,and finding their core concepts to be useless both in the war on terrorism and in the broader effort to maintain US leadership.It is also the fault of the supporting strategy-making community and its failure to provide fresh insight,continuity and focus. The potential consequences of this lapse in attention and intellectual insight could not be more severe.A great challenge for the United States and the world lies not in terrorism or even in regional conflict.Instead,it lies in the longer-term collision of interests between the US and an emerging,powerful China.Appreciation of that fact should force policy makers to recalculate and reanalyse current crises from a strategic perspective.Events in the Middle East,South Asia and East Asia are important not for what they are Jacek Kugler et al.,'Integrating Theory and Policy:Global Implications of the War in Iraq'. International Studies Review,Vol.6,No.4(2004).pp.163-79. Corresponding author.Email:tammen@pdx.edu Reproduced from the Science of Internationa/Politics,with kind permission of the authors and the Institute of International Studies,Tsinghua University
Power Transition and China–US Conflicts Ronald L. Tammen* and Jacek Kugler The United States places at risk its opportunity to remain the world’s preeminent nation by focusing all of its energy, time and capabilities on the war against terrorism and on its ancillary action in Iraq, despite compelling reasons otherwise. This myopia, conditioned by unambiguous security threats and the emotion of the moment, is abetted by a stubborn resistance to the maintenance of a long-term focus in foreign policy. Thus a combination of forces, imposed internally and externally, handicap American leadership and threaten the United States’ strategic interests. The attacks of 9/11 and subsequent events in the Middle East have created a condition of immediacy in US foreign policy. The crisis de jure atmosphere dominates our attention and concentrates our intellectual resources. Short-term benefits do exist; for example, as a nation, America has been resilient in its response to the terrorist threat. However, the other pre-occupation, the debate over Iraq, has been notably near-term in its content. The strategic consequences of this action are being understood only now.1 Behind the fac¸ade of these all-consuming national priorities, American strategic thinking has grown stale. This is partly the result of the Cold War generation of policy makers failing to anticipate the new world, and finding their core concepts to be useless both in the war on terrorism and in the broader effort to maintain US leadership. It is also the fault of the supporting strategy-making community and its failure to provide fresh insight, continuity and focus. The potential consequences of this lapse in attention and intellectual insight could not be more severe. A great challenge for the United States and the world lies not in terrorism or even in regional conflict. Instead, it lies in the longer-term collision of interests between the US and an emerging, powerful China. Appreciation of that fact should force policy makers to recalculate and reanalyse current crises from a strategic perspective. Events in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia are important not for what they are * Corresponding author. Email: tammen@pdx.edu 1 Jacek Kugler et al., ‘Integrating Theory and Policy: Global Implications of the War in Iraq’, International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 4 (2004), pp. 163–79. Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55 doi:10.1093/cjip/pol003 Reproduced from the Science of International Politics, with kind permission of the authors and the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua University
36 Ronald L.Tammen and Jacek Kugler but for what they will demonstrate about American leadership in the ultimate contest to come,as Asia becomes the focal point of world politics.2 Theoretical Framework through a Policy Lens A snapshot of world power structures reveals a hierarchical structure implicitly recognized by national leaders.In the past,hierarchies were constructed around nation states,but in this global environment they also include powerful soft power non-national actors such as corporations, interest groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).This global hierarchy is constantly in flux,reflecting variations in relative power driven by differential nation-state growth rates and movements of capital and resources across frontiers.In today's hierarchy,the US dominance is unchallenged,but US pre-eminence is declining in relative terms,and will in two to four decades eventually dissipate.'This article focuses on the lack of a US long-range strategy;the absence of a plan to bring key nations and stakeholders into a US-led coalition of satisfied nations.It is a significant omission because such a coalition will be necessary when there are ominous challenges to US power. The United States,though the single largest military superpower,is not a global hegemon.It maintains dominance only by assembling and managing a coalition of nations with congruent preferences.Within their regional environments,Brazil,China or India play similar roles.Nations satisfied with the status quo accept the rules the pre-eminent nation creates,manages and defends,because they share the resulting stability,prosperity and peace. Some nations remain outside the leading coalition because they challenge or reject existing international rules and norms. Occasionally,these dissatisfied nations become powerful enough to challenge the pre-eminent nation for leadership of the global system.In such rare circumstances,world wars of massive devastation and scope reorder the global hierarchy.A similar process evolves in the periphery among members of regional hierarchies.Regional wars-evident in the Middle East today-alter the local distribution of power and reorder regional hierarchies but do not change the structure of world politics.This is where current strategic thinking has gone awry:the outcomes of the 2 This article gives recognition to various collaborative research efforts conducted by Ron Tammen,Jacek Kugler,Doug Lemke,Brian Efird and Siddarth Swamingthan including articles in Asian Perspective,International Studies Review and International Interactions, which published articles from the Power Transition Conference held in August 2003 in Carmel,CA.Analysis of the Taiwan situation is a continuation of the logic outlined in Power Transitions and an extension of an article and series of lectures given by Ron Tammen in Taiwan in 2004.See Ronald Tammen et al.,Power Transitions:Strategies for the 2/st Century (Chatham:Chatham House,2000). National Intelligence Council,Mapping the Global Future (Washington,DC:GPO,2004); Ronald Tammen et al.,Power Transitions. Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55
but for what they will demonstrate about American leadership in the ultimate contest to come, as Asia becomes the focal point of world politics.2 Theoretical Framework through a Policy Lens A snapshot of world power structures reveals a hierarchical structure implicitly recognized by national leaders. In the past, hierarchies were constructed around nation states, but in this global environment they also include powerful soft power non-national actors such as corporations, interest groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This global hierarchy is constantly in flux, reflecting variations in relative power driven by differential nation-state growth rates and movements of capital and resources across frontiers. In today’s hierarchy, the US dominance is unchallenged, but US pre-eminence is declining in relative terms, and will in two to four decades eventually dissipate.3 This article focuses on the lack of a US long-range strategy; the absence of a plan to bring key nations and stakeholders into a US-led coalition of satisfied nations. It is a significant omission because such a coalition will be necessary when there are ominous challenges to US power. The United States, though the single largest military superpower, is not a global hegemon. It maintains dominance only by assembling and managing a coalition of nations with congruent preferences. Within their regional environments, Brazil, China or India play similar roles. Nations satisfied with the status quo accept the rules the pre-eminent nation creates, manages and defends, because they share the resulting stability, prosperity and peace. Some nations remain outside the leading coalition because they challenge or reject existing international rules and norms. Occasionally, these dissatisfied nations become powerful enough to challenge the pre-eminent nation for leadership of the global system. In such rare circumstances, world wars of massive devastation and scope reorder the global hierarchy. A similar process evolves in the periphery among members of regional hierarchies. Regional wars—evident in the Middle East today—alter the local distribution of power and reorder regional hierarchies but do not change the structure of world politics. This is where current strategic thinking has gone awry: the outcomes of the 2 This article gives recognition to various collaborative research efforts conducted by Ron Tammen, Jacek Kugler, Doug Lemke, Brian Efird and Siddarth Swamingthan including articles in Asian Perspective, International Studies Review and International Interactions, which published articles from the Power Transition Conference held in August 2003 in Carmel, CA. Analysis of the Taiwan situation is a continuation of the logic outlined in Power Transitions and an extension of an article and series of lectures given by Ron Tammen in Taiwan in 2004. See Ronald Tammen et al., Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century (Chatham: Chatham House, 2000). 3 National Intelligence Council, Mapping the Global Future (Washington, DC: GPO, 2004); Ronald Tammen et al., Power Transitions. 36 Ronald L. Tammen and Jacek Kugler Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55
Power Transition and China-US Conflicts 37 Afghanistan and Irag conflicts may alter the face of terrorism and reshape the Middle East hierarchy,but will not fundamentally change the relations among contenders in the global hierarchy or ensure long-term stability for the United States.A new strategic vision must address these twin challenges.4 The sine qua non of the pre-eminent global power's foreign policy is global stability.Determined US stewardship over the last half century has forged a stable international political and economic system and a global regime that promotes,but does not absolutely insist upon,democracy,human rights, free press and open economic practices.These fundamental institutional structures tend to quell radical elements and help prevent tyranny by a minority or majority,regardless of ideological or religious preferences.The US liberal economic and political leadership is designed to utilize incentives (economic,financial and political)or,less often and less successfully. sanctions to align other nations'interests to those of our own.Where those interests cannot be aligned and a threat to global stability is evident,the United States exercises the use of force.Force tends to be the last resort as it is expensive. When force is used effectively,it has fundamental consequences for the global system.For example,following World War II,the United States recast the international system in a much more successful manner than the British did following the previous great war,solidifying the role of the United States in the world during the 20th century.Military occupation and the resulting change in political and economic systems,aided in the transitions of Germany,Italy and Japan into stable democratic members of the international community.Today,Germany is one of the leading nations of the European Union(EU),and Japan is a major economic player in Asia and beyond.The United States altered the political preferences and goals of populations in these countries to one more consistent with the international norms instituted for the global hierarchy led by the United States.The Cold War evidenced a similar end:the Soviet challenge was halted not because of ideological or military confrontation,but because the Soviet Union dissolved due to its internal bankruptcy and adopted an open market economy and an elementary democratic system.Experience demonstrates that changing preferences is the path to stability and prosperity. 4 The key concepts for strategic vision include variations in power,commitment to the stats quo,population,productivity and political capacity.Variation in the components of power-population.productivity and political capacity-are important to decision makers because they provide the preconditions to war.peace and integration.The propensity to engage in either war or policy integration is driven in part by the relative power among nations and in part by the degree of compliance or rejection of norms and rules that compose the status quo.Dominant nations cannot effectively control differential growth rates in the output of other nations,but their foreign policy can generate political satisfaction or dissatisfaction with existing rules in the hierarchy. Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55
Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts may alter the face of terrorism and reshape the Middle East hierarchy, but will not fundamentally change the relations among contenders in the global hierarchy or ensure long-term stability for the United States. A new strategic vision must address these twin challenges.4 The sine qua non of the pre-eminent global power’s foreign policy is global stability. Determined US stewardship over the last half century has forged a stable international political and economic system and a global regime that promotes, but does not absolutely insist upon, democracy, human rights, free press and open economic practices. These fundamental institutional structures tend to quell radical elements and help prevent tyranny by a minority or majority, regardless of ideological or religious preferences. The US liberal economic and political leadership is designed to utilize incentives (economic, financial and political) or, less often and less successfully, sanctions to align other nations’ interests to those of our own. Where those interests cannot be aligned and a threat to global stability is evident, the United States exercises the use of force. Force tends to be the last resort as it is expensive. When force is used effectively, it has fundamental consequences for the global system. For example, following World War II, the United States recast the international system in a much more successful manner than the British did following the previous great war, solidifying the role of the United States in the world during the 20th century. Military occupation and the resulting change in political and economic systems, aided in the transitions of Germany, Italy and Japan into stable democratic members of the international community. Today, Germany is one of the leading nations of the European Union (EU), and Japan is a major economic player in Asia and beyond. The United States altered the political preferences and goals of populations in these countries to one more consistent with the international norms instituted for the global hierarchy led by the United States. The Cold War evidenced a similar end: the Soviet challenge was halted not because of ideological or military confrontation, but because the Soviet Union dissolved due to its internal bankruptcy and adopted an open market economy and an elementary democratic system. Experience demonstrates that changing preferences is the path to stability and prosperity. 4 The key concepts for strategic vision include variations in power, commitment to the status quo, population, productivity and political capacity. Variation in the components of power—population, productivity and political capacity—are important to decision makers because they provide the preconditions to war, peace and integration. The propensity to engage in either war or policy integration is driven in part by the relative power among nations and in part by the degree of compliance or rejection of norms and rules that compose the status quo. Dominant nations cannot effectively control differential growth rates in the output of other nations, but their foreign policy can generate political satisfaction or dissatisfaction with existing rules in the hierarchy. Power Transition and China–US Conflicts 37 Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55
38 Ronald L.Tammen and Jacek Kugler Condition:dominated hierarchy(preponderance) War Prussia- Parity-Most severe conflict Austro- Hungary war/ Al Queda attack Neutrality USA overtakes Britain Dissatisfied Integration Satisfaction Satisfied Defender preponderant Parity Challenger preponderant Relative power Fig.1 Dynamics of power distributions. A unified strategic framework would provide a guide to the future of a complex evolutionary process.Such a framework could lead to understanding world structures,because it allows decision makers to anticipate periods of confrontation and cooperation.Knowing the likely threats permits policy prioritization and timing.This kind of framework has been absent from US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.This article represents a first step towards using empirically tested propositions to frame future world politics within a strategic perspective. Dynamics of the Theoretical Framework Figure I integrates and relates in a dynamic fashion the central variables of our strategic argument:power,hierarchy,satisfaction and the probability of war or peace.It illustrates interactions among the three key variables under the condition that the international hierarchy is dominated by one recognized preponderant power.5 5 Four dimensions pose certain display limitations. Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55
A unified strategic framework would provide a guide to the future of a complex evolutionary process. Such a framework could lead to understanding world structures, because it allows decision makers to anticipate periods of confrontation and cooperation. Knowing the likely threats permits policy prioritization and timing. This kind of framework has been absent from US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. This article represents a first step towards using empirically tested propositions to frame future world politics within a strategic perspective. Dynamics of the Theoretical Framework Figure 1 integrates and relates in a dynamic fashion the central variables of our strategic argument: power, hierarchy, satisfaction and the probability of war or peace. It illustrates interactions among the three key variables under the condition that the international hierarchy is dominated by one recognized preponderant power.5 Relative power Defender preponderant Parity Challenger preponderant Satisfaction Dissatisfied Satisfied Condition: dominated hierarchy (preponderance) Neutrality War Integration Increasing severity of conflict Increasing intensity of cooperation ParityMost severe conflict Prussia– Austro– Hungary war Al Queda attack USA overtakes Britain Fig. 1 Dynamics of power distributions. 5 Four dimensions pose certain display limitations. 38 Ronald L. Tammen and Jacek Kugler Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55
Power Transition and China-US Conflicts 39 Condition:uniform hierarchy (balance of power) War Most severe conflict-WWII 个 Neutrality Dissatisfied Integration Satisfaction Satisfied Defender preponderant Parity Challenger preponderant Relative power Fig.2 Dynamics of power distributions. This theoretical framework,described in policy terms in the earlier paragraphs,draws many conclusions,but one in particular stands out in its strategic importance:wars (in dark grey)occur at the global level when a dissatisfied challenger sees an opportunity to take on the pre-eminent international leader.Under an equal distribution of power,peace and integration (in light grey)may take place,but only when major global participants all agree on the set of norms and rules that govern world politics.From this perspective,the democratic peace-among Germany, Britain and France after the World War II and the subsequent evolution of the EU-emerged precisely because the United States imposed a common set of democratic institutions on Europe and forced the emergence of "liberal'democracies.Thus,even though the power distribution in Europe was similar to that preceding World Wars I and II,peace broke out and integration followed because nations shared common institutions and norms as established by the United States.Following the collapse of the Soviet Union it became clear,albeit slowly,that the theoretical proposition that a balance of power guaranteed peace was inconsistent with the structural reality of the international system.Global peace is maintained when there is one overwhelmingly powerful dominant country.Figure I intellectually Chinese Journal of International Politics,Vol.1,2006,35-55
This theoretical framework, described in policy terms in the earlier paragraphs, draws many conclusions, but one in particular stands out in its strategic importance: wars (in dark grey ) occur at the global level when a dissatisfied challenger sees an opportunity to take on the pre-eminent international leader. Under an equal distribution of power, peace and integration (in light grey) may take place, but only when major global participants all agree on the set of norms and rules that govern world politics. From this perspective, the democratic peace—among Germany, Britain and France after the World War II and the subsequent evolution of the EU—emerged precisely because the United States imposed a common set of democratic institutions on Europe and forced the emergence of ‘liberal’ democracies. Thus, even though the power distribution in Europe was similar to that preceding World Wars I and II, peace broke out and integration followed because nations shared common institutions and norms as established by the United States. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union it became clear, albeit slowly, that the theoretical proposition that a balance of power guaranteed peace was inconsistent with the structural reality of the international system. Global peace is maintained when there is one overwhelmingly powerful dominant country. Figure 1 intellectually Relative power Defender preponderant Parity Challenger preponderant Satisfaction Dissatisfied Satisfied Condition: uniform hierarchy (balance of power) Neutrality War Integration Increasing severity of conflict Increasing intensity of cooperation Most severe conflictWWII Fig. 2 Dynamics of power distributions. Power Transition and China–US Conflicts 39 Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 35–55