The United States is a ‘Nonstop War Chariot’

From the end of the Cold War to the chaos in the Middle East to the United States’ intentional exclusion of Russia and containment of China, the state of world affairs is increasingly without peace. Why does America continue to upset world order in such a reckless manner?

At the beginning of the Cold War, American strategists analyzed the characteristics of Soviet Union behavior in world politics, behavior which is now remarkably similar to America’s own. The country is a nonstop war chariot, unless, perhaps, it encounters a powerful resisting force. But America’s constantly progressing “war chariot system” differs in that it is driven by the monstrous power of capitalism, with an outward expansion that far exceeds that of the former Soviet Union. What’s more, this American military complex has been in line with—and helped to fortify—the world order of the past 300 years. It is natural, then, that the current world order has worked to continue to propel the American “war chariot” forward.

The Domestic Roots of American International Policy: 'The Military-Industrial Complex'

When describing their attitudes toward international diplomacy, Americans claim that they are motivated by a combination of “principles and interests.” But as I see it, the invoking of “common principles” or “universal values” is essentially nothing more than a pretty and misleading turn of phrase. Otherwise, why does Russia, even after having implemented policies of “free trade” and “free democracy,” all in accordance with said “universal principles,” still suffer under America’s ruthless exclusion and oppression?

At the same time that we, Russia, bear the brunt of America’s threats, Americans themselves suffer greatly from this complex. Looking at the United States today, it is evident that the most powerful special interest groups, those promoting the military-industrial complex, have hijacked the country’s political system. One such example is the country’s inundation of firearms, which has led to the injury and death of roughly 30,000 people per year. Even though the U.S. Senate has voted in favor of stricter gun regulations, the final result was predictable. Citing a clause in the U.S. Constitution, a two-thirds majority was required to make policy adjustments. Because the Senate did not arrive at such a majority, ultimately nothing was changed.

A relevant constitutional clause, perhaps, but what kind of special interest could make a definite two-thirds majority of politicians reach an agreement? This “definite majority” rule may at first glance appear to greatly respect democratic principles, but it is actually a mere provision that severely restricts the efficacy of the democratic process.

This kind of outcome is deeply entrenched in the structure of the military-industrial system. Established at the same time as the age of agricultural society, constitutional government structure inherently restrains the rights and interests of the masses and best protects those of the privileged few. President Eisenhower, a veteran of World War II, laid bare the secret of America’s success: America’s strongest oligarchical strength is undoubtedly its “military-industrial complex” and its corresponding political food chain. The military-industrial business, including numerous research and development institutions, consists of the following: at the bottom are voters, next are legislative members, and after that are political entrepreneurs. After war is over, what else can ensure the preservation of this order of command? The key to such a system is simple: in the absence of any real threat to security, this process requires the identification of a new one.

The Historical Nature of American Behavior in Global Affairs

The reason that this “war chariot system” is able to go on unabated can be found in the very foundation of today’s world order. An understanding of the history of world affairs over the past 300 years is first necessary to fully comprehend the origin of the structural tension that exists in Chinese-American relations, as well as America’s ceaseless and strategic pursuit of new enemies to sustain the driving force of its “war chariot system.”

The past 300 years of history can be described, in brief, as the process of capitalist domination over international affairs. Starting with the 18th century, the beginning of Western domestic capitalization, market “deintercalation” and the prioritization of society as a whole over the components of society ultimately resulted in the supremacy of capitalist power in relation to the country’s domestic political strength.* In the second 100 years, that is, in the course of the 19th century, the capitalization of world politics was already the norm, then it gave way to widespread western colonization.

Over the first half of the next century, the early 1900s, targeted countries fought against the oppression of Western capitalist power and worked to dismantle the colonialist world order. This took shape in the establishment of socialist countries and the nationalist democratic liberation movements of the '50s and '60s. During the Cold War in the following half-century, the essence of capitalist power did not change. The only change occurred in the socialization of an “economic doctrine” and increased flexibility in a “cultural doctrine,” constructing the aforementioned “universal values” centered on the principles of “libertarian democracy.” At this time, America achieved, contrary to what was expected, a victory in “a war without gunsmoke.”** Formerly the greatest opponents of the “economic doctrine,” this class of intellectual elite were subsumed by the cultural doctrine of the time, falling for the false belief that in order to resolve the world’s problems, it was only necessary to implement “universal values.”

The Influence of Institutionalized Conflict on Chinese-American Relations

From the South China Sea to Northeast Asia, America has adopted a method of strategic containment in its dealings with China, a method that even exceeds the past 300 years of institutionalized world order. In the past 300 years, the United States and England have consistently been at the center of world politics. Naturally, America wants to do its utmost to uphold this system, even though it is also determined not to admit to falling for any sort of “Thucydides trap,” which is a recurring theme in the progress of Western history.

The leading domestic institutions of capitalist power, in addition to having shaped the order of world politics in this way, are also the most important starting points when attempting to understand the current state of Chinese-American relations. This approach is also in accordance with Marxism’s theory of international politics and is at the essence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. But after more than 30 years, Chinese social sciences have taken to doctrinism at the expense of autonomy, leading to a “consciousness of the problem of colonization.” Such origins of the characterization of world politics have been forgotten and many people view international political theory from the perspective of American doctrinism, resulting in an increasingly great distance from the true state of affairs.

After one clearly understands the roots of America’s domestic character, as well as the nature of America’s domination of world politics, one can recognize that although there is vast opportunity for cooperation between the United States and China, especially with the high level of interdependence in terms of trade between the two nations, there are nonetheless deep-seated institutionalized conflicts. Moreover, economic interdependence does not necessarily imply the eradication of structural conflict between two nations. For example, the high level of economic interdependence among European countries, though slightly lower than the level of interdependence between China and the U.S. today, was unable to prevent two world wars from breaking out. In the same way, the high level of Chinese-American economic interdependence was unable to prevent American strategists from forming and promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a partnership that intentionally excludes China.

Let us suppose that China was to one day enter into America’s “Universal Values Club,” although such a possibility seems unlikely. Even if this were the case, the structural tension existing between the U.S. and China would not be completely eliminated—as is the case with present day American-Russian relations. This has been determined by the past 300 years of structural conflict in international affairs.

The structural conflict that characterizes Chinese-American relations directly influences the direction of world politics. Is it possible that a continuation of the past 300 years of history might bring us to a new turning point? Let us look to the past to inform our predictions for the future. If people living today can understand the characteristics and origin of America’s domestic system and the historical nature of world affairs, they can recognize the militarized nature of American behavior in international affairs, as well as the inevitability of both cooperation and conflict as the norm for Chinese-American relations. Therefore, those people who frequently mention conflict invoke nationalism, even populism, which is not only a sign of ignorance and infantilism, but also a kind of political illusion.

*Editor’s note: Deintercalation is a scientific process involving the removal of a molecule previously inserted between two others.

**Editor’s note: The phrase “war without gunsmoke” refers to an internal Chinese Communist Party report “Fighting the People’s War Without Gunsmoke” that outlined how other revolutions had toppled other regimes and proposed ways the Chinese Communist Party could prevent such a possibility from occurring in China.

The author is a political science professor at the Renmin University of China and Associate Dean of the National Development and Strategic Research Institute.