A New Cold War in a Changing World

The term “Cold War” was first put forward in 1945 by renowned British writer George Orwell, in an article entitled “You and the Atom Bomb.” The author believed that the terrifying power of the atomic bomb meant the world’s most powerful countries would avoid a hot war and enter a phase of a “peace that is no peace.” In a scenario such as this, the great powers would make use of a variety of ways with which to compete.

In the period from the end of World War II to the transformations in Eastern Europe and the former USSR in 1989, the Cold War manifested primarily between the so-called free world led by the United States and the actual, Soviet-led socialist countries, dubbed the “Iron Curtain” by the Western media. Essentially, it was an ideological struggle, while the vast majority of developing countries adopted a stance of neutrality or so-called nonalignment.

It is generally recognized that the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, and Western liberal democracies and market economies proved victorious over totalitarian communist regimes. In other words, the Western model, led by the U.S., became the natural choice of all mankind: the so-called “end of history.”

In the 1990s, the U.S. — already considering itself a victor — became the sole, invincible, and overbearing superpower in the “one superpower, many powers” world setup. But the 9/11 attacks also put a damper on U.S. arrogance, prompting it to focus more on counterterrorism while neglecting other issues, such as the peaceful rise of China.

In 2011, President Barack Obama’s Pivot to Asia policy set off a new Cold War directed at China. One of the aims of this new Cold War was to try to shore up support to contain China’s rise. To isolate China economically, Obama even went so far as to propose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, only for the agreement to be canceled immediately by Donald Trump after he assumed office in 2017. For his part, Trump adopted a foreign policy of favoring the U.S. at the expense of its allies, along with attempts at deglobalization; and after Joe Biden was elected president in 2020, he reversed some of Trump’s policies such as climate change.

For many countries, these changes created a crisis of confidence in the U.S, and even though the U.S. continues with its Obama-inspired new Cold War on China, the global situation has shifted dramatically, making this new Cold War different from the old one.

For one, China has become fully internationalized, not just in terms of the global support it has garnered from many developing countries, such as those in the United Nations, but also in terms of overtaking the U.S. as the world’s largest consumer market (such as, for automobiles and mobile phones). At the same time, China has become most countries’ largest trading partner, likewise surpassing the U.S., a situation quite different from the isolation of the Soviet Union in its day. Today, more and more countries depend on China economically, and China’s economic performance in turn greatly affects these countries. This is what has frustrated U.S. efforts to fence China in.

Second, cracks have appeared within the Western bloc, led by the English-speaking countries. For example, although the European Union also sees China as a systemic rival, it has certain reservations about starting a new Cold War with China, and it is attaching increasing importance to its own strategic autonomy, instead of unconditionally following the U.S.

US Hypocrisy and Multiple Standards

Third, owing to the sharp rise in China’s comprehensive national power, the U.S. is not looking for a large-scale head-on conflict; in fact, U.S. policy toward China is one of controlled strategic competition, precisely to avoid full-blown conflict. The reason for this is that U.S. supremacy is not as stable as it once was — not to mention the fact that the U.S. national debt has exceeded 130% of its GDP.

Fourth, the slogans advanced by the U.S. of defending democracy and human rights no longer meet with the same acceptance, as many countries have come to see the hypocrisy and multiple standards of the U.S. For example, although the U.S. is big on its democratic catchphrases, U.S. politics itself resembles a plutocracy more than a democracy. Many U.S. policies are influenced by big donors and big money — the so-called deep state — and especially by the military-industrial complex, as the U.S. has intentionally weaponized the global economy in furtherance of its arms sales. There is also an obvious duality to U.S. mantras about democracy and human rights. For example, when selling weapons to Saudi Arabia or Egypt, the U.S. promotes neither of these values; worse still, it condones Israel’s invasion of Palestine, something that even many Americans and their allies find unacceptable.

Broadly speaking, slogans pitting Western democracies against non-Western authoritarian states have lost their luster.

Fifth, the U.S. trade war with China has called into question the free trade and market economy that the U.S. prides itself on being, making it clear that the U.S. is in fact a pragmatic country that follows only its interests. To a considerable extent, this trade war has undermined the global economic growth rate, and this is a view that has been repeatedly expressed by the International Monetary Fund.

Since World War II, trade protectionism has shifted from tariffs to non-tariff protectionism, but in moves that can be considered as retrograde as they are blatant, the U.S. has reversed this trend. Furthermore, U.S. weaponization of the dollar and imposition of embargoes and sanctions on other nations at the drop of a hat have driven many countries to a state of increased wariness.

Sixth, the growing divisiveness and polarization within the U.S. has called into question the desirability of the U.S. model. In theory, democracy should emphasize seeking common ground while putting differences aside, and majority rule while respecting the minority. But the polarized politics of the U.S. has made people worry whether it has gone too far and can no longer serve as a role model.

Seventh, overall, countries around the world are becoming increasingly pragmatic and realistic, no longer as easily moved by ideological struggles. Developing countries in particular are more concerned with national development and improving their citizens’ living standards than they are in engaging in any cold war. In reality, the Cold War is no longer a battle of values but an undisguised battle of national interests, and whether a country chooses a side depends more on considerations of practical benefits than it does on some abstract ideological struggle. If it hopes to garner more support, the U.S. will need to come up with more benefits it can offer other countries.