US-China Power Competition: Out of Touch with the Realities on the Ground

Financial constraints brought to the fore by debates over aid to Ukraine, combined with serious infrastructure deficiencies in the defense industry, are putting the US—which maintains a military presence in three different conflict zones—in a bind, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. It remains a question mark how much longer the US, which is trying to maintain its economic and military hegemony there, can continue this foreign policy in the face of the reality of China.

China is a significant variable that is dismantling the American political and military status quo in East Asia. And while it may run counter to the historical mission of the American establishment in principle, foreign policies that could trigger a war, such as containment and arming the region, must now be abandoned. Accepting China as its peer and avoiding a competition over 'who is the greatest power' that could turn into a 'hegemony war' would be the most logical stance for both the US and this geography.

Two main factors distinguish the US-China rivalry, which could turn into a hot conflict, from other examples in history. First, China is economically stronger than any rival the US has faced so far. In his comparison, Prof. Hugh White highlights that China's current economic power is at least twice the financial capacity of the Soviet Union, which challenged the US at the height of the Cold War. The second factor that makes a potential rivalry different is that the US lacks a necessary motivation and a logical reason to act recklessly and confront China.

The fact that the German Empire in 1917, the Nazis and the Japanese Empire in 1941, and the Soviet Union after 1948 posed a direct threat to the US in the Western Hemisphere made a rivalry with all its risks, and war if necessary, legitimate for American politicians. However, there is no element at the center of Chinese foreign policy that targets US influence and presence in the Western Hemisphere. China has two goals: to become a regional hegemon and to remove the US from Asia. Both goals have a realistic perspective. Just as the US, with the Monroe Doctrine declared in 1823, does not accept the presence of a foreign power that could pose a threat to it in its own sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, China similarly does not want the US, which it sees as a threat, in its own backyard. The situation is extremely simple and understandable.

But the truth is that the US, now acting with ossified Cold War reflexes, will not allow China, which is making its weight felt more every day, to become a power that controls the Asia-Pacific region. It will also force regional countries to take sides and make a choice. From the perspective of the American establishment, regional countries cannot freely conduct their relations with China under the security umbrella provided by the US. On the other hand, although the US seems to have the wind at its back with the Ukraine war, we are talking about a highly variable and fragile foreign policy. The results of the 2024 Presidential election will once again determine the stance of American foreign policy. It should not be forgotten that the global expansion of American foreign policy and the leadership role it has assumed do not receive support from the American public.

Is the Power Competition Worth the Risks and Losses It Will Bring?

The question waiting for an answer is: Is a war-weary US determined to confront China at any cost, and if so, does it have the economic and military power to back it up? The October 2023 report of the Congressional Commission, "America's Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States," states that the US military is not structured to fight two major rivals at the same time.

The American Navy, which also forms the backbone of the US in the Indo-Pacific, is on the verge of losing its superiority at sea due to funding shortages over the last decade. Furthermore, one of the US's greatest advantages in a war situation has been the production speed of its defense industry, which outpaced its rivals. But the situation is different today. China, whose current naval forces are already larger than the existing American navy, continues to grow its navy by the size of the French navy (130 warships) every four years. The US Navy, on the other hand, plans to add only 75 warships to its inventory over the next decade. The idea that it is difficult to even maintain the current navy amidst infrastructure deficiencies and economic constraints is quite common among experts.

The financial sustainability of a war in a possible hot conflict with China is another question mark. During World War II, the ratio of national debt to gross domestic product (GDP) rose from 61% to 113%. Considering that the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 100% even in today's peacetime environment, it is estimated that a possible war would push this ratio above 200%. However, the Congressional Budget Office, in its "The 2023 Long-Term Budget Outlook" report, expects the debt ratio to reach 181% of GDP in 2053. In other words, this picture shows that a war situation today would bring vital risks for the American financial system.

The Russia-Ukraine war, where the defense industry plays a largely decisive role, draws attention to the inadequacy of the American war industry infrastructure at the center of the debates. In this context, it is thought-provoking that the US can only increase its defense production by 10% and with difficulty. Wess Mitchell's assessment in his article for Foreign Policy on November 16 is noteworthy. According to Mitchell, the situation is alarming enough to require the enactment of a new 'defense production act' to convert some civilian industrial organizations for military production purposes.

Hesitant View of the US in Southeast Asia

Seeking alliances in Southeast Asia, the US is forcing regional countries to make a choice through diplomatic means. According to research, regional countries see China as a more realistic, stable, and better investment partner for the future. The Australian think tank the Lowy Institute, which compares the influence of both countries on Southeast Asia in four separate categories, shows that the US has begun to lose to China in every field. According to the report titled "Asia Power Snapshot: China and the United States in Southeast Asia," China has been filling the power vacuum left by the US in the last five years in the categories of 'economic relationships,' 'defense networks,' 'diplomatic influence,' and 'cultural influence.' Only in the Philippines and Singapore does the US rank ahead of China.

In this study dated April 20, 2023, we see that while the US still maintains its superiority in defense relations across the region, China has surpassed the US in terms of commercial and economic influence. Another point of note in the report is the concern of Indonesia and Vietnam, which side with the US in the defense field, not to alienate the Chinese government. Similarly, the Singaporean think tank The ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, in its report dated February 9, 2023, states that China is the most influential country in Southeast Asia in terms of 'economy' and 'political-strategic power.'

Conclusion: The US is Racing Against Time

In conclusion, it is not possible for the US, whose defense industry is sounding alarms and which is struggling with impossibilities in the financial sector, to confront China alone. In this framework, the US needs allies like Japan and Australia that will shoulder the geopolitical burden of the region and fight together if necessary. However, Washington, which has entered into a search for alliances to balance China in East Asia, has not yet been able to convince regional countries of its determination and sincerity. And it does not look like it will be able to. And time is running out for the US, which will enter Presidential elections in 12 months.