Clash of blocs: What truly matters in the US-China geopolitical battle?
Commentator Wei Da says that compared with hard power, soft power will play a more critical role in winning the current round of bloc confrontations.
In today’s world, blocs with distinct lines of division have undoubtedly re-emerged. However, the context of these blocs is more complex and nuanced compared with the clear-cut confrontation during the Cold War era.
Worlds and blocs
During the Cold War, China proposed the “Three Worlds” theory, in which the First World was made up of superpowers the US and the Soviet Union; the Second World included Europe, Japan and Australia; and the Third World consisted of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, including China.
This [China’s] so-called macro judgement was inevitably one-sided and superficial.
Today, after nearly 30 years of intense globalisation, three major blocs have emerged: one consisting of the US, the European Union and developed nations in the Indo-Pacific; another comprising Russia, China, Iran and others; and the so-called global south countries forming the third.
One can see that China’s Three Worlds concept was primarily based on traditional national hard power, with inadequate consideration or avoidance of soft power indicators such as ideology, values, human rights and institutions. This so-called macro judgement was inevitably one-sided and superficial.
The outcome of the Cold War, where the West defeated the Soviet Union without any fighting, was astonishing to many people at the time, because it was clearly the result of a soft power struggle rather than a hard power showdown. The profound and lasting lessons are worth mulling over for the parties involved in the current round of bloc confrontations.
Battle of soft power
The confrontation between blocs does not necessarily portend a world war, a lesson humanity seems to have learned after the Second World War. The outcome of the Second World War, with the ultimate victory of justice and anti-aggression nations, declared the failure and bankruptcy of such barbaric values. The subsequent nuclear age also made it impossible for unilateral bloody conquests to prevail.
Thus, during the Cold War, local wars broke out occasionally, but a new world war never materialised. The Cold War became primarily a competition of national soft power to determine the ultimate victory.
In the current round of bloc confrontation, hard power remains an important foundation, but soft power will most likely play an even more crucial role in determining victory. Compared with the Cold War era, the first bloc still upholds core values and ideological principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, while continuously renewing and refining its practices to lead global development.
... confronting the “threat” (sometimes called colour revolutions) from the first bloc provides these countries with a common language and motivation for cooperation.
As challengers, the second bloc displays more distinct characteristics compared with the unified state of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Russia seeks to revive the geographical ambitions of the Russian Empire; China aims to revive the traditional socialist system; Iran attempts to maintain a mediaeval-style theocratic regime; and North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba believe that monopolising power is the key to their survival.
Given their differing values and interests, how is it possible for the countries in the second bloc to form an alliance to challenge the first bloc? Because the second bloc have something in common.
If they adopt and implement values and ideologies similar to the first bloc, their plans and goals will be unachievable; but confronting the “threat” (sometimes called colour revolutions) from the first bloc provides these countries with a common language and motivation for cooperation.
First bloc face undercurrents
The third bloc, also known as the global south, is a fascinating grey area. These countries do not have significant value or interest conflicts with either the first or second blocs, but are focused on domestic issues such as politics, economy, people’s livelihoods, education and infrastructure.
However, as they develop, they inevitably need to make decisions about their development path. Recently, Argentina and Bangladesh have made new choices, clearly leaning towards the first bloc. Regardless of how one characterises the changes in these countries, they reflect the choices of its people, thus determining the fate of the country.
These issues require effective response and handling by the countries of the first bloc through stabilising and counterbalancing the second bloc, and gaining cooperation and support from the third bloc.
The countries from the first bloc are not without their worries, as numerous challenges and undercurrents are brewing, such as the ongoing and intensely divisive US presidential elections; anti-immigrant social unrest and racial conflicts in the UK; security concerns such as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas and Israel-Iran conflicts in the Middle East, and potential security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region; managing the double-edged sword of modern technological advancements such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and space exploration; and preventing global warming, pollution, nuclear proliferation and pandemics.
These issues require effective response and handling by the countries of the first bloc through stabilising and counterbalancing the second bloc, and gaining cooperation and support from the third bloc.
Fate of countries in second bloc uncertain
Of course, the most intriguing aspect is the trajectory and fate of the countries of the second bloc. From a macro perspective, their challenge to the first bloc represents either the forward momentum of human civilisation that drives a new leading qualitative evolution, or a temporary countercurrent to progress towards modern civilisation in the post-Cold War era — time would provide a fair judgement and conclusion as to which.
From a practical perspective, the second bloc faces significant challenges, even existential threats. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has entered “garbage time”. Before 6 August, Putin’s strategy was to maintain control over occupied Ukrainian territory no matter the cost, waiting for changes such as the US presidency; policies on sending aid to Ukraine; dwindling EU support; or growing war fatigue within Ukraine, thus forcing Ukraine to cede territory and negotiate.
However, Ukraine’s counteroffensive since 6 August, targeting vulnerable areas within Russian territory, has turned the tide, leaving Putin unable to respond effectively. If Putin withdraws troops from the front lines to reinforce the border, it would play into Ukraine’s hands, buying time for a comprehensive counterattack. If he ignores Ukraine’s cross-border actions, Putin will face immense domestic political pressure and crisis. Ukraine may retaliate tit-for-tat, and Russia could still end up with nothing.
And then there is China, another member of the second bloc. Some may ask: how did China end up in this camp?
Iran will avoid overextending itself
Iran, another key player in the second bloc, is a rare example of a super villain in modern human civilisation. Apart from pursuing military modernisation, Iran seeks to oppose almost every aspect of modern civilisation.
Its dated theocratic system, characterised by oppression and persecution of human rights, women and social freedoms, often reaches appalling levels. In geopolitics, Iran’s current regime is the primary driver of regional chaos and terrorism, backing proxy forces such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Houthis in Yemen. However, Iran is cautious about direct intervention, lest it overexerts itself and repeat the mistakes of the ancient Persian Empire. Hence, its dark regime might last for a while yet.
And then there is China, another member of the second bloc. Some may ask: how did China end up in this camp? This is a complex question with no simple answer. Taking China-US relations as an example, the trade war that started in 2018 was just one factor contributing to their deteriorating relations, but not the primary one.
China’s future in the second bloc
Some argue that the US aims to hinder China’s rise, forcing China to join the second bloc. They claim that “East rises, West declines” has become the global trend, with the second bloc ascending and the first declining. However, such claims do not stand against reality. For instance, since late 2022, large numbers of illegal Chinese immigrants have “walked the line”, travelling thousands of miles to cross the US southern border.
Looking at it from a distance, how China views and handles the outside world is relatively secondary. The direction it takes and the camp it joins are primarily driven by its internal values, worldview, ideology and social system.
The works of Karl Marx allegedly proposed the “Three Represents”, i.e. represent the development trend of China’s advanced productive forces, represent the orientation of China’s advanced culture, and represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people.
China must closely assess the current second bloc and the disparity between its objectives and the standards of the Three Represents.
This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “当代世界阵营化的现状与走向”.
