Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Research Report C O R P O R A T I O N MICHAEL J. MAZARR, JONATHAN BLAKE, ABIGAIL CASEY, TIM MCDONALD, STEPHANIE PEZARD, MICHAEL SPIRTAS Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives he most recent U.S. National Security KEY FINDINGS Strategy is built around the expectation ■ The emerging competition is not generalized but likely to of a new era of intensifying international be most intense between a handful of specific states. Tcompetition, characterized by “growing political, economic, and military competitions” ■ The hinge point of the competition will be the relation- confronting the United States.1 The new U.S. ship between the architect of the rules-based order (the United States) and the leading revisionist peer competitor National Defense Strategy is even more blunt that is involved in the most specific disputes (China). about the nature of the emerging competition. “We are facing increased global disorder, ■ Global patterns of competition are likely to be complex and diverse, with distinct types of competition prevailing characterized by decline in the long-standing 2 in different issue areas. rules-based international order,” it argues. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, ■ Managing the escalation of regional rivalries and conflicts is now the primary concern in U.S. national is likely to be a major focus of U.S. statecraft. security.”3 The document points to the ■ Currently, the competition seems largely focused on “reemergence of long-term, strategic competition status grievances or ambitions, economic prosperity, by what the National Security Strategy classifies technological advantage, and regional influence. as revisionist powers.”4 It identifies two ■ The competition is likely to be most intense and per- countries as potential rivals: China and Russia. sistent in nonmilitary areas of national advantage. “It is increasingly clear” that both countries ■ The postwar multilateral order provides the framework in “want to shape a world consistent with their which the emerging competition will unfold. authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and ■ Two obvious flashpoints for the emerging competition lie security decisions.”5 in regional territorial and influence claims. If the assertion that international politics is ■ The emerging era is likely to involve a drawn-out combi- entering a new period of strategic competition nation of contestation, competition, and cooperation. If the assertion that international politics is entering a new period of strategic competition has been widely accepted, there is no consensus about what this shift means. has been widely accepted,6 there is no consensus Subsequent components of the study are designed about what this shift means. Commentators use such to flesh out these initial assessments and test the terms as “competition,” “rivalry,” and “great-power hypotheses of the first-phase analysis. The second competition” to mean different things. In short, while component will examine the ways in which key there is a general expectation of a new era of strategic countries view the emerging competition. The third competition, there is not yet clear understanding component will divide the emerging era of competition what that means, what forms it could take, and what into economic, military, geopolitical, and informational it might imply for U.S. national security or U.S. aspects and identify indicators of competitive defense policy—or the demands likely to be placed on advantage in each of those realms. Finally, based on U.S. military services, including the U.S. Air Force. those three analytical elements, the fourth phase of No country should embark on such a broad- the study will offer summary analysis on the nature based global competition without a clear sense of the of the emerging competition and define and evaluate path ahead. The theorist of war Carl von Clausewitz several alternative national security strategies to argued that “[t]he first, the supreme, the most far- address it.8 reaching act of judgment that the statesman and The study is also designed to highlight what commander have to make is to establish . the kind might be described as the great or major powers of of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking the era. Such nations have a disproportionate effect it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is on the status of any international period and often alien to its nature.”7 The same basic injunction applies generate its leading security threats. In scoping to an era of global competition. We should not the study, therefore, we had to identify a set of embark on one without first becoming clear in our countries—both in general and for the specific report minds just what sort of competition we are facing. on country perspectives—to which we would give To assess these questions and to provide a more- particular attention. We used a number of criteria detailed evaluation of the emerging era of competition, to identify a list of key players in the emerging RAND Project AIR FORCE has undertaken a study environment.9 These criteria led us to an initial set of with four main components. The first is a survey, focus countries, listed in Box 1. Of these, the United reflected in this report, of the ways in which theory States and China are identified as the two dominant and history can help understand the coming era. actors in the emerging era, but many states will have This report defines the concept of international leading roles on specific issues. While there could be competition and offers an initial assessment, based some dispute around the edges of this list, broadly on a first round of survey research grounded primarily speaking, this list of countries stands out from other in existing RAND analysis, of what this framework contenders. suggests about the nature of the emerging era. This This initial report relies on three sources of data report concludes with several tentative findings, and insight: First, we conducted a literature review offered as hypotheses, about the emerging competition of the international relations field for such terms based on this initial survey. as competition, strategic competition, great power 2 These general definitions make clear that Box 1 competition is not the same as conflict, although Countries of Focus in Study some versions of the terms do overlap.14 Many Australia Brazil China descriptions of conflict are quite broad, referring to France Germany India “a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals.”15 Narrower Indonesia Iran Japan definitions tend to describe a state of outright Mexico Russia warfare. We will use the narrower definition, which describes conflict or war as an especially intense form of competition; most varieties of competition competition, and rivalry. Second, we reviewed several imply an effort to outperform rivals short of outright historical periods for key lessons—three periods conflict. The notion of competition also implies some characterized by a generalized shift from moments degree of agreement to context and boundaries: of greater coherence and cooperation to increasing Whether in sports, the business world, or creative levels of rivalry and chaos. Third, we conducted fields, competition usually involves the pursuit of a survey of data from multiple sources to get a relative success in a framework that has some degree snapshot of the emerging competition according to of rules or norms. the indicators or criteria that we outline in the next These general definitions suggest several things sections. about a situation of competition. First, there must be some degree of perceived or measurable contention Defining Competition involved. Two parties who are mutual partners and who share common goals and interests cannot be Surprisingly, we discovered that, for a term used so said to be competing. In this sense, competition routinely in international relations, there is no clear, always involves some degree of antagonism, but the consensus understanding of what competition means. specific degree—the intensity of antagonism and The distinctions among related but very different hostility in competition—can vary significantly. global dynamics—such as competition, conflict, Second, competition is generally viewed as a contest rivalry, and contestation—are not well defined. In in which each party (or one of the two parties) aims this section, we survey existing treatments of the to enhance its power and influence, typically relative concept of competition and offer a revised definition to one another. Third, while not all competitive of our own. General Definitions Surprisingly, we In defining competition, dictionaries point to such concepts as “the act of competing; rivalry”; “a contest discovered that, for some honor, prize, advantage”10; and “the rivalry offered by a competitor.” One business dictionary for a term used so defines the term as “an activity done by a number of people or organizations, each of which is trying routinely in international to do better than all the others.”11 It also refers to “a situation in which various organisms living in the relations, there is no same area try to compete for a limited amount of food, water, space, etc.”12 A source on negotiations clear, consensus defines competition as an approach “that emphasizes understanding of what assertiveness over empathy. Competitive negotiators have winning as a