Peer Competitors Come Second To Terrorism
There are many carefully calculated decisions that dictate whether or not a state will gain or lose power. Diplomacy, policy, economic capabilities, and nationalism are some of the many tools we use to measure when states gain or lose power. One major element seen when talking about the possibility of China and Russia being peer competitors towards the United States in the international realm is in fact competition or rivalry. When nations see competition, they start acting and responding differently internationally and nationally in an attempt to combat this competition. Additionally, the choices a state makes when looking at state competition can lead to issues that can easily threaten the organization of power within the international realm. Russia is a prime example of a state that is attempting to challenge the United States’ quest for power. The actions Russia (or the U.S.) takes or does not take will be the direct result to something more serious such as embargos, alliances, a plethora of international policies and/or full scale war. Russia’s bold international moves to support the annexation of Crimea and blatant violation of arms treaty against the U.S. are signs of Russia challenging not only the United States’ power but the global balance of power as it is understood in today’s modern world. Blatantly lashing out and cheating treaties aren’t the only ways a nation can come to be a potential threat to the United States’ security. China is a prime candidate for being a more subtle peer-competitor because they have become an economic powerhouse over the last ten years and if they continue to grow they very well could take steps to make themselves the dominant power as opposed to one of the few global powers. However, the United States can combat these peer competitors with many tools such as policy and alliance creation. The real threat to U.S. security is terrorism for it cannot be defeated outright nor contained with policy. To sum up, the ways peer competitors compete against a given state are different in nature, but both can lead to similar outcomes, however neither Russia nor China are the greatest threat to the United States’, rather the real threat seems to be a radical group launching an attack against the state itself because terrorism cannot be controlled efficiently.
It is quite apparent that the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is a thing of the past, however the same cannot be said about Russia and their desire to outdo and overtake the U.S. as a global power. First of all, winning the Cold War meant the defeat of the Soviet Union but the United States did not defeat the nuclear arsenal they still possess (Kennedy para12). In their very bold approach of supporting the annexation of the Crimean peninsula we can see that Russia is still a powerful country willing to challenge the United States authority directly. Despite being sanctioned by a large amount of states around the globe there is no sign that Russia will back down and stop fueling/supporting the rebels within the Ukraine. Russia is actually doing the opposite and increasing their support in the region after Ukraine accused Russia of “sending more tanks and troops into Ukraine and said they were heading toward the rebel-held town of Novoazovsk, 40 km (25 miles) east of the port city of Mariupol, on what could be the next battlefront” (Wroughton, para5). Additionally, this could be seen as a violation of the concept of containment since this is Russian expansionism more or less. The results of Russia’s actions are twofold. First and foremost this is a direct challenge to the U.S.’s authority/power as well as all of the states who support them. Indirectly, Putin is calling the bluff of all states who say they will do something about this situation and therefore expressing (in the most literal of senses) hard power through military might. Secondly, Russia’s actions are a sign that the international systems and agreements like the ICJ, NATO and the UN are either irrelevant or hold no real consequences that Russia cares to consider before acting. The lack of action by these international organizations and agreements displays weakness by not having a harsh enough response to stop the Russian’s action(s). This is the peer-competition that shows Russia is trying to tip the scale of power in favor of themselves and away from the U.S. specifically as well as the UN. And if the international realm is to be classified as a zero-sum game by the nature of Russia advancing their own ideals and getting their way they are taking power away from the United States. One of two things can happen in the aftermath of Russia gaining a considerable amount of power. One, Russia transfers that power back to their side of the scale allowing for the diluting of the U.S.’s power (and those allied with the U.S) which arguably brings the world closer to a more war prone multi-polar world. Or, two, the United States sees that Russia is challenging them and increases the tension with stricter sanctions or by taking more serious measures to combat them. What can be guaranteed is that Russia embracing the Ukrainian rebellion will increase tensions due to their perception of ‘victory’ on the matter; or tensions in the United States will start to increase due to the United States feeling threatened and wanting to take more drastic measures against Russia. Ultimately this is a peer competitor trying to gaining power which is threatening the security of the United States.
If there was anything Russia could do more blatantly to challenge the power of the United States besides supporting a rebel group within a state on the brink of a civil war it would have to be the direct violation of the 1987 INF treaty. What has happened essentially is that Russia has violated a treaty that bans the use of ground-launched missiles from 500 to 5,500 kilometers (Karako para.3). This is undoubtedly a sign that the Russian empire as we know it today is growing in a way economists would be unable to measure. Russia played along with this treaty back in the day by not using the ballistic missiles aforementioned but the audacity to violate a treaty involving the use of missiles is very easily seen as a Russian power move. The violation of a treaty like this is what leads a state into tough decisions whereby they have to decide how serious of a threat a country that violates a missile treaty really is. Moving forward from here, the public or elites can get involved in securitizing the issue. Whether or not this issue is originally a securitized issue isn’t what is to be focused on. The deeper implication is that the violation of a treaty of this stature can very easily be pushed to the forefront of a countries agenda because it is being viewed as an existential threat as opposed to a policy issue that the general public normally would never care about. Furthermore, if the people of the United States see this treaty violation as a threat to their national security they are much more likely to rally around the flag and make policies they see fit to punish the state in opposition. The effect of ‘rallying around the flag’ or securitization of this issue could lead the people to push politicians to create more dramatic policy then necessary; allowing this policy to become a catalyst to a more tension filled response where war or more extreme sanctions would be the potential next jump. This sort of ‘snowball effect’ is why peer competition is a threat to international security in general. One treaty violation in an attempt to accumulate power by one state could lead to a cyclical motion whereby the response by another state is to raise the tension thus leading to a highly competitive and tension filled environment where issues become much more serious. Russia is not the only nation that is outwardly becoming a rising competitor to the U.S. and they are the only peer competitor the United States either. China is posing a threat to the United States in a different way than that of Russia by doing so in a more indirect manner through economic and policy means. The economic growth of China over the past decade has allotted the Chinese to expand and develop in a way that could threaten the power and security of the United States if it is to pass the United States. Once the Chinese have surpassed (or even match) the GDP of the U.S. there are a lot of ways they could cripple the security of the United States. Firstly, they could expand their military power and presence. This is already something the U.S. feels is happening because China is “building a network of artificial island fortresses in contested waters… [to] control nearly all the South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest shipping routes” (Page para4). By having an economy so vast and large it is not beyond the realm of possibility to see that China could very easily be trying to surpass the U.S.’s military dominance. This becomes even more difficult to diffuse because China’s Navy Admiral, Adm. Wu “wants deeper exchanges, including help developing aircraft carrier operations and improving education for his naval officers” to maintain global security (Page para11). Although it is simple to deny his requests now the fact of the matter is China is on the heels of the U.S. economically speaking and where they spend those gains could greatly affect the United States level of security.
China is not only challenging the U.S. in their military might and presence but they are also doing so technologically. As an example, in 2003 China wanted to challenge U.S. primacy in the aerospace sector by working with the EU and even though the U.S. intervened and slowed the process the Chinese still found a way to get their own satellite program up and running. By doing so, the Chinese can now challenge the U.S. economically in GPS production. Even more so, the Chinese have proven to have advanced their satellite capabilities in their test in January of 2007. In this test the Chinese shot down a satellite of their own with a laser of another satellite and in doing so challenged the U.S.’s security quite literally. This gives the Chinese the ability to put an adversary ‘in the dark’ if they were to use satellite means (Putten p76). The Chinese economy indirectly challenges the security of the United States because their economy could be the driving force of creating a robust military the United States could not contend with; therefore the Chinese as peer competitors in the economic sector is equally as much a threat to the United States security as Russia’s expansionism and treaty violation. The argument of Russia and China being the largest threats to the United States’ security can be reduced if you look at what it is that gets states into these powerful positions like that of the United States. Surely peer competitors are a threat but these competitors can be snuffed out. John J. Mearsheimer, an offensive neorealist, has argued that China wants to gain power and the best way to do so would be through the same means the United States did; by becoming a regional hegemon (Mearsheimer p387). And Russia is no exception to the argument. Both China and Russia, as peer competitors are looking to become states that are so powerful that they dominate all other states. Hegemony starts when a state is able to take control of its given region and dictate its own rules as to what their neighbors can and cannot do (Mearsheimer p387). In other words, no other state has the military wherewithal to put up a serious fight against it. Furthermore, in a realist world the ideal two items are power and survival so if one state can stop another from attempting to become a regional hegemon it will do everything in its power to do so.
To combat Russia and China’s quest for regional hegemony there are strategic methods the United States can take to put them back on their heels. With the right political policy and alliances the United States’ security can be less likely to be undermined by the two great powers of Russia and China. To prevent a peer competitor power from taking over a region a country outside of the said region must prevent the takeover by eliminating its neighbors will to work with said power. In the specific case of China, almost all of the surrounding states would be willing to work with the U.S. in forming an alliance because they fear the invasion/suppression of China more so than that of the United States. It can be argued that this is the case for countries like Vietnam or South Korea or a nation-state like Singapore.
Although an alliance coming together from China’s perspective might be seen as their enemies moving in an offensive manner there is an alternative route to combat this. The alternative would be to create strong ties with these countries economically and in policy itself. If the United States comes together with these smaller neighboring states who are going to be ‘pushed off of the table’ by a country like China, China would have a much harder time becoming a regional hegemon. Because China knows that the United States would be backing these states they would hesitate to take the initiative of suppressing their neighbors. Assuming offensive realism is the true theory of the international realm it is extremely unlikely that a state would refuse to work with the United States because state survival is a basic necessity and fundamental for a state. Arguably, Russia is already working toward becoming a regional hegemon by placing a portion of their power into the Ukrainian separatists’ hands.
Just as it is in the case of China, the regionalization of Russia’s power can be contested by economic deals with neighboring states, the formation of alliances and lastly by their geographical relation to China. Just as previously stated, if the United States joins the neighboring, smaller countries that are more likely to be threatened and become victims of Russia’s quest for regional hegemony Russia will have a hard time oppressing them if the U.S. is backing them. Additionally, in geographical terms Russia and China share a border and a similar region. China is strictly in the East, or more accurately, an Asia-Pacific state. Russia does cross in with the Middle-East and the East but for the sake of simplicity in this argument they operate in the same region of the world as China. This is problematic for both states because in order to be a regional hegemon one state must win out and oppress the others in its region. What can be seen is that Russia is only maintaining its power and only recently expressed its quest for more of it as of late comparatively to China that is growing rapidly and one of the two states must win out in order to be hegemon. Therefore we know that unless China and Russia come together for an alliance to pit themselves against the West we will see Russia and China push each other for power rather than threaten the U.S.’s power. It is for these reasons we see peer competitors like China and Russia can be avoided from becoming too big of a threat. Therefore the greatest threat to the security of the United States are not peer competitors like China and Russia because they can be mitigated through alliances due to the fact they require regional hegemony; rather it seems that a radical group or terrorism is the largest threat to the security of the United States because they aren’t confined to a given space, they are an ideology rather than a person or population and they have no limitations on how to conduct their plans. Before divulging into the thickness of how peer competition is inferior to that of a terrorist group it is important to get the right understanding of exactly what kind of a group is being discussed. Terrorist groups are defined by the use (or threat of use) of violence by an individual group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety or fear-inducing effects in a target group…with the purpose of coercing that group into the political demands of the group (Ervine para12). These types of groups are what threaten the United States security most. Having opponents or competitors is no new concept to the U.S. but trying to deal with those opponents when they hold no real state is quite tricky. When the United States gets into a traditional war it is very easy to see the opposing force. They hold a piece of land with borders and a military that dresses a certain way etcetera. When thinking about a terrorist or extremist group those traditional elements aren’t there and this is one of the reasons the United States cannot tackle this threat as simply as they do traditional state issues. On a more specific level of analysis it is one thing to not know exactly where they are but furthermore, even if the United States is to locate a stronghold of where this group operates it is typically only a ‘hot-spot’ and not the entire group. Terrorist groups typically operate and recruit on a global scale therefore allowing them the pleasure of never being cleanly wiped out in one attack. By not being consolidated within one state the final benefit they gain is that they can hide behind state’s sovereignty. In essence, a high priority member of a terrorist group may be able to get some government protection from the state they reside in comparatively to where other members might be. By not holding specific territory it can be seen that the threats these groups project onto the U.S. are much less likely to be effectively dealt with due to the fact that they cannot pinpoint or eliminate the group through traditional means. Not holding a specific territory can be detrimental to combating the effects a terrorist group makes but even more alarmingly is that these groups aren’t necessarily fueled by people but rather an ideology or religion. Terrorism itself is the use of terror to leverage a group into a favorable outcome but in the selected case of how it applies to the United States there is a problem with combating it. That problem is that the type of terrorism that truly threatens the United States’ security is extremists groups that hold an ideology (or religion) that wants to instill terror within the U.S.’s community to show rejection of their beliefs. This is a problem because this isn’t economic policy or some simple law that can be repealed to end the conflict. Instead what is being dealt with is an ideology dispute whereby these groups believe how, why, and what the American people think is where the dispute begins. Even if the assumption is made that these radical groups can be located and eliminated it is much harder to believe that the ideals that they are fighting for will be completely eliminated. This is demonstrated well when you look at the death of Osama Bin Laden. He was the leader of Al-Qaeda in 2011 when he was killed and traditionally this means the threat of Al-Qaeda should have died off too. However, that was not the case because Al-Qaeda still continues on with a new leader today. With a belief system or ideology based on violence and death it is very easy to see why a means to defeat it are so elusive (Grass para24). Therefore the threats that are mobilized by these ideologies are much less likely to dissipate even if the people/groups taking these events on are located and put to a stop. The last reason terrorism poses such a major threat to the United States’ security is that these groups have almost endless limits on what their plans can be and defending ourselves against them is exceptionally difficult. As stated earlier these radical groups don’t have to be bound to a nation and for that reason the only rules or laws they follow are the ones they choose to create and enforce. For that reason we see that they are able to act in ways states cannot, such as bombings, and assassinations. And for the reasons outlined earlier, it is nearly impossible to retaliate or create a truce, which is what makes terrorism such a massive threat to the United States.
Additionally, there is a problem when it comes to trying to implement law to stop these types of attacks. A great example is the Patriot Act which is a “revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court” in an attempt to create policy that will help prevent these attacks from happening again (Surveillance para1). What this has done in some ways is overstep the boundaries of America’s core civil liberties. And for that reason it seems that combatting terrorism intranationally has caused a lot of issue with the American people and their culture. Ultimately, this is how terrorism is limitless in its own way because the best solution the U.S. could come up with was policy that is questionable towards their own people and furthermore this act doesn’t prevent terrorism acts; it only hopes to catch them in the process. To conclude, what has been seen here is that Terrorism is the real threat to the United States because in more ways than not it is not as combatable as efficiently as peer competitors are, even when these competitors are acting aggressively through treaty violation like Russia or economically and militarily like China. Although both countries and terrorism pose a threat to the United States security in different ways there is no doubt that the United States is more equipped with options and remedies to combat peer competitors in comparison to terrorism or extremist groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda.