Cold War 2.0…with China?
The Committee On the Present Danger China (CPDC) is the latest effort by conservatives to launch a Cold War with China.
“We Find Ourselves in a Second Cold War. As in the First Cold War, this battle will be chiefly waged in the realm of ideas. The ideological domain is the most important strategic domain of all, since the winner of the ideological competition will occupy the “high ground”- boosting domestic morale, undermining the legitimacy of the enemy’s institutions, and attracting allies from around the world.
In order to win this war of ideas, the U.S. must simultaneously defend the American way of democracy and individual liberty while attacking the myriad weaknesses of the CCP.”
The above passage is from the official website of the Committee on the Present Danger China (CPDC), the fourth and newest iteration of a previously defunct group of American foreign policy and national security experts who campaign against America’s adversaries abroad through public diplomacy and advocacy campaigns
The Committee On Present Danger was launched in 1950 by liberal ‘Cold Warriors’
The CPD emerged at the beginning of the Cold War during the Truman administration. It was founded by a group of prominent elite anti-Communist foreign policy experts, industrialists, financiers, and policy intellectuals who advocated for the pursuit of the policy of containment against the Soviet Union. This effort ultimately led to the development of the famous NSC 68 (also known as the United States Objectives and Programs for National Security), a joint project between the State Department and the Pentagon early in the Cold War.
The original ideological composition of the CPD was anti-Communist and was guided and led by non-partisan Cold Warriors in the 1950s who were concerned about the expanding influence of Soviet Union around the world.
However, a series of domestic and foreign policy issues that emerged during the 1960s and early 70s led to the revival of the CPD by anti-Communist hawks, most notably the neoconservatives. They perceived the rising influence of the Soviet Union in college campuses at home and communist camps abroad.
The Revival of the CPD in the 1970s and 80s
The second CPD iteration was launched in the mid-1970s, and according to The New Yorker’s veteran reporter Nicholas Lehmann, it was influenced by the foreign policy wing of the neoconservative movement. At the time, this movement had migrated to the right and was heavily critical of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union, which they considered rather soft and lacking in strategic deftness.
The second iteration was particularly successful in influencing the Reagan administration’s foreign policy strategy, as many figures affiliated with it held important national security positions in the administration and its successor, the Bush Senior administration.
They promoted the rhetoric of good vs. evil as a means to mobilize public and international support and actively supported right-wing paramilitary groups in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia under the banter of containing Communism around the world.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the CPD became dormant and in the absence of an existential enemy in the scale of the Soviet Union, the hawks retreated to private practice, think tanks and various conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Hudson Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
“Either You’re with US or against US”
The third iteration emerged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and brought these neocons back to positions of power. They identified transnational terrorism as America’s top national security concern, which needed to be addressed by relying on an overwhelming use of hard power and extensive political-military mobilization both in the U.S. and abroad.
The third version of the CPD was notable in two ways as it marked the hard-right turn of the committee and essentially became synonymous with the conservative movement’s hawkish foreign policy strategy of direct confrontation with adversaries and active use of military power on the world stage.
The neocons, along with traditional conservative hawks, influenced the scope and substance of the third CPD and fervently used Cold War-style black-and-white rhetoric and binary frameworks in the context of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).
The members of the third CPD, most of whom from the previous Reagan-era, also used narratives of good vs evil, light vs darkness, freedom vs tyranny, democracy vs totalitarianism extensively in order to legitimize their policies both at home and abroad.
A ‘new’ Cold War…this time with China as the new existential threat to the U.S.
Last but not least, the new fourth iteration, the “Committee on Present Danger China” (CPDC) is a unique creature in many ways. It is composed of an curious mixture of traditional conservative hawks, the Alt-Right, Straussians, MAGA, and influential evangelical figures of the Christian right.
Evangelicals’ support for the GOP’s anti-China approach are often shaped by a combination of religious values (Christianity vs Communism), and political ideology.
I should point out that there is little resemblance — ideologically speaking — between the original CPD and the newly-launched CPDC. The former was composed of liberal Cold Warriors and democratic institutionalists, whereas the latter is the product of Trump-era U.S. politics, characterized by a deep hardline conservative ideological bent and right-wing populism
During the Trump administration, the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which had demanded the U.S. to apply its military might to promote democracy around the world, was gradually replaced by the America First policy. An important component of this policy is China.
“For decades, Donald J. Trump was one of the few prominent Americans to recognize the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party and its threat to America’s economic and political way of life. Now, under President Trump’s leadership, the United States is taking action to protect our nation and its partners from an increasingly assertive China. We are no longer turning a blind eye to the People’s Republic of China’s conduct nor are we hiding our criticism of its Communist Party behind closed doors.
Based on an America First view, China is seen as the most significant challenge to the U.S. primacy and therefore the American policy makers are decoupling economically and in terms of supply chains from China as the first stage of the new Cold War 2.0.
The right-wing China hawks espouse the idea that the U.S. must be ready and willing to wage a new Cold War with China, or risk being defeated by its powerful strategic adversary, ideologically, militarily, technologically, economically, and geopolitically on the world stage.
Alt-Right and MAGA Republicans see China as the U.S.’ top foreign policy challenge and have been vocal about the need for U.S. policymakers to shift gears to a new Cold War-style zero-sum game with China in the international arena.
“These are two systems that are incompatible; one side is going to win, and one side is going to lose,” said Steve Bannon, the self-proclaimed loudspeaker of the Alt-Right movement in the U.S.
There are several key factors that warrant our attention to the recent conservative campaign of Cold War 2.0 revival against China:
- Casting the Cold War 2.0 with China as an ideological conflict
Conservatives view China as an ideological existential threat to the United States that must be confronted in the same way the U.S. confronted and defeated its previous adversaries, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the 20th century. They see China as an expansionist adversary that undermines U.S. power and global prowess, and one that seeks to replace the rules-based international order with a unique Chinese-based system.
Steven Bannon, Donald Trump’s former strategic advisor and a founding member of the CPDC believes the U.S. should not only confront China abroad, but also erode its influence in America too: “The entire operation of the Chinese Communist Party and what they’re running in China is being funded by Wall street. Corporate America today is the lobbying arm of the Chinese Communist Party and the WallStreet is the investor relations department. China is the most significant existential threat that we have ever faced.”
According to Bannon’s ally Kyle Bass, a hedge fund manager and a China hawk, who is popular in the MAGA and Alt-Right circles, “as soon as we start realizing that they’re not our strategic competitor and are actually our enemy in almost every way, we will start developing policies to reciprocate with China.”
2. A Cold War is a familiar framework for conservatives based on which to ‘address’ U.S. national security problems
Conservatives seek to level the geopolitical playing field based on binary views and perceptions of adversaries: “either you are with us or against us”, “either you’re supporting terrorism or fighting it”, “either you’re a free nation or you’re an authoritarian regime”.
The second and third iterations of CPD used this dichotomy extensively in order to mobilize support to anti-Communism and later during the GWOT, against the critics of American wars in the Middle East.
This approach helps conservatives significantly in their public diplomacy campaigns and also aids in formulating policy, and finally, in identifying the tools with which to address challenges.
They have experience and expertise in launching three previous CPD platforms, so they feel comfortable launching a fourth…against China.
As Peter Berkowitz, the former Trump administration’s director of policy planning at the State Department and a noted China hawk, noted in a recent article, the U.S. needs to challenge the rise of China by fusing the triumphant Reaganite foreign policy with Trump’s assertive approach to China, which we experienced in the context of his tariff wars with the world’s number 2 economy during the summer of 2019.
3. Domestic and Foreign policy considerations
Conservatives have been spearheading the launching of a new Cold War with China for two reasons: addressing what they perceive as the excesses of liberalism at home — by securitization (similar to how, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration, with the help of Congress, passed the Patriot Act, which handed the executive branch extensive authority on matters of domestic security) — and in terms of geopolitical considerations. They aim to expand the influence of the U.S. through military alliances, defense structures, and pacts, encouraging partners to do more in terms of security and economic growth, which usually comes at the cost of civil society
4. Anti-China strategy to unite conservative factions around a common enemy
Just like in the past when anti-Communism served as a unifying platform to rally major factions around a common enemy, anti-China strategy is used to promote a rallying-around-the-flag effect among various fragments of today’s new right, including the traditional conservatives, evangelicals, the MAGA, the Alt-Right and even the enigmatic but influential Straussians.
Former U.S. Speaker of the House and influential Republican figure wrote a book in 2019 titled, “America’s Greatest Challenge: Confronting the Chinese Communist”, in which he describes China as the America’s greatest strategic challenge, and urges party leaders and policy makers to unite under the common goal of confronting China.
5. While the GOP attempts a Cold War 2.0, the Democrats prefer ‘competition’ with China
The Democratic party tends to emphasize diplomacy, multilateralism, and a ‘working’ cooperation with China, especially on global issues such as climate change, green energy, and prevention of global pandemics such as the Covid-19, the Republicans often take a more assertive stance. They view China from a more ‘zero-sum’ geopolitical perspective and see the Democrats’ approach to the world’s most populous nation as a weak and threatening to the U.S. national security and stability.
According to the New York Times editorial, the conservatives’ revival of a Cold War 2.0 is misguided and does not serve national security interests of the U.S.:
“Americans’ interests are best served by emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation. Glib invocations of the Cold War are misguided. it doesn’t take more than a glance to appreciate that this relationship is very different. rather than try to trip the competition, America should focus on figuring out how to run faster, for example through increased investments in education and basic scientific research.”
