The New Spheres of Influence and the Rise of Proxy Wars

By Ajsha Pllana July 2020

Graham Allison, Professor at the Harvard Kennedy School explained in The New Spheres of Influence that hegemony is fading and we are in the cusp of a new era of great-power competition.[1] In a humorous tidbit, Christopher Layne predicted the end of unipolarity first in 2006 and then again in 2012 predicting, “This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the “Pax Americana,” when the first prediction did not manifest.[2] In 2020, it seems his prediction has finally culminated. Graham Allison’s new article corroborates the end of unipolarity and the emergence of the new era of great power competition. More specifically, we are morphing from a unipolar world into multipolarity, with both China and Russia asserting their power to facilitate national interests. There are several developments in the past two decades that have paved the way for multipolarity. Both China and Russia have expanded their influence in the world and “the Indispensable Nation” has stood idly by, with faint condemnation but rarely employing the use of force to hinder or immobilize Russia and China. Russia has taken over Crimea, served as a pillar of strength for Syria’s Assad, and has managed to lure Turkey away from its close relationship with the West – and aside from being condemned in scathing tweets, has gone largely unchallenged by the United States. China on the other hand has emerged as a global economic superpower in recent decades. By the end of 2019, China was leading as the largest exporter by value and held the rank for the world’s second-largest economy. China’s economy has largely prospered due to the Belt and Road Initiative. However, the main concern for many nations is China’s growing economic and military might, especially for its neighbors. Indeed, China has been condemned for its “debt trap” diplomacy, used by the government to provide large loans with high-interest rates. Often times small, destitute nations are unable to service loans and China has responded by confiscating ports, such as Sri Lanka[3] and Djibouti[4] or oil as payment on existing debts for Venezuela.[5] China has gained control of major ports and territorial claims as a result of the debt-trap diplomacy, and like Russia, has gone unchallenged by the United States. The acquisition of ports and new territory increases Beijing’s ability to rewrite global trade regulations. This is a threat not only to the United States but to nations around the world.

A New Cold War As a result of China and Russia stepping up to pursue global domination, we find ourselves facing a new Cold War with two great powers. Dr. Allison has advised American policymakers and analysts that the most effective way to carry out American foreign policy initiatives is to concentrate on spheres influenced by the United States and abandoning grand ambitions to view the world as a unipolar entity under American influence. This is unlikely to happen, at least in the coming decade. As a result, we are in the brink of war – many proxy wars, that is. Whilst theoretically multipolarity enables power to be shared by multiple nations, chaos may stem from the new era of great power competition. The reason for this is due to Russia, China, and the United States’ attempts to gain new alliances and increased territorial scope. Take the South and West Pacific regions, for example. The South China Sea is already under the Chinese sphere of influence and the new geopolitical region being sought after by the great powers is the South and West Pacific region. Solomon Islands severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favor of China in September 2019. Kiribati quickly followed in its footsteps, greatly suppressing Taiwan’s diplomatic partners and as a result, international presence. China stands to gain access to strategically important ports to further advance the goals of its Belt and Road Initiative. In March 2020, the US Marine Corps announced a transformation plan to pivot attention from places like Iraq and Afghanistan to the Western Pacific region in order to gain control over sea lanes that are under increasing threat from advanced missiles and growing adversary fleets from coastal bases.[6] Russia has also flexed its military muscle in the past decade. For example, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is in power due to help from Russia and Iran. In the escalating stalemate that resulted in Syria, the United States selectively engaged its militarily, giving Russia the upper hand even though Russia did not necessarily engage to its full capability. Instead, it was due to reluctance from the United States to fully use its power, that Russia effectively kept Assad in power. In a similar manner, Russia has also been accused of perpetrating the Montenegrin coup plot in October 2016, aimed to prevent Montenegro’s ascension into NATO. Russia has greatly advanced its national interests and benefited from the American retreat.

Spheres of Influence

Whilst Dr. Allison makes an excellent point that the United States ought to focus on spheres of influence currently under U.S. control, it is equally important for the United States to re-engage with nations in the world. For example, the United States has largely forgotten the South Pacific nations since World War II. In September 2019, China reestablished relations with Solomon Islands and Kiribati, giving way to China to further influence trade and air space in the South Pacific. During World War II, the Battle of Guadalcanal in Solomon Islands was an important turning point for Allied forces in the Pacific theater. Yet currently, the United States does not hold an assigned Ambassador to Solomon Islands, demonstrating the lack of diplomatic relations between the two nations. In early 2020, Scott Dodd was assigned Solomon Islands Special Envoy to the United States in an attempt to reconcile the diplomatic relations between the United States and Solomon Islands. The lesson here is clear: The United States must not allow relations to grow stale to better prevent and deter Russia and China from stealing key U.S. allies.

Robert M. Gates, former U.S. Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011, conclusively analyzed:

“One of the United States’ greatest victories of the twentieth century relied not on military might but on subtler tools of power. The Cold War took place against the backdrop of the greatest arms race in history, but there was never actually a significant direct military clash between the two superpowers – despite proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Indeed, most historians calculate that fewer than 200 U.S. troops died due to direct Soviet action. Because nuclear weapons would have made any war between the two countries catastrophic for both sides, the U.S.-Soviet contest was waged through surrogates, and crucially, through the use of nonmilitary instruments of power.” [7]

Let’s unpack the statement above. Firstly, the Cold War win between the United States and Russia is described as one of the great victories for the United States. Secondly, it is important to note the use of diplomacy rather than the use of force. Great powers typically will not want to engage in wars with other great powers due to the catastrophic outcomes. This is particularly true for China. What we can learn from the Cold War is the importance of diplomacy. The United States must engage with smaller nations, particularly with Eastern European nations to combat Russian influence and South Pacific nations to combat Chinese influence in the Pacific.

Schizophrenic Military Engagement The use of force must always be applied as a last resort after all diplomatic options have been exhausted. As important as it is for the United States to once again recommit to the use of diplomacy as it did during the Cold War, it is equally important for the United States to fully commit and drop its schizophrenic habit of only partially engaging in conflicts. Robert Gates quotes Yoda from Star Wars, that when it comes to the use of military force, Yoda’s famous line comes to mind: “Do. Or do not. There is no try.” Classic examples of this are the schizophrenic strategies used in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Syria has become the poster child for military interventions gone bad. The United States and allies entered Syria with the intention to remove President Assad but failed to properly train and lead Syrian civilians against President Assad. Furthermore, as Russia and Iran continued lending financial and military support to President Assad, the United States and European allies stood by and did not challenge the support. As a result, President Assad is still in power, and Syria has morphed into what some people have called the worst humanitarian disaster to date.

Lessons learned Dr. Allison’s recommendation that the United States must focus on spheres it already influences must be married with an equally important strategy to increase and employ diplomatic engagement with current and new allies. As was the case during the Cold War, increased diplomatic engagement may help to lead us to new and greater victories. However, the United States must abandon its position of retreatment and deliberately engage in international relations once again. Following exhaustion of all diplomatic attempts, strategic military engagement is especially important during this time because Russia’s military capabilities have not advanced nor increased significantly in the past decade. Indeed, it is due to the United States’ retreat from international relations that Russia’s tenacity, rather than military capabilities, has grown and as a result, has managed to gain leverage in its favor. The United States must draw new guidelines for both diplomacy and military strategies to successfully combat great power competition.

[1] Allison, Graham. 2020. The New Sphere of Influences: Sharing the Globe With Other Great Powers. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-02-10/new-spheres-influence [2] Layne, Christopher. “The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States' Unipolar Moment.” International Security 31, no. 2 (2006): 7–41. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.7 [3] Abi-habib, Maria. “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port.” The New York Times. June 25, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html. [4] Bearak, Max. “In Strategic Djibouti, a Microcosm of China's Growing Foothold in Africa.” The Washington Post. December 30, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/in-strategic-djibouti-a-microcosm-of-chinas-growing-foothold-in-africa/2019/12/29/a6e664ea-beab-11e9-a8b0-7ed8a0d5dc5d_story.html. [5] “What Does Venezuela's Pursuit of Beijing's Money Mean for the Americas?” CBC News. September 15, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/venezuela-china-beijing-maduro-economy-support-1.4824112. [6] Stashwick, Steven. “US Marine Corps Unveils Transformation Plan Focused on China.” The Diplomat. March 25, 2020. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/us-marine-corps-unveils-transformation-plan-focused-on-china/. [7] Gates, Robert. “The Overmilitarization of American Foreign Policy The United States Must Recover the Full Range of Its Power.” Foreign Affairs, 2020, 126. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-06-02/robert-gates-overmilitarization-american-foreign-policy.