Framing A Conflict With China
America is in a long struggle with China for global network dominance. Let's build some frameworks to understand what is going on.
The US has been on the road to conflict with China since 2001, when Clinton and Gore pushed for China’s entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) by claiming that capitalism would inevitably democratize China.
It didn’t, but it did put on a course towards conflict.
Now that the conflict is finally reaching a breaking point (embargoes, tariffs, cyber disruption, potential invasions, etc.), let’s spend some time framing it in a way that will help us make sense of it.
Orienting the Conflict
The first step is to orient our thinking by determining what kind of war this is and what victory looks like.
While this conflict could become a war, that isn’t likely since it isn’t a struggle between existentially incompatible systems.
On the contrary, we both use the same system (capitalism) and profit mightily from participating in a global trading system. It’s in neither country’s interest to destroy that system through protracted military conflict.
With this in mind, a better historical template is a trade war. The century-long trade wars and struggles between Venice, Genoa, Byzantium, and Portugal for control over lucrative trade networks are a good starting point.
Trade War?
The historical examples of these trade wars can give us a ‘feel’ for this type of conflict.
Slow Victory. In this type of conflict, opponents attempt to squeeze and drain their opponents until they are no longer a threat or find ways to generate wealth that the opponents cannot access. It’s a slow race to see who can become the wealthiest and most capable of generating more wealth, until dominance becomes uncontestable. This conflict is similar to the Cold War, but instead of two separate economic systems, it’s inside the same system.
Reinvention. An opponent will attempt a strategic reversal by reinventing the contest when possible — for example, breaking a competitor’s monopoly by finding a way to produce it domestically (Byzantium and silk worms smuggled out of China), a new trade route (Portugal, around Africa), or unique defensive weapons that make their trade routes hard to disrupt (Byzantium’s Greek fire).
Sudden Escalation. Occasionally, trade wars escalate into hot wars that destroy the opponent. For example, the Byzantine crackdown and arrest of Venetian merchants led the Venetians to use debt to convince French crusaders to join them in sacking Constantinople. Another example: the Genoan fleet sent to blockade Venice was trapped in a Venetian lagoon for nearly a year before capitulating, leaving the city vulnerable to French domination.
Network War
Of course, the conflict between the US and China isn’t just a struggle over the global trade network. It’s a war for dominance over the entire global network and what it makes possible.
Logical connectivity — from sprawling JiT (just in time) manufacturing chains to energy flows.
Social connectivity — from social decision making to networked politics.
New technology — from AIs to advanced chips.
Now, let’s frame the orientation for this networked conflict.
The center of gravity of the conflict will be within the global network.
As a result, the war will mainly be in the network domain. Participants will focus on growing their access to the network, increasing its throughput, suppressing the opponent’s access to it, and increasing their control over it.
The goal of the conflict will be network dominance, while avoiding the overreach that would trigger a catastrophic conflict. Military action will only be effective if it advances the war in the primary domain — the network.
Closed vs. Open
Next, let’s focus on the participants in this network war.