The ongoing competition between the United States and China has reshaped the structure of international relations, giving rise to new forms of state-to-state interactions and new frameworks for analyzing these relations, as was highlighted two years ago by the Texas National Security Review Journal in its article, “The Growing Rivalry Between America and China and the Future of Globalization.” This report focuses on this argument. The so-called benign conflict between China and the United States, sometimes referred to as a “cold war,” is neither a recent development nor an outdated issue; rather, it is a contemporary phenomenon with deep impacts on various dimensions of global politics. This report aims to discuss the current significance of this conflict, examining how it grows and the variables associated with it.

The report does not focus on a specific geographical region of conflict, as tensions between these two major powers extend across much of the globe. However, it briefly touches on certain regions in some sections.

This issue is closely tied to globalization dynamics, including trade, investment, technology, migration/anti-migration discourse, populism, and security concerns in regions like Africa, Asia, and other continents. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing a critical perspective on the current global situation.

In the modern world, each power seeks to assert its competitive style and demonstrate its strategic advancements. A key example of this strategic competition between the United States and China can be observed in the Indo-Pacific region. Both powers have varying levels of influence, with the U.S. having greater presence in countries such as Australia, India, Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore, while its influence is comparatively weaker in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, where China dominates more.

Officials from both the U.S. and China have shown a willingness to seek solutions and improve global conditions. Janet Yellen, former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, remarked during a series of talks with Chinese officials in November 2024, “It’s critical to have open channels of communication,” referring to China. Yellen’s statement suggests that implementing Trump’s universal tariffs could escalate trade tensions through retaliatory measures. Her position reflects an understanding of the challenges at hand and the ability to overcome expectations. This position is similar to China, where Chinese officials also advocate for peace and partnership-building in their own way. On January 21^st of this year, Xuexiang at Davos, China’s first-ranked vice premier, called for a “win-win” solution to trade tensions.

Differently and from a scholarly perspective, realists may view the world as anarchical, while constructivists offer a different view of international relations. For example, John Mearsheimer, a prominent realist scholar, stated: “I’m concerned about three big issues; [the first one which would be] the China-US relationship. I have long argued that the relationship would be intensely competitive. I’m concerned that competition might turn into a war” (Mearsheimer 2024). Despite decades of normalization between the U.S. and China and various attempts to secure peace, world peace is not guaranteed under the current circumstances.

From a different perspective, Alexander Wendt argues that “[a]narchy is what States make of it” (Wendt 1992). This idea provides a new perspective political realities, suggesting that anarchy is not a permanent condition but can be shaped by competitive dynamics, intensifying interests, and a thirst for expansion, as described by Arendt in her Origins of Totalitarianism. In any case, the thought in this report is that anarchy can be exacerbated by mutual demonization.

Natural resources, such as oil and gas, can be both a source of growing competition and a potential avenue for diplomatic partnership. While these resources have fueled tensions, they can also serve as a basis for collaboration, contributing to a diplomatic easing of relations between the two powers. Both China and the U.S. rely heavily on market systems, and private stakeholders and businesses can play a role in smoothing relations by reducing tensions. Ultimately, private stakeholders and businesses can leverage opportunities to develop partnerships based on global principles and neoliberal values, facilitating exchanges and cooperation. However, international relations scholars, on several occasions, get bogged down in the complexities of competition, focusing on issues like “Geopolitical Hegemony” and “Economic Openness” to create attention-grabbing arguments rather than offering well-researched proposals for peacemaking amid political turmoil. This report emphasizes the viewpoints of both the U.S. and China regarding peacebuilding as was mentioned in the previous sections.