Understanding a New Era of Strategic Competition

1. Understanding a New Era of Strategic Competition Michael J. Mazarr May 2019 Summary of Phase 1 Research This briefing transmits results of RAND research. It has not been cleared for public release, and its contents should not be cited or quoted without permission of the authors.  The results presented here will be finalized after completion of RAND’s formal quality assurance review.

2. Defining “Competition” Poorly defined in international relations literature. Elements: Degree of perceived or measurable contention Participants seek power and influence, usually relative to one another Not always zero-sum, but generally involves pursuit of scarce goals, goods Formal or implied “rules of the game” tend to emerge The mutual and interactive pursuit of power, influence, prosperity and status in a changing international context Military Economic Interaction of issue areas a critical dynamic Informational Geopolitical International Competitive Environment: Four Key Domains Assess role, interests, behavior of state and non-state actors, “great” powers and regional ones

3. Mental Models Likely Misleading Default analogies: Neither of these historical cases offers a parallel for the emerging environment… Cold War 19th Century Great Powers • Economic interdependence • Global infosphere • International community • Incomplete multipolarity • Asymmetric aggression • Powerful nationalisms

4. How to Understand the Character of International Competition In each area we assessed: • Variables to assess the issue, derived from theory and history; and • The current status of the competition—its character and intensity. On the basis of all five, we offer initial hypotheses about the essential character of the emerging competition. • What is the Essential Character of the Competing Actors? • What Do They Compete For? • How Do They Compete? • What is the Structure of the Competition? • What Factors Moderate or Exacerbate Competition? (Not detailed in this brief ) Methodology • Literature review and survey of lessons of international relations theory, including definitions of “competition,” with a special focus on national identity. • Analysis of three comparative historical periods of rising competition. • Survey of recent RAND studies on the interests, goals, character of major powers. • Analysis of data on specific indicators (military spending, conflict, trade etc.).

5. What is the Essential Character of the Competing Actors? Major Powers • United States • China • India • Russia • Germany • Japan • Brazil • Indonesia • France • United Kingdom • Iran Key criteria: GDP; projected economic power in 2050; military expenditure; self-conception; regional ambitions and influence

6. Character of Competing Actors Basic lesson: Not a true multipolar “great power competition” … a handful of challengers vs. a largely status-quo core group

7. What Do They Compete For? Eight Categories from Theory and History Weaker but significant competitive focus Strong competitive focus

8. How Do They Compete? Tools and Techniques from Theory and History Tool, technique at center of national strategies Partial use of tool, technique

9. The Structure of the Emerging Competition • Multipolar with constant balancing • Competition for territory, status • Often zero-sum • Military tool ultimate arbiter Great Power Rivalry • Bipolar with constant adventurism • Often perceived as zero sum • Ideological competition • Military threat constant; nuclear deterrence key Cold War Rivalry • Multipolar within U.S.-led order • But demand for status by many powers • Economic primacy, status, limited territory as goals • Non-military tools predominate Emerging 21st Century Structure

10. The Structure of the Emerging Competition • Multipolar with constant balancing • Competition for territory, status • Often zero-sum • Military tool ultimate arbiter Great Power Rivalry • Bipolar with constant adventurism • Often perceived as zero sum • Ideological competition • Military threat constant; nuclear deterrence key Cold War Rivalry • Multipolar within U.S.-led order • But demand for status by many powers • Economic primacy, status, limited territory as goals • Non-military tools predominate Emerging 21st Century Structure

11. The Structure of the Emerging Competition • Multipolar with constant balancing • Competition for territory, status • Often zero-sum • Military tool ultimate arbiter Great Power Rivalry • Bipolar with constant adventurism • Often perceived as zero sum • Ideological competition • Military threat constant; nuclear deterrence key Cold War Rivalry • Multipolar within U.S.-led order • But demand for status by many powers • Economic primacy, status, limited territory as goals • Non-military tools predominate Emerging 21st Century Structure

12. Essential Character: Degree of Competition Extreme, zero-sum, seek end of competitor’s system Cold War: Competition everywhere; systemic clash Cold War Intense, non-zero sum; some rules Pre-WW1 Great Powers Post- Cold War: U.S. ideas hardly contested; “end of history” Significant contestation of norms, influence Vienna System Highly compartmentalized competition amid rules / cooperation US-Japan 1980s Emerging era: How much contestation, on what issues? Near-complete overlap of interests; security community European Union

13. Degrees of Revisionism: Great Power Revisionist Behavior As perceived by others, especially Russia, China, Iran and DPRK Major powers that engage in each category of revisionist / contestation activities Basic lesson: Preferred revisionism is limited and below the threshold of major war

14. Mapping the Competition: Not One Competition But Many …

15. Hypotheses on the Character of the Emerging Competitive Era

16. Strategic Concepts for an Era of Intensified Competition: A New Mindset Linear Concept of Competition Direct, specific policies to “solve” discrete problems or challenges in ways that produce a desired future (though often the mechanism by which they do that—the theory of success—is implicit) e.g. capability investments Regional deterrence World We Aim to Create Competition in a Complex System Actions that shape the dynamics of the context (gestalt) that indirectly generates the future we are trying to create “Gestalt”: Whole that is greater than sum of its parts Cold War example: U.S. building of institutional order, alliances, trade networks created “gestalt” context that shaped state behavior more than any specific policy—and enveloped the USSR Policies designed as inputs that affect and shape the dynamics in a complex adaptive system Larger actions, themes, realities that shape state perceptions of their interests and goals