Analyzing the USA’s New National Security Strategy

• The New National Security Strategy underlines that America’s preeminence as a global power has to be maintained at all costs
• Perhaps for the first time, the threat of china has been quite explicitly mentioned in the policy of the Biden Administration which in a way has displaced Russia.
• The strategy document talks about the concept of integrated deterrence and goes beyond the military hardware, talking about the other aspects of deterrence.
• This US policy has identified India as a major strategic partner and its frontrunner in the Indo-Pacific strategy.

The Americans recently released their latest edition of the National Security Strategy document. The strategic priorities of the Biden Administration have been clearly brought out in the document, in a comprehensive manner. From the apprehensions of the rise of China to the obsession with Russia, the document spells light on the various priorities that the American security establishment has for the next ten years. This document would have wide and far-reaching repercussions and consequences, on the foreign and strategic policies of the major global powers. The key components of the US National Security Strategy are;

• The US National Security Strategy is both contextual and ideational and is rooted firmly in its domestic politics.
• China is described as the main competitor of the USA.
• The document clearly states that China has the intent and capability to reshape the international order to America’s disadvantage.
• Russia is seen as the more immediate disruptive threat to America.
• Americans have a firm belief that Russia could use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if the on-ground battlefield defeats continue to persist.
• The US will work with partners like India to ensure a free and open Indo-pacific as it firmly believes in the global freedom of navigation.
•  The US will continue to build on the “Latticework” of relationships that it has built so far; (ex, QUAD, I2U2, AUKUS etc)

In this document, perhaps for the first time, the threat of china has been quite explicitly mentioned in the policy of the Biden Administration which in a way has displaced Russia and it is a considerable admission which has been made by the American establishment. Even Trump’s national security strategy had stated China as its most crucial strategic challenge, and then Russia was seen as a secondary priority in the order of strategic emphasis. But now the most important change which has taken place is, the China phenomenon has become official in the American strategic establishment’s discourse. There is more of a granular and nuanced treatment of China and Russia in the sense that, China is being viewed as more of a long-term strategic threat, whereas Russia is seen more as an immediate disruptive threat.

Clearly, in the US security thinking, China is looming as the long-term security concern and therefore, what becomes interesting in this strategy document is the American belief that this decade is the defining decade, wherein they say that this period marks an inflexion point in how the US should respond to China as the sole long term competitor, both to itself and to the rest of the world.

In terms of national power and threat perception, China is kept as a primary player, wherein Russia has been diminished to a secondary player in the great game of the world power gamble. In one part there is an admission that the competition from China is technologically based, and in the other there are ideological contestations such as, between democracies and autocracies, perusing a revisionist foreign policy or perusing ideologies and policies which are opposed to the US-led global order. China’s cohesive strategy in influencing the behaviours of other countries through technological disruptions and financial harassment in the form of Debt Trap diplomacy and its hardcore Gun Boat diplomacy strategy in the South China Sea and in the Indian Ocean region happens to be with the considerations of a strategic rebalancing phenomenon which has been subtly mooted in this current strategy of the USA, on the broad-based security scenarios. One very interesting component which is present in this document, which was missing in the previous strategies, is the focus on the rules of, the road for the future, which happens to be a strategic direction in which the US is least focused now, which would impact the future quite starkly. They are the manufacturing issues of semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence, telecommunications, green energy etc. But the idea that one needs to develop the rules of the road as a regulatory framework for the future, and establish proper technology standards in the world, is being done keeping in mind the disruptive nature of the Chinese establishment. The Americans are well aware of the radical and dangerous consequences that the Chinese would pose in the future, especially in technology.

America’s preeminence as a global power has to be maintained at all costs, and when the Americans are analyzing the present global situation; are making the prognosis that now, we have definitively moved from the unipolar movement of the post cold war era, to the strategic competition in the world, admitting the drift towards global multipolarity.

Americans are thinking of how to deal with these strategic competitions and have identified two pillars in this regard:

1) The idea of strategic competition needs to be tackled by competing with responsibilities.

2) The imperative need to work with the competitors to deal with the shared challenges.

This is more of a nuanced and focused strand, in this particular strategy, compared to the earlier ones. While it recognizes China as a long-term threat, it also puts considerable emphasis on the willingness of the US to talk to China, negotiate and deal with the Chinese to meet these shared challenges. For example, the identification of climate change is the number one existential challenge for the entire humanity.  

The document is a testimony to the fact that the US has come up with a holistic and well-thought strategy on how to maintain its overall military domination.

One needs to understand that despite China’s massive military buildup, particularly in some areas such as Navy and Missile technology and even its air force, there is a huge disparity between US military power and Chinese military power. The US defence budget is four times the size of the Chinese defence budget, despite a rapid spike-up in recent years in Chinese expenditure. This shows that there is no real match between USA and China, in terms of defence parity. This document although admits this phenomenon covertly and considers the Chinese defence buildup as its major security concern.

This strategy document talks about the concept of integrated deterrence against China, it goes beyond the military hardware and talks about the other aspects of deterrence. It includes the integration of intelligence capabilities and technology globally. It’s a testimony to the fact that the US has come up with a holistic and well-thought strategy on how to maintain its overall military domination. They make it very clear that the American military might and domination of the world have to be maintained at all costs. They are planning extremely well for the upcoming decade without taking any chances or making compromises with their policy consistency. A clear message has been delivered to the world; which is that the USA is not withdrawing or retreating from being the predominant global military and diplomatic powerhouse.

China’s reaction

The previous national security strategies which came out in 2017 and 2018, under the Trump Administration, along with this strategy, the Chinese have internalized the fact that clearly in the American security establishment, they constitute to be the number one threat to the US. The Chinese have taken note of the repeated assertions in the strategy that, “ Americans will and must engage with China on matters of Importance to the world at large, starting from Climate change to energy and terrorism to several other aspects of the hegemonic nature of global power dynamics.

India’s takeaways

This US policy, as usual, has identified India as a major strategic partner and its frontrunner in the Indo-Pacific strategy. Progressively over a period of time, it is being affirmed that both the Republican and the Democratic administrations are according more recognition and importance to India in their overall strategy. India’s strategic salience in this overall strategic scenario will grow rapidly. In the Biden administration, there is a visible ramp-up of the activities of the Indo-Pacific framework and the QUAD. But India has a key takeaway from this strategy, which is, India has still not been elevated to the status of an ally similar to the UK, France, Japan, Australia etc. India still remains a major partner in the American scheme of things.

The fact that there is no reference to Pakistan, is a clear indication that after the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, its geo-strategic importance has been completely diminished.

However, in the next ten to twenty years, India’s national power equations would be completely different from what they are today and therefore India must seek to work with the US and other like-minded partners to meet the common + shared values and common strategic and national security interests. Keeping its own interests as a priority, India must not subsume itself in a larger US-led military alliance as the costs for doing so, can be heavy on both the economic front and the larger strategic front, harming India’s relations with its close international partners.

The fact that there is no reference to Pakistan, is a clear indication that after the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, its geo-strategic importance has been completely diminished.

The American rumblings

It is interesting to note that as the Americans talk of allies and partners, democracies and autocracies, they also talk about the third category of Countries that are neither allies nor partners, but share the same vision as the Americans do. This is an indication that there is a greater outreach when compared to the previous Trump administration, in the international sphere and the comity of nations is present. This invites other countries to join the US national security vision.

As there has been a subtle acceptance of the multipolarity of the world, in this policy strategy, the US is willing to actively engage with its allies and partners who do not agree with their foreign and strategic policy and will find some avenues for a continuous engagement despite the existence of differences, without hampering or downgrading the relationship. But Americans do insist that some of the fundamentals of the International rules-based order cannot be compromised and the world must remain bold and assertive in promoting them as they have been doing for decades. But most countries, including America’s own western allies, are uncomfortable with this notion, because its assertive nature as the world’s policeman has not just been unfair at times, but also is complicit in the gross human rights violations in the past.

With a realistic assessment, the following become non-negotiable elements of the American security establishment

1. The USA’s global military domination
2. Domination of the American values of freedom and democracy
3. Unapologetic political domination in the international order
4. Continued domination of the current international trade and investment institutions.

As Chinese power is bound to significantly grow in this decade, and unless the USA does not take preemptive steps by itself and in partnership with like-minded countries, the power differential or power gap between USA and China would become narrower. The American establishment will never allow this to happen and would continue to strengthen all its strategic assets.

_{(The author has an MA in International Relations. Views expressed are author’s own)}

Viswapramod C

Viswapramod is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Studies and Political Science, Christ University, Bangalore. He has an MA in International Relations. Views expressed are the author’s own.