Congress report highlights challenges of great power competition

The Second World War marked a major shift in the global balance of power and the beginning of the end of imperial dominance across the globe.

This global shift in power was cemented by two key events, the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 and the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, transforming the world forever — underpinned by an unrivalled industrial power developed through the inter-war and war years, it is an indisputable fact that much of the peace, prosperity, and stability of the post-Second World War paradigm came as a direct result of the US-led global order.

By putting an end to the often-ancient rivalries between varying imperial powers, the United States, through its post-war might, guaranteed the freedom of the seas and promoted an explosion of free trade across the globe, paving the way for the modern, interconnected global economy and period of innovation, prosperity, and stability we enjoy today.

However, over recent years, the post-Second World War order has come under assault both directly and indirectly — as emerging powers like China and India, backed by established powers, like a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia, begin to build out rival economic, political and strategic networks and systems to challenge the world order and directly undermine the legitimacy and reputation of the United States and the post-war order.

In response, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released a detailed report into the challenges posed by mounting great power competition (GPC) to help shape the way US law and policymakers shape America’s response in these challenging times.

This becomes particularly important as many, both within the US political system, like firebrand member of the Senate intelligence committee, Senator Marco Rubio has raised questions about the capacity and willingness of the United States to remain the world's “indispensable nation”, particularly following the Chinese spy balloon saga from earlier this year: “They did this on purpose. They understood that it was going to be spotted, they knew the US government would have to reveal it, that people were going to see it over the sky. And the message they were trying to send is what they believe internally, and that is that the United States is a once-great superpower that’s hollowed out, it’s in decline,” Senator Rubio said at the time.

The era of great power competition is the era of ‘Grand Strategy’

VIEW ALL

Like Australia’s recently released Defence Strategic Review, the growing influence of great power competition will play in the coming decades and subsequently, the way in which our respective national responses will evolve following decades of “low intensity”, counter-insurgency operations in Central Asia and the Middle East.

Critically, perhaps the most important point to recognise is that while the US and partners like Australia and the United Kingdom were preoccupied with adventurism in the Middle East and “nation building” via interventionist expeditionary operations, our rivals were quietly chipping away at their plans to supplant the post-Second World War order.

The CRS report establishes the historical background of the challenges facing the United States and its partners, including Australia, stating: “The post–Cold War era of international relations — which began in the early 1990s and is generally characterised as having featured reduced levels of overt political, ideological, and military competition among major states — showed initial signs of fading in 2006-08 and by 2014 had given way to a situation of intensified US competition with China as well as Russia, as well as challenges by China and Russia to elements of the US-led international order established after World War II. For some observers, the ending of the post–Cold War era and emergence of GPC has been underscored by China and Russia’s announced strategic partnership and by Russia’s invasion of multiple parts of Ukraine starting on February 24, 2022.”

While this belated recognition sadly doesn’t put the genie back in the proverbial bottle, however, what it does do is reveal just how far behind the eight ball we really are, in spite of our recent “progress”.

This is particularly poignant when you realise that, like Australia, successive US administrations have long recognised the prospect of GPC, little has actually been done as a result of the post-Cold War hubris which coloured many policymakers and strategic thinkers across the Western world.

For the US, the core mechanism for the nation’s response to the mounting challenge represented by GPC is a “Grand Strategy” that serves as the “theoretical” guiding document underpinning the “practical” documents like the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy, respectively.

The CRS report identifies this, quoting, then-US deputy defense secretary Robert Work who said in 2015, “The era of everything [i.e. multiple international security challenges] is the era of grand strategy,” in framing the US response in this manner, Work suggests that the United States must “carefully marshal and deploy its great yet limited resources”.

Expanding on this conceptual understanding, the CRS adds, “For the United States, grand strategy can be viewed as strategy at a global or interregional level, as opposed to US strategies for individual regions, countries, or issues. From a US perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world’s people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia.”

While the United States is no stranger to developing and implementing a “Grand Strategy”, arguably dating back to era of “Manifest Destiny”, Australia is a stranger to this concept and the role such a concept can play in furthering the development of the nation and its response to mounting geopolitical challenges, which is something worth considering.

Final thoughts

If Australia is going to truly respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by the global shift in the balance and centre of economic, political, and strategic power to our immediate region, we as a nation need to collectively take responsibility for our own future.

We also need to address the domestic challenges we confront, namely, the social and economic disenfranchisement and disconnection many young Australians face, because if our young people don’t feel invested in our nation, then they definitely won’t step forward to defend the nation and our values.

A unifying, inspirational Grand Strategy which not only articulates our values and principles, but equally identifies a vision at both the macro and micro level, with clearly defined objectives and metrics for delivering provides the nation with the capacity to resist the traditional and hybrid challenges of great power competition in the Indo-Pacific.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..