Two very different philosophies stand behind the US-China war for technological supremacy. Americans tend to see competition as a sprint and pursue short-term victories. The Chinese prefer viewing it as a marathon, with a focus on the long term. Tariq H Malik writes that policymakers have lessons to learn from both approaches.
The technological rivalry between the US and China reflects their distinct approaches to progress and competition. While Americans view the race as a sprint, marked by exclusivity and short-term victories, the Chinese perceive it as a marathon, emphasising inclusivity and sustained outcomes. These contrasting perspectives are shaped by their philosophical and operational frameworks, which act as “traffic lights” guiding their respective paths.
China’s Sun Tzu theatre
China’s approach, inspired by Confucius and Sun Tzu, emphasises negotiation, inclusivity, and patience. These principles underpin its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which forges economic ties and influence without provoking resistance. The initiative spans continents, linking Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond, creating an expansive network of infrastructure and partnerships. This global strategy embodies three critical pillars:
Winning without fighting
Diplomacy and partnerships take precedence over confrontation, reflecting Confucian ideals of harmony and balance. This principle ensures that China’s rise is perceived as peaceful and cooperative rather than aggressive, making it easier to build alliances and foster trust.
Strategic flexibility
Adaptability to changes in technology, politics, and global trends ensures resilience in uncertain terrains. China’s ability to shift resources and adjust its strategies as needed is a hallmark of its long-term planning and vision.
Abstract reality
Psychological uncertainty for rivals is fostered through layered strategies, acquisitions, and an emphasis on long-term goals. By maintaining ambiguity and unpredictability, China can outmanoeuvre competitors who rely on immediate gains.
China’s dominance in essential resources like silicon and chemicals, crucial for semiconductor production, exemplifies its marathon mindset. By controlling raw materials, it lays a foundation for sustained growth and influence. Its emphasis on mutual benefits positions China as a cooperative partner rather than a confrontational one, enhancing its soft power. This narrative aligns with China’s self-presentation as a stabilising force in an increasingly fragmented world.
America’s Clausewitz theatre
America’s
framework, rooted in Machiavellian and Clausewitzian principles, prioritises
sprint victories. Its strategy is characterised by:
Exclusivity
Restricting access to critical technologies like semiconductors and AI to maintain dominance. This approach reflects a transactional mindset that seeks to maximise short-term benefits while minimising risks.
Binary lenses
Viewing others as either allies or adversaries, with no middle ground. This perspective has shaped America’s foreign and domestic policies, creating an environment of heightened competition and rivalry.
Dependency shift
Efforts to reduce reliance on China while increasing China’s reliance on the USA. By leveraging its existing technological and economic advantages, America aims to solidify its position as the global leader.
Historically,
America has sought short-term victories, as seen in conflicts like Korea,
Vietnam, and Iraq. While these campaigns showcased military prowess, they often
lacked sustainable outcomes, straining resources and eroding its global
standing. This sprint mentality extends to technological theatres, where
immediate gains often come at the cost of long-term stability. America’s
reliance on sanctions and restrictions further illustrates its preference for
rapid, decisive actions over gradual, strategic planning.
Theatres and narratives
America’s narrative
of negation
American
narratives revolve around control, exclusivity, and a binary worldview. These
narratives frame China as a technological and ideological threat, fuelling a
defensive posture. By cultivating fear and urgency, America seeks to galvanise
support for its sprint strategies, even as these approaches often lead to
overreach and diminishing returns. This narrative is deeply embedded in
American popular culture and political discourse, shaping public perception and
policy decisions alike.
China’s narrative of negotiation
In
contrast, China’s narratives emphasise cooperation, coexistence, and
inclusivity. Viewing global dynamics through a spectrum rather than binaries,
China prioritises long-term alliances and mutual benefits. Its narratives
project confidence and stability, appealing to nations seeking reliable
partnerships in an increasingly volatile world. By focusing on shared
prosperity and interdependence, China positions itself as a leader in fostering
global collaboration.
Technological theatre victories
America
has achieved notable victories in technological theatres, leveraging control
over semiconductor development and curtailing Chinese firms like Huawei. By
restricting access to critical technologies and talent, America has scored
significant short-term wins. However, these actions risk undermining its
long-term competitiveness. The aggressive pursuit of sprint victories has
created friction with allies and partners, potentially weakening America’s
global influence.
China’s
marathon approach focuses on building complementary systems to circumvent
American control. For instance, its dominance in raw materials and its emphasis
on AI and operational software signal a strategy to outlast America in the long
run. This dual focus on resources and innovation positions China to challenge
American dominance in future technological arenas. By investing in
infrastructure and research, China ensures that its technological advancements
are sustainable and scalable.
At the
human capital level, America’s sprint victories have historically benefited
from Chinese talent, with many educated professionals staying in the USA to
advance their careers. This talent drain has bolstered American innovation in
fields like AI, biotechnology, and semiconductors. However, recent policy
shifts have reversed this trend, with talent increasingly returning to China.
This shift strengthens China’s technological capabilities, consolidating its
talent pool and fostering domestic innovation. The reversal also highlights the
limitations of America’s sprint-focused strategies in retaining global talent.
China’s
marathon strategy prioritises investment in education and research, creating an
ecosystem that attracts and retains top talent. By emphasising long-term goals,
China mitigates the short-term losses associated with sprint defeats, building
a resilient foundation for sustained progress. This approach underscores the
importance of patience and foresight in achieving lasting success.
Conclusion
The
rivalry between the US and China reveals stark contrasts in their approaches to
technological dominance. America’s sprint victories, driven by negation and
control, offer immediate but fleeting advantages. These strategies, while
effective in the short term, often lead to resource depletion and strategic
overreach. By focusing on quick wins, America risks sacrificing the stability
and resilience needed for long-term leadership.
China’s
marathon strategy, guided by negotiation and inclusivity, builds a resilient
foundation for long-term success. By prioritising adaptability, cooperation,
and sustained investment, China positions itself as a formidable competitor in
the global technological landscape. As history demonstrates, empires rise and
fall; patience and adaptability often prove decisive in shaping the future.
This rivalry underscores the importance of aligning short-term tactics with
long-term strategies to navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving world.
Broader implications
The
lessons from this rivalry extend beyond technological competition. They
highlight the importance of aligning national strategies with global realities,
fostering cooperation, and prioritising sustainable development. As
nations grapple with emerging challenges, the Sino-American competition serves
as a reminder of the enduring value of adaptability, vision, and resilience in
shaping the course of history. These lessons are particularly relevant as
countries navigate the interconnected challenges of globalisation, climate
change, and technological disruption. By learning from the strengths and
weaknesses of both approaches, policymakers can craft strategies that balance
immediate needs with long-term objectives.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter here.
- This blog post represents the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
- Featured image provided by Shutterstock.
- When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our Comment Policy.
