AI-generated from sources
The great illusion: Asia as a capitalist prize in the age of strategic partnership
In Brief
- The modern rhetoric of US-China 'peace and partnership' in Asia masks a fundamental, historically rooted struggle to treat the region as a geopolitical and economic 'capitalist prize.'
- Contemporary competition has shifted from territorial conquest to economic warfare, evidenced by intense rivalry over trade and technology, maintaining a zero-sum 'state of war' mentality.
- This enduring struggle is based on the 'Great Illusion'—the flawed belief that a nation increases its wealth and power through the conquest or economic domination of other territories.
- Lasting peace requires great powers to abandon the anachronistic, zero-sum view of Asia and recognize that global prosperity is indivisible.
A persistent duality marks the engagement of global powers with Asia. On one hand, official discourse, such as that between the United States and China, champions a vision of shared prosperity and mutual respect, suggesting the Pacific Ocean is vast enough to accommodate the ambitions of all [1]. This narrative emphasizes cooperation on transnational challenges like terrorism and drug trafficking, and the joint maintenance of regional peace and stability [2, 3]. On the other hand, this rhetoric of partnership coexists with a deeper, historically-rooted impulse to view the continent not as a partner, but as a grand prize to be won and partitioned [4, 5].
This fundamental tension reveals an underlying contest where economic and geopolitical dominance are the ultimate objectives. The language of peace and cooperation, while publicly espoused, often masks the continuation of imperial rivalries by other means [6, 7]. An early 20th-century analysis identified this core issue, warning that international peace conferences would consistently fail to prevent conflict because they would ignore or conceal the fundamental cause: the 'wolfish struggles for Eastern Asia as a capitalist prize' . This perspective suggests that unless the underlying competitive drive for economic supremacy is addressed, professions of peace remain superficial, and the region is destined to be a theater of conflict between great powers pursuing their national interests under the guise of global betterment [8, 9].
The Enduring Legacy of Imperial Partition
The conception of Asia as a territory for division and exploitation by external powers is a powerful historical force that continues to shape contemporary geopolitics. At the turn of the 20th century, Western observers viewed the continent as a grand prize whose eventual partition was an inevitability, driven by the conviction of their own supremacy . Thinkers like Herbert George Wells and Lothrop Stoddard described this ambition in stark terms, portraying China as a 'feast' to be devoured by competing empires and Asia as a whole as a continent to be carved up, much like Africa [10]. This ambition was not merely for political prestige but was fundamentally economic, driven by a search for new markets, trade routes, and investment opportunities to fuel industrial economies at home [11].
This imperial mindset was predicated on the idea that national power and prosperity were directly proportional to territorial control and the ability to project force . The German strategic view, for instance, saw the establishment of a colonial foothold in the Orient as essential for securing the nation's 'best share' in the division of the world and ensuring its future as a great power [12]. Similarly, other observers saw a spiritual or civilizational mandate to extend their dominion over Asia, framing it as a necessary step to crush 'political atheism' and establish a 'divine dominion' [13].
Even when framed through the lens of bringing 'democracy' or 'civilization', the relationship often remained one of patronizing dominance rather than equal partnership. The idea that Europe might 'enslave Asia' was seen as flattering to the colonizer, while the prospect of freeing Asia was viewed as a burdensome responsibility to be avoided [14]. This legacy of viewing the continent and its peoples as objects of external ambition has created a deep-seated challenge to the formation of genuine, equitable relationships, as the historical patterns of dominance persist beneath new terminologies of partnership and cooperation .
The Modern Rhetoric of Peace and Strategic Partnership
In contrast to the explicit imperial ambitions of the past, contemporary great power engagement in Asia is framed within a discourse of peace, mutual interest, and strategic partnership. Joint statements between the United States and China, for example, repeatedly emphasize the need for communication and cooperation to 'jointly maintain and promote peace and stability and prosperity in the region' . This public posture presents a world where major powers act as responsible stakeholders, collaborating to address common threats and foster a secure international environment [15]. America's leadership, it is argued, depends not just on its military and economic might, but on how it uses that power in the service of world peace and human betterment [16].
This framework of cooperation extends to building alliances with key regional actors. The United States, for example, seeks to develop its strategic partnership with India, citing its role as the world's largest democracy and a vital security and economic partner [17]. These partnerships are presented as essential for ensuring stability, particularly in volatile areas like Afghanistan, and are based on shared objectives for peace throughout the Indo-Pacific region [18]. However, this cooperation is often explicitly linked to economic interests, with calls for partners like India to contribute more to regional security in light of the billions of dollars they make in trade with the United States .
Beneath the surface of this cooperative rhetoric, however, lie persistent strategic and economic calculations. Discussions about improving economic relationships are often centered on correcting 'chronic' trade imbalances and distortions, revealing that competition remains a central feature of the relationship [19]. The very ideal of peace is often contingent on the behavior of others and the maintenance of one's own military strength, which is seen as the ultimate guarantor of security [20, 21]. Therefore, the modern discourse of peace and partnership can be understood as a diplomatic layer over a foundation of national interest, where cooperation is a tool to be used in a larger, ongoing struggle for influence and advantage [22].
Economic Dominance as the New Battlefield
The primary arena for great power competition in Asia has increasingly shifted from direct territorial conquest to a battle for economic and technological supremacy. This new form of conflict is waged not with armies but through corporations, trade policy, and control over markets. The mindset of this competition is no less intense than traditional warfare, as exemplified by the founder of Huawei, who reportedly described his company's strategy as needing to 'surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood' and declared that the company had entered a 'state of war' [23]. This language reveals that commercial activity is perceived as a zero-sum struggle for survival and dominance.
This economic battlefield is where the 'wolfish struggles for Eastern Asia as a capitalist prize' are now fought . Historically, it has been argued that Anglo-Saxon global dominance was achieved less by military conquest and more through the pervasive influence of traders and settlers, whose commercial methods ultimately proved more effective than the military processes of other colonial powers [24]. Today, this dynamic continues, with nations leveraging their economic power to secure strategic advantages. Chronic trade imbalances become points of major contention, and economic partnerships are leveraged to advance security objectives, blurring the lines between commerce and geopolitics .
This intense commercial competition presents a paradox. While the internationalization of finance and trade theoretically creates interdependence that should mitigate conflict, it also creates new fronts for rivalry [25]. The pursuit of national advantage through ruthless commercial competition can be just as destabilizing as military buildups, leading to a state of perpetual economic war . Tensions can arise over access to labor markets or resources, potentially turning pacific-minded populations toward bellicose nationalism when they perceive their economic well-being to be threatened by foreign competition [26]. Ultimately, this framework views Asia not as a collection of partners for mutual prosperity, but as the principal theater for a global economic contest.
The Great Illusion of Conquest
The entire premise that a nation's prosperity and power are enhanced by dominating or annexing territory is built upon what Norman Angell termed a 'great illusion' . This critique argues that it is a 'logical fallacy and an optical illusion' to believe a nation enriches itself by increasing its territory [27]. In the modern world, wealth is owned by the individuals and entities within a territory, not by the state that governs it. When a state annexes a province, it also annexes the population that owns the wealth, meaning the conquering nation gains no tangible economic benefit from the act of conquest itself .
By every practical measure, citizens of smaller, non-imperial states are often as well off as, or even better off than, citizens of great empires [28]. A nation's most profitable overseas trade is frequently conducted with countries it does not politically control [29]. This reality directly contradicts the foundational axiom of traditional international politics: that national prosperity depends upon political and military power used to protect against the aggression of rivals . The relentless pursuit of this power, through massive military spending and arms races, becomes a self-perpetuating cycle that drains national resources and heightens global tensions [30, 31].
Clinging to the ambition of 'devouring' other nations or regions, whether through military or economic means, is not only based on a flawed premise but is also dangerously destabilizing . Persisting in such 'insane projects' makes a renewal of war and the potential for a 'social smash' almost inevitable . The belief that war or conquest is a necessary expression of the law of survival is an obsolete concept that fails to recognize the interconnected nature of the modern world [32, 33]. The real challenges and divisions in the world today are not between nations but run through them, making the idea of nationalistic conquest a perilous and counterproductive illusion .
The professed desire for peace and cooperation in Asia stands in stark and perpetual conflict with the underlying capitalist and imperial impulse to regard the region as a grand prize . While the overt language of empire and partition has been replaced by the modern discourse of strategic partnership and shared interests, the fundamental objective of securing economic and geopolitical dominance remains a powerful driver of policy . The contest has merely shifted arenas, from direct colonial administration to a relentless commercial war fought through proxies of trade and technology, yet the zero-sum logic endures .
This enduring pursuit of dominance is founded on a 'great illusion'—the fallacious belief that power and prosperity are gained through territorial or economic conquest . In reality, this approach only fuels arms races, sows mistrust, and undermines the very stability that all parties claim to desire . Ultimately, the nations of Asia cannot rely on the benevolence of any outside power, as the interests of these powers are often incompatible with the region's own welfare . A lasting peace will only be possible when the great powers abandon the anachronistic view of Asia as a prize to be won and instead engage as genuine partners in a world where prosperity is understood to be indivisible .
