American academic Andrew Latham believes that the term "great power competition" has resurfaced during the past decade after it was a dead phrase that came out of the lexicon of geopolitical metaphors in circulation, but it has returned to haunt decision makers in Washington.

Latham points out in an article in the American newspaper "The Hill" that there was a belief that prevailed after the end of the Cold War and the bipolar ideological competition that it witnessed that ended with the unipolar sovereignty of the United States over the world, according to which the concept of competition between great powers has become one of Past.

But the concept returned to the fore after the decline of neo-liberalism, and scholars and politicians are using it in their attempts to understand the contemporary world order, according to the article.

Despite differing views on the impact of the return of competition for world sovereignty on US foreign policy, Latham - who works as a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Minnesota, USA - believes that the indisputable fact is that this competition has become "the wisdom of Humble upon it” in the modern era, shaping and governing the official and popular geopolitical discourse in the United States and abroad.

Fears threaten America's standing


In a recent book by American academic and author Ali Wen called "America's Great Power Opportunity: Revitalizing US Foreign Policy to Meet the Challenges of Strategic Competition," Wen warns of the dangers of what he calls “unlimited competition” between great powers, and he believes that it is wrong to compare the framework that governs great power competition now with that that prevailed during the Cold War.

He also believes that the comparison between the conflict now and what happened during the Cold War is gaining increasing momentum in the corridors of institutions concerned with US foreign policy.

He goes on to say that treating the current moment as similar to the Cold War era feeds America's geopolitical fears, and pushes Washington to adopt an unsustainable grand strategy with the aim of allaying those fears, which provokes reactions from friends and enemies alike, and threatens the position of the United States in the world.

Wayne concludes in his book that it is in the interest of the United States to adopt a more disciplined international position, avoiding unilateralism, and instead relying on its allies and partners to maintain regional balances and, moreover, to be able to create the conditions for internal reform.

Challenges

The article's author, Andrew Latham, comments that Wayne made the same mistake he was criticizing, when he concluded at the end of his book that "entering a new era of competition between great powers presents an opportunity for the United States, not only to renew itself, but to build a new world order capable of address many of the current challenges.

He believes that what Wayne went to is a strange conclusion and contradicts what he focused on in his book of highlighting the error of the historical comparison between the Cold War era and the current moment.

The writer concludes his article by highlighting what he sees as a vast difference between the unique situation that enabled the United States in 1945 to renew the global order in a way that reflects its values ​​and serves its interests, and its current situation, where it faces many internal and external challenges, including “the local collapse that undermines the attractiveness of the American example.” And the grand strategy that it developed based on competition with other great powers, which is characterized by extreme ambition and is governed by reactions to events to the extent that it is not suitable for directing any positive project aimed at renewal.