Bosphorus Center for Asian Studies

Cold war

The Investigation of Cold War Rhetoric

Nowadays, the rise of China in the projection of the international political system has led to a debate on the redefinition of the global order. A challenge that has attracted the attention of the whole world has emerged. In the chronology of this challenge, the rise of China, which began in the 1970s, gained momentum in 2001 when it entered the World Trade Organization (WTO). As it entered the first quarter of the century, China started of the One Belt and One Road initiative in 2013 and its’ star in the international economy shone more with the projects such as Made in China 2025. In light of these developments, when the United States announced trade wars against the Red Dragon in March 2018, this debate was blazed and the Cold War rhetoric emerged. In the present, the main issues that is Western concern about China are: China’s expansion of its influence in Africa, Latin America and Asia, its shrinking of foreign companies with its semi-open economic system, the strengthening of the Chinese army in the South China Sea, underlining the Western narrative of the West, such as human rights and the rule of law and use methods that violate technology transfer within the WTO.

However, it is not a right approach to see the pains in the international system as a direct Cold War period. A system emerges with the potential forces of the states and their position against each other, so it will be more enlightening and realistic to make the explanation of this by making use of the literature. In this context, in the first place, a background will be created for the comparisons of the developments with the features of the systems experienced previously in the international political system. Later on, the Cold War analogy, which is discussed extensively by politicians, academics and the world press, will be evaluated by double reading method in the light of current data and deconstruction[1] will be applied


1. As a Guide: International Politics System Typologies

The international political system which has gained a global character for the last three centuries includes various subsystems. The definition and classification of the system is based on the power distribution between the actors such as nation-states, international organizations, and multinational companies. The historical evolution of the system is divided into specific periods and categorized.[2] According to Faruk Sönmezoğlu, mostly Morton Kaplan’s typologies of the political system is used in this classification able to analyze the developments in international relations and to predict the changes experienced.. Kaplan divides the international political system into six; classical balance of power, the bipolar system (the bipolar system is divided into two as loose and tight bipolar), hierarchical system, universal system and unit-veto system.[3] Within the scope of this article, the typologies will not be explained in detail, just the classical power balance and bipolar system will be presented as reminder modules in order to guide and compare the developments discussed today.


1.1. The Balance of Power

In order to be able to talk about the classical balance of power, there must be a minimum of five key actors in the system. In this system, when any power tries to become crystallized or in the other words when any power comes the fore, other powers try to maintain the balance of power by trying to pacify this rising power in a variety of ways.[4] To give an example for the power balance system from history, the other European powers united and tried to stop Napoleon France or Bismarck Germany which is expanding along Europe.

European states became a great power in the political and economic spheres with the Industrial Revolution and Imperialism dynamics and tried to establish the world order in the modern sense by sharing the world among them. Thus, the classical power balance system dominated the international political system beginning from the 17th century to the first quarter of the 20th century. This system remained valid until the First World War. After the war period, the US emerged as a powerful actor in the system and the international political system signaled the first change with the US’s leadership of the League of Nations and its’ the new world order rhetoric. However, in the interwar period, it was not predicted which way the system would evolve. This is why this period is called the transition period. During the Second World War, the areas where the Western allies gained ground and USSR gained ground were divided into two as East-West after the war. With Winston Churchill’s famous iron curtain speech in Missouri (1946) the distribution of power was shared only between the US and the USSR and the world entered a new era. [5]The fall of Germany in Europe and the weakening of the political and economic power of the great powers such as Britain and France, the loss of Japan in Asia and the division of the People’s Republic of China led to the emergence of only two great powers in the system and this period is named as Bipolar System-Cold War period in the literature.[6]


1.2. Bipolar System-Cold War Period

In view of the structural features of this system, the following situation has emerged: as mentioned before, the system has ceased to be European-centered, and the global dimension of the international system has expanded and has gained a meaning that includes the polar regions, the depths of the ocean, and even the space gap.[7] In this context, blocks appeared in the system and these blocks’ organizations (NATO / 1949- Warsaw Pact / 1955) were established.[8] The leaders of the blocs have tried to increase their influence in political, military and economic areas by creating a hierarchical order. The struggle between the US and the USSR was seen in the territory of third countries within the framework of common geopolitical interests. The Korean War, the Cuban Crisis and the Vietnam War are the critical developments of the period in which the two sides are struggling to establish a superiority. Asymmetric power relations have developed between countries in the system, and having nuclear weapons has been seen as a distinctive feature.[9] In this process, US’S increasing the level of economic and cultural globalization, the second Cold War wave with the Reagan administration, the structural weaknesses of Soviet-style communism and the reforms of the Gorbachev administration ended the Cold War. The USSR was first withdrawn in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continued to withdraw from Eastern Europe until 1991.[10]


2. Assessment of Cold War Rhetoric in the Light of Current Data


2.1. Dangerous Discourses

Michel Foucault, one of the postmodern theoreticians, carried out analyzes on the discourses of the rulers and said that ‘the rulers need the discourse to maintain their power.’ [11] Influenced by Foucault’s discourse analysis, Megill expressed that thought transforms to discourse in time, with this discourse could bring about the idea of a world or could eliminate that idea. According to Megill, discourse holders can create a space for themselves by changing the ideological framework in the world. That is to say, discourses not only contain conflicts, boundaries or pressure systems, but also contain the power to be possessed.[12] Based on this analysis, deconstruction methodology will be appropriate to read for the discourses that are raised within the scope of the Cold War analogy discussed in the US-China axis.

Essentially the Cold War rhetoric based on the ideas of very few assertive academics, such as Steve Bannon, in 2016.[13] Then in 2017, Graham Allison wrote a book on the US-China relationship with the title “Destined for War’’ and he pointed to the Cold War saying ‘’When a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, alarm bells should sound: danger ahead’’.[14] Robert Kaplan, who is also assertive academician about the Cold War, said that ‘the Cold War has already begun and I had said this in my article in 2005, named ’How We Would Fight China’.[15] At last in March 2018, after the US declared trade wars, the rhetoric of Cold War began to be discussed more intensively among politicians and academics and it was seen that it took up more space in the world press. – We will give more detail in our study-.

The most important reason for the use of the term Cold War is the increase of the threatening discourses on dissuasion by the great powers without a hot conflict between each other. The speeches of US Vice President Mike Pence on October 4 are similar to Churcill’s famous iron curtain talk in 1946. Pence said that the Trump administration would no longer attempt to cajole and persuade China to play by the rules; instead, it would emphasize ‘strong and swift action’ to penalize Beijing for any perceived infractions and he added ‘a New Cold War began.’[16] Afterwards, Donald Trump strengthened his enmity discourse against China and he accused of Beijing for interfere to his domestic politics. (Although he has no evidence) In the Cold War, which continued for nearly 45 years, it was thought that the party causing this war was USSR and the US was shown as a protective umbrella. But nowadays, if the tension between the US and China rises with a new Cold War period, according to Zacharry Karabel the cause of this war will be the US administration.[17] On the other hand, the personal status and attitudes of the leaders are important in the conflicts between the two countries. For example, at the Chinese National Party Congress in October 2017, a new political doctrine was published, which included the Chinese adaptation of Xi Jinping’s ideas on socialism, and five months later, Xi Jinping paved the way for a lifelong presidency. Xi Jinping’s status in administration is guaranteed by the constitution and is uplifted with the combination Mao Zedong who is the founder of the People’s Republic of China and Deng Xiaoping who the architect of Chinese modernization.[18] In this context, Jinping has been argued to be the strongest leader since Mao with his sharp lines. Because Xi Jinping shows that he will not submit against Trump’s threatening remarks on tariff taxing applications and also he shows that he will have a confident stance as President Mao Zedong did during the Cold War period.[19] When thought Xi is insisting on land claims in the South China Sea and have a stern attitude about Taiwan and having a bold stance in exporting its economic model and technological advance, it is observed that the Cold War will be experienced inevitably.[20]

Alternative view: If they want; the US and Chinese governments can move this conflict to a higher level because there are groups around management who prefer to live in this conflict world and escalate this conflict. (Such as: in US- New Conversations, in China- China Hawks) For example, Tyler Cowen recently claimed that China wanted to build an international political and economic order by eliminating liberalism. However, the degree of the conflict between the two states was exaggerated and the discourse of the Clash of Civilizations was enlarged. Because China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lu Kang said that the accusations of the United States are unfounded and they expect the West to withdraw from the zero-sum game logic used during this Cold War period and to be focused on cooperation towards China.[21] The two countries do not have to agree on all matters, and even to some extent conflict on some issues will be inevitable. However, this tension can be managed by relying on international institutions, producing reasonable policies, empathy initiatives and good faith efforts by both sides.[22] Considering the effects of leaders’ status, Xi may be considered to be stronger when compared to previous presidents, and he wants to turn China into a high-tech police state in the short term. However, Xi also has a more fragile presidential status than other presidents. Because China’s demographic structure is getting older, its economy has lost its speed, there is a party faction in domestic politics and the Chinese Communist Party may face a crisis of legitimacy at any time.[23]


2.2. Thucydides Trap in Economics and Technology Gripper

After the United States determined China as a national security priority, Washington’s first policy was the tariff policy to struggle with China. In September, the United States brought $ 200 billion of taxation against Chinese products[24] and blamed China for commercial espionage and made discourses that would discredit it.[25] For this reason, the idea that economic sanctions are the front of the Cold War has become widespread.[26] But the main reason for the economic provocations of the United States is that US has concerned about China’s capture the economic and technological spheres in the future; in other words, the ‘Thucydides Trap’ appears with the expression of Graham Allison.[27] When the quantitative data are analyzed, it is revealed that even if the Chinese economy slows down, it will surpass the US by 2025-2030. Furthermore, China is increasing its influence in Asia-Pacific through its Belt and Road Project, deepening its relations with Russia, and looking for ways to form new alliances with developed countries such as Japan, South Korea and Europe’s powerful states.[28] In addition, China aims to close the gap by financing advanced technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, robotics and DNA engineering within the scope of Made in China 2025 project with the support of China government.[29] One of the areas where China has put pressure on the USA in terms of technology is cyber-attacks. In the period of the Obama administration in 2015, a cease-fire was signed between the two countries and the cyber-attacks against US companies were reduced by ninety percent. But this trend began to reverse after 2017 and, as a retaliation policy for the sanctions of the Trump administration, a state-sponsored hacker army of China began to take over the trade secrets of US companies.[30] Trump’s tariff policies, his withdraw decision from the Trans-Pacific Association Agreement (Barack Obama’s signed)[31] and to denounce China without evidence, are indications of his concerns over China’s enlargement. As the most extreme version of this approach, if emerging a circle for the US and its allies, another circle for China and its allies, that is, if a world order emerges where two separate economic areas are formed, we can find ourselves in a war close to the US-Soviet Cold War.[32]

Alternative view: Firstly, it is not the right approach to see China’s interests and long-term plans as policies at the expense of America’s prosperity, that is, zero-sum policies. It should be remembered that the rise of the Chinese economy has the potential to increase the well-being of all and to ensure global stability. China creates a market accessible to everyone with has a big market for foreign companies, and as a workshop that produces cheap goods.[33] In September, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said that 740 million people who living under the poverty line have been rescued from this level from 1978 reforms year to 2018(every year to cover nearly 19 million people). In this context, the NBC says that China has contributed more than 70% to Struggle of global poverty.[34] In addition, China with OBOR project is seen not only as a giant economic actor but also it is seen as a major tourism resource, international investment channel and student exchange program by the West. Secondly, the postures of the Asia-Pacific countries are important in the conflict between the two countries. It was observed that the countries in this region avoided major conflicts and carried out flexible policies especially in matters that would increase the distinction between China and the United States. For example, countries such as Australia, Japan and India have not defined a static position on alliances.[35] Thirdly, there is a high interdependence between the two countries.US had $ 375 million trade deficit in 2017 and the trade volume reached to $ 700 billion in this economic relationship.[36] Moreover, tariff applications alone will not destroy the supply chains that link China to the US and the rest of the world. Finally, before the US had appointed Soviet Russia as a national security priority and fought for political, economic, military and ideological aspects for almost half a century. After eliminating the danger of communism, the United States structured its national security priority against radical Islam along with the events of 9/11, but it turned out to be a marginal threat and could not be managed well.[37] In other words, it has been found out that the United States uses the discourse of radical Islam threat as an instrument of image work and manipulation for its geopolitical purposes.[38] Nowadays, China’s economic rise is seen as a new competitor in the status of ‘existential threat’ by the US. This shows a paranoid picture in which the United States is striving to build ‘another’ on its own for supremacy and control of the world.[39]


2.3.Highlights of the Military Ascension: South China Sea and Taiwan

In the conflicts between the two countries, the military upswing is interpreted as the second front of the Cold War. Both powers have an intercontinental nuclear missile. Therefore, in order to guarantee mutual destruction, they will focus on reinforcing their strength in the military field, developing the naval force and developing the hypersonic short-range missile. [40]According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, PLA’s navy has been activated the submarine, warship, main amphibious ship and its auxiliary equipment more than the total number of ships serving in the naval forces of Germany, India, Spain, Taiwan and the UK since 2014.[41]

One of the most important grounds is the South China Sea in the Asia-Pacific region between the US and China for the Cold War. The South China Sea, a hotspot where both countries’ warships confront, can be seen as a place to change the course of global power.[42] While the US is developing submarines and aircraft carriers to prevent China’s domination in the South China Sea, China is expanding its fleet to defend the islands where it claims sovereignty within the nine-dash line.  .[43] In this context, Beijing has made new military moves to stop the US and its allies in the South China Sea. China is now taking control of the controversial islands and reefs. Thus, China is pushing its influence into the Pacific by setting up a military crew on the controversial islands and reefs, as well as suppressing the US through commercial negotiations and cyber-attacks.[44] On September 30, the USS Decatur maneuvered in the chain of the Spratly Islands, forcing Chinese warships to make an urgent turn. This incident was interpreted by McDevitt, a retired Admiral and a senior fellow at the Center for Naval Analyses, as an indication that China is no longer interested in complying with international maritime law.[45] After this event, the tension has deepened between the two countries.

Another important part of the military rise is Taiwan between the two powers. The United States has acknowledged that China has a ‘One China’ policy and that Taiwan is a part of it with three declarations in History (1972, 1978, and 1982). [46] However, after China has become the second most important economy in the world, the US is trying to use China’s weak points. Therefore, the United States benefits from the dual structure in the region by providing economic support to the island and trying to strengthen the administration for independence. (US’s Taiwan Card) In contrast, the Xi government wants to use the structure of one state- two systems for Taiwan as like in Hong Kong and Macau. Thus, Taiwan will unite with the main lands both as an integral part of China’s historical sense and will contribute to the Chinese economy, which has started to slow down and will increase its prestige.[47] According to Xi, together with this unification, Taiwan will no longer be a national weakness for China and will help China’s national awakening. However, Xi said that ‘’if the United States intervenes in Cross-Strait relations and the separatist movements rise on the island, we will implement the Anti-Separation Act and will not hesitate to use our military power.’’[48] In 2012, China launched several programs to strengthen its military capacity, and these programs have been evaluated as the preparations for a war in 2019It was reported that military training and exercises to be carried out in 2019 are a warning to those who are trying to prevent unification with Taiwan. This military upswing is seen as a reference to the geopolitical struggle between the US and China.[49] In this context, it is seen as an unacceptable situation for China that Washington considers Taiwan as a country separate from China.[50] If a Taiwan crisis arises, where the mainland imposes heavy sanctions with embargoes or interferes with the use of military forces, it can threaten the security, freedom and economic well-being of 23 million people living on the island. Moreover, this crisis may expand to threaten other countries in Asia-Pacific.[51] The US might be late in the intervention of a possible Taiwan Crisis, such as the failure of the Pigs Bay in the Cuban Crisis. In a potential conflict, such a situation could lead to a revision of the alliance with the US in countries such as Japan.

Alternative view: The US administration had achieved victory over the USSR with the strategies it implemented during the Cold War. Now it considers the tension with China same way. In other words, its past experience of a previous victory in a zero-sum game gives confidence to the US. According to US President Donald Trump, there is an easy struggle to win.[52] The majority of the country’s political actors may agree that China should be handled as a national priority. However this rivalry will be challenging and full of uncertainties by its nature. A new Cold War period, as in the previous Cold War, may be dangerous and costly, perhaps even more critical. The US policies on the South China Sea and Taiwan are perceived as a threat and concern for China. For this reason, while the US is demonstrating its strength in China’s close vicinity, East Asia, China’s reaction is so normal in the nature of the state.  If we think, for example, if China wants to engage in the Western Hemisphere, the Pentagon will undoubtedly react much harder than China. China’s economic power and fast-growing technological expertise will surely show itself in the direction of power in diplomatic and military fields. In fact, it already does. However, it doesn’t mean that China will soon dominate the whole world. It only made China a truly challenging competitor.[53]


2.4. The Global Challenge

Although there are some method and conjuncture differences, the emergence of America as a great power in the 19th century, and the rise of China nowadays have a similar picture. China is expanding rapidly within its borders, acting pragmatist in its own geographic orbit, competing with economic forces through purchasing, borrowing or copying. China’s struggle manifests itself in the form of dominance on East Asia and global issues.[54] In 2012, after Xi Jinping became secretary general of the CCP and president of the People’s Republic of China, he delivered the rejuvenation speech at a historical exhibition within China’s National Museum, in Beijing. In this conference, he said: “ours is a great nation that has endured untold hardships and sufferings. But the Communist Party had forged ahead, thus opening a completely new horizon for the great renewal of the Chinese nation.” And also he talked about the fall of the Qing Emperor and the period of the ‘century of humiliation’ in the aftermath of the Opium Wars under the influence of foreign powers. Xi emphasized that the CCP had long struggled to restore China to its historic centrality in international affairs and it is time. According to the Xi, China will achieve of this with rebirth.[55] Chinese leaders support authoritarian regimes from Cambodia to Zimbabwe, declaring that Beijing’s model of authoritarian capitalism is better than the US model of liberal democracy. In order to strengthen authoritarian governments, China exploits financial credits and investments as instruments. Providing financial and military support to these countries reduces the impact of West’ principles such as ‘human rights’ and ‘rule of law’. China sells facial recognition systems to authoritarian governments and gives trainings on how they control telephone and Internet activities in the most effective way. In this way, China has become an exporter of surveillance and law enforcement.  This alternative success model provided by China opens a way for the weak democracies to move away from the West.[56] China uses corruption and impact operations to disrupt the stability of democracies in Asia-Pacific and other regions. Furthermore, it is building a police state with high technology in its own country.[57] Analysts like Robert Kaplan argue that the US-China struggle to form the 21st century would be similar to the US-Soviet struggle after 1945. [58]This struggle also signals the power conflict between the Confucian East and the Christian West in order to shape the existing global order. (Clash of Civilizations).[59] In the 20th century, America defined itself as the only door to the heaven chosen by God for Pax Americana’s justification. It has presented itself as the holy hand that will end the suffering of the whole world with as been the torch of human rights and democracy. Confucian thought, underlines a pluralistic structure unlike a monolithic road on the way to heaven. Being fueled by the Confucian philosophy, Beijing claims that a world with divergent ideologies is more attractive and that multilateralism (a multipolar world) is better than the democratic liberalism that is considered the only way by the West.[60]


Alternative view: Odd Arne Westad (Harvard University) has identified the current Cold War analogy as inaccurate and dangerous, and said that ‘’ it is a kind of terminological laziness that equates the conflicts of yesteryear … with what takes place today”.[61] Because the Cold War analogy involves multi-dimensional struggles. Firstly, China does not act with the identity of a revolutionary state, which ideologically condemns itself to the collapse of the capitalist world, such as the USSR. On the contrary, it is trying to integrate itself deeply into the global economy until it reaches the point of becoming the main trading partner with all the allies in Asia-Pacific. Second, the system does not point to a bipolar structure as in the Cold War period. During the Cold War, the US responded to the Soviet military and geopolitical expansion with a policy of containment and tried to turn the political-economic orbit of the world into its axis. As a geopolitical strategy, ‘the policy of containment’ formulated by George Kennan, was a long-term security policy that survived until the demise of Soviet Union.[62] Although the US is looking for such a concept today, it has not yet clarified its long-term strategic policy against rising China. Finally even if the crisis deepens, the US and China need each other about global governance: Protecting the stability of the international economy, to deal with epidemics, global migration and terrorism, combating climate change, to prevent the spread of weapons and etc. Pax Americana can achieve a balanced and peaceful coexistence with Pax Sinica. Therefore, US-China competition may be compared to the competition between England and Germany in the classical balance of power system in the 19th and early 20th centuries. [63]The US is creating enemies with the ‘Messiah complex’ it refers to the eternal war between the good and the evil by claiming that the US is the good) and demonizing those enemies. But these efforts don’t have any impact on the global scale, since American exceptionalism, that assumes the US as the only good, is anachronistic.[64]



The international system come to a deadlock from time to time. Those are generally transition periods. It means that the international system isn’t clear and a world order doesn’t indwell. In the international system, during these transition periods, the geography is used as a chessboard among the superpowers. However, there is a problem on evaluating the period in a clear way. Moreover the discourses and the images created by these discourses are interpreted as much larger and more important than they are in practice. In this context, the rise of China and its engagement to the system in a new format also created great rhetoric from its real size and led to the referring to the Cold War period which had a dramatic impact on history. The New Cold War dynamics, which were thought to have begun between the US and China, have shown itself primarily in the economic and technological fields. After declaring the US trade wars in March 2018, tensions increased between the two countries and customs tariffs were implemented at the beginning of July. In the same period, the China’s boom in the technology sector and expanding influence with channels such as BRI and  Made in China 2025 have brought geopolitical debates  into agenda about global power struggle  which belongs to the the Cold War era. The spread of the economic and technological competition into political and military areas is considered that the Cold War rhetoric strengthens. The Taiwan problem, which is a historical problem, and the increase in the speed of armament for the dominance of the South China Sea, have been described as the second critical front of this struggle. Finally, one of the arguments about Cold War rhetoric is that ideologies of the Clash of Civilizations. China’s representation of the East with the Confucian thought structure and the challenge of Western Civilization does not only have a theological meaning. This view also includes China’s demand for a multi-polar world order and anti-Western / anti-American ideologies that reject the values of the West.

The system we are living in cannot be named directly as Cold War.  As we tried to do in this analysis, in the light of current data, this system can be seen double-sided and has not yet been fully formulated. When evaluating the new period, it is necessary to consider the historical memory and the impact of globalization, to read the internal policy and foreign policy outputs and not to ignore the positions of other actors in the system. China will undoubtedly take its place in the system with a status that is getting stronger day by day. When the position of Beijing in the system is considered together with the other dynamics, the new system can emerge as the transformation of the classical balance of power into a multi-polarity, the cold war period may be experienced in a recurrent way, or it may show a unique period which has not yet been named. In this respect, It is important to analyze the developments in the international system away from a determinist perspective, and to improve alternative ideas besides discourses.



[1]For details v. Lasse Thomassen, Deconstruction as Method in Political Theory, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP), Vol. 39. (2010) p. 42

[2] Faruk Sönmezoğlu, Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi, 4.B., İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi, 2005, p. 665

[3]For details v. Morton Kaplan, ‘’Variants on Six Models of the International System’’, edited by J. N. Rosenau, in International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, New York: Free Press, 1969, pp. 291–303.

[4] Sönmezoğlu, op.cit., pp. 674-675.

[5] Andrew Heywood, Küresel Siyaset, Çev. Nasuh Uslu ve Haluk Özdemir, 3.b., Ankara: Adres Yayınları, 2014, p.68

[6] Heywood,Ibid., s.70

[7] Joseph Frankell, International Politics, Conflict and Harmony, London: Allen Lane, 1969, p.75.

[8] Kaplan, op.cit. pp.296-297.

[9] Bruce M. Russett, Trends in World Politics, London: Macmillian Press, 1965, pp.3-6

[10] Heywood, op.cit., p.71

[11] Michel Foucault, Söylemin Düzeni, Çev. Turhan Ilgaz, Hil Yayınları: İstanbul,1987, pp.28-31

[12] Allan Megill, Aşırılığın Peygamberleri: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Çev. Tuncay Birkan, İstanbul:Say Yayınları, 2012, p.408

[13]Niall Ferguson, ‘’Cold War II’’, Boston Globe, Mar.11.2019,, Mar.14.2019

[14] Ferguson, Ibid.

[15] Robert D. Kaplan, ‘’A New Cold War Has Begun’’, Foreign Policy, Jan.07.2019,, Mar.02.2019

[16] Zacharry Karabel, ‘’ A Cold War Is Coming, and It Isn’t China’s Fault’’, Foreign Policy, Oct.31.2018,, Mar.07.2019

[17] Karabel, ibid.

[18] Steve Tsang, ‘’ What is Xi Jinping Thought’’, Project Syndicate, Feb.5.2019,, Mar.09.2019

[19] Tasha Wibawa, ‘’China-US in ‘fully fledged Cold War’ that’s set to continue in 2019, analysts warn’’, ABC, Jan.05.2019,, Mar.06.2019

[20] Gary Clyde Hufbauer, ‘’The unfolding of a new Cold War’’, EastAsiaForum, Nov.18.2018,, Mar.06.2019

[21] Julian Borger, ‘’US-China tensions soar as ‘new cold war’ heats up’’, The Guardian, Oct.16.2018,, Mar.07.2019

[22] Simon Lester, ‘’Talking Ourselves into a Cold War with China’’, National Interest, Jan.06.2019,, Mar.08.2019

[23] Daniel Blumenthal, ‘’ The Unpredictable Rise of China’’, The Atlantic, Feb.03.2019,, Mar.09.2019

[24] Office of the United States Trade Representative, ‘’ USTR Finalizes Tariffs on $200 Billion of Chinese Imports in Response to China’s Unfair Trade Practices’’, Sep.18.2018,, Mar.14.2019

[25] Karabel, op.cit.

[26] Hufbauer, op.cit.

[27] For details v. Graham Allison, ‘’The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?’’, The Atlantic, Sep.24.2015,, Mar.07.2019

[28] Hufbaer, op.cit.

[29] Wibawa, op.cit.

[30] Borger, op.cit.

[31] Wibawa, op.cit.

[32] Lester, op.cit.

[33] Karabel, op.cit.

[34] Xinhuanet, ‘’China lifts 740 mln rural poor out of poverty since 1978’’, Sep.03.2018,, Mar.14.2019

[35] Wibawa, op.cit.

[36] Kimberly Amadeo ‘’US Trade Deficit With China and Why It’s So High’’, The Balance, Jan.18.2019,, Mar.14.2019

[37] Karabel, op.cit.

[38] Dougnas Kelnner, ‘’ 9/11, spectacles of terror, and media manipulation’’, Critical Discourse Studies, Vol:1 İsuue:1, Aug.15.2006, pp.41-64.

[39] Lester, op.cit.

[40] Hufbauer, op.cit.

[41] Blumenthal, op.cit.

[42] James Holmes, ‘’ A Collision: Is This How a U.S.-China War in the South China Sea Starts?’’, National Interest, Nov.06.2018,, Mar.14.2019

[43] Hufbauer, op.cit.

[44] Borger, op.cit.

[45] Borger, Ibid.

[46] Richard N. Haas, ‘’The Looming Taiwan Crisis’’, Project Syndicate, Feb.15.2019,–haass-2019-02, Mar.11.2019.

[47] Haas, Ibid.

[48]Zhang Hua, ‘’ Xi Charts course for peaceful reunification’’, Global Times, Jan.03.2019,, Mar. 12.2019

[49] Mimi Lau, ‘’ Chinese President Xi Jinping gives army its first order of 2019: be ready for battle’’, South China Morning Post, Jan.05.2019,, Mar.11.2019

[50] Wibawa, op.cit.

[51] Haas, op.cit.

[52] Minxin Pei, ‘’ The High Costs of the New Cold War’’, Project Syndicate, Mar.14.2019,, Mar.14.2019

[53] Huge White, ‘’ Can the US win the new cold war with China? Not without risking a nuclear war’’, South China Morning Post, Mar.06.2019,, Mar.10.2019

[54] Alain Guidetti, ‘’The New Cold War, with Chinese (and US) Characteristics’’, Geneva Center for Security Policy, Dec.06.2018,, Mar.05.2019

[55] Blumenthal, op.cit.

[56]Andrea Kendall’Taylor and David Shullman,‘’How Russia and China Undermine Democracy’’, Foreign Affairs, Oct.02.2008,, Mar.10.2019.

[57]Hal Brands, ‘’America’s Cold Warriors Hold the Key to Handling China’’, Bloomberg, Jan.14.2019,, Mar.08.2019

[58] Kaplan, op.cit.

[59] Peter T. Chang, ‘’ Are Confucian China and the Christian West destined to clash? How religion can explain the new cold war?’’, South China Morning Post, Feb.09.2019,, Mar.10.2019

[60] Chang, Ibid.

[61] Brands, op.cit.

[62] Paul Heer, ‘’Containment and China: What Would Kennan Do?’’, National İnterest, Apr.17.2018,, Mar.05.2019

[63] Brands, op.cit.

[64] Chang, op.cit.

Researcher at BAAM Political Economy Program, MA Student at Uludağ University