Heartland Tensions: The Battle for Economic and Strategic Supremacy in Asia

South Asia has emerged as a pivotal region in today’s global conflicts, shaping military strategies, economic warfare, and geopolitical alliances. With three nuclear-armed states—India, Pakistan, and China—along with crucial trade routes and persistent regional tensions, South Asia plays a central role in proxy wars, strategic military positioning, and global power struggles.

China often avoids direct confrontation with its adversaries. Instead of engaging in open warfare or backing militant proxies like the United States and the former Soviet Union did during the Cold War, China prefers to challenge rivals through economic strategies. Historically, when both powers clashed, they constantly sought ways to counter each other’s influence. Today, China continues this trend by leveraging economic initiatives to undermine its competitors.

One key example is China’s renewed engagement with Afghanistan, aimed at boosting trade with Central Asia via land routes, much like the Silk Road of the past. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013 by the People’s Republic of China, is a massive international development strategy involving investments in over 150 countries and organizations. Within this framework, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stands out. CPEC is a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project that includes roads, railways, energy pipelines, and industrial zones—centered around the strategic Gwadar Port. One of its core objectives is to reduce China’s dependence on U.S.-controlled maritime routes.

This strategy is tied to what is known as the “Malacca Dilemma”—China’s vulnerability due to its reliance on the Strait of Malacca, a narrow chokepoint dominated by U.S. allies. Around 80% of China’s energy imports pass through this strait. In a potential conflict scenario, U.S. naval blockades could cripple Chinese trade. By investing in overland routes like CPEC, China aims to bypass this vulnerability.

On the other hand, the United States adheres to the maritime dominance strategy championed by Alfred Mahan, a renowned naval historian and strategist. Mahan’s Sea Power Theory highlights the significance of naval supremacy in establishing and maintaining global influence. In pursuit of economic recovery and power projection, the U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada and doubled tariffs on Chinese goods to 20%. These measures aim to bolster the American economy, which has suffered trillions of dollars in losses due to prolonged wars and global security aid. The U.S. remains the world’s largest military aid donor, annually supporting over 150 countries through its Department of Defense.

With the re-election of President Trump (Trump 2.0), the administration has shifted focus toward protectionism and opted for a domestic-centric approach. It also aims to end the ongoing Ukraine war, where the U.S. has invested approximately $350 billion in military and security aid. As Trump stated, “The United States has put up far more aid for Ukraine than any other nation… We’ve spent more than $300 billion, and Europe has spent about $100 billion. That’s a big difference.”

Simultaneously, Washington is ramping up efforts to counter China’s rise as a global power—especially in the realm of technology. A recent example involves the launch of DeepSeek’s chatbot in the U.S., which triggered a historic $600 billion drop in the stock of AI chipmaker Nvidia Corp, following market panic. In response, the U.S. imposed additional 20% tariffs to secure its economic interests, particularly in developing countries. China, in turn, responded assertively. Beijing warned of its readiness for any kind of conflict with the U.S., announcing a 7.2% increase in defense spending for 2025. China is now the world’s second-largest military spender after the United States. Both nations are aggressively working to expand their trade influence—China through its strategic road networks via Pakistan and Afghanistan, aiming to reach the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula for energy cooperation and oil sector dominance.

The critical question is: Why have both powers focused their rivalry on South and Central Asia? The answer lies in the region’s rich reserves of natural resources, including vast mineral deposits and gold. These territories are vital in the global competition for energy and strategic dominance. As British geographer Halford Mackinder once said, “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” This theory explains the significance of Eastern Europe—and by extension, the Ukraine war. The U.S. seeks to stabilize and partner with Ukraine to access its mineral wealth while attempting to reconcile past conflicts with Russia in order to build a united economic front against China.

Muhammad Usman Shah

The writer is a student of International Relations at Islamia university of Bahawalpur.

This author does not have any more posts.