If China Were Number One …
If China becomes the world’s number one country, what would that mean for America? Almost no one has considered this question, because for a long time, the Chinese have not been willing to compete with America for the number one position, and Americans have never believed that this would ever really happen.
About three years ago, I asked this question of top-ranked American Northeast Asia expert, Richard C. Bush. He confidently remarked, “Innovation is the foundation of a nation. China cannot possibly catch up to America in this area.”*
More than a year ago, after China successfully hosted the Olympics, I interviewed Thomas P.M. Barnett, whose book, “The Pentagon’s New Map” is seen as the 21st century’s best work on American military strategy.
His answer expressed a lack in confidence, “You know, the E.U.’s GDP has already exceeded America’s, but, GDP doesn’t really count for anything.”* Then, not long ago, an American scholar half-jokingly asked me, “If China were number one, would America have a good reputation?”*
If America was steeped in an “end of history” sense of superiority long after the Cold War’s end, then over the past ten years, 9/11 began to shake America’s sense of being undefeatable, and “9/14” (the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt) destroyed America’s vain confidence.
At the same time, the success of the Beijing Olympics and China’s many years of strong economic growth have Americans starting to believe that China’s GDP will one day surpass America’s. China’s soft power and military strength would follow, and finally, it would be like the bestselling book, “When China Rules the World.”
Over the past six months, from President Obama’s speech “[we] won’t accept second place," to the point in time various press commentaries and think tanks have surmised China’s GDP will surpass America’s, it is evident that America has an ever-increasing sense of crisis about losing its number one status.
No great power is fiercer than America about its desire to “remain the world’s number one forever.” In the book, “The American Soul," the opening sentence indicates the fundamental strength of America, “America was once the hope of the world.”
In more than 200 years, the speeches of almost every American president have voiced this kind of logic, “God has appointed the American people as his chosen people, to lead in rescuing and redeeming the world.” American conservatives repeatedly expound on this logic: the Roman Empire lasted 1500 years, the British Empire 200 years, but the American Empire has existed for only 50 years, and it is still too early to call it the end of an empire. Moreover, America is a "benevolent empire," and ought to be an "eternal empire."
Clearly, if China really were number one, whether in GDP or in national power, for Americans, this undoubtedly would mean the collapse of the “superiority of democracy,” “American exceptionalism” and “God's people” — theories that have been around for more than 200 years, since the founding of America. Today, as China’s strength continues to draw close to that of America’s, we have to analyze this psychological bottom line of the Americans.
The author of “The Beijing Consensus," Joshua Cooper Ramo, recently published an article in Time magazine that gives us a panoramic view of this psychological bottom line. The difference is that Ramo is not a hawk advocating offensive realism, nor is he a dove who praises the free system. Ramo opposes containment and disagrees with engagement.
The “co-evolution” remedy Ramo prescribes is a little like a defensive realist without an alternative. Ramo firmly believes, “our biggest risk with China isn’t out-and-out war, but rather a failure to cooperate,” and that America must strive to find a way to make China cooperate with America. Then, at least it can guarantee that when “China is number one,” America will have preserved its own interests.
Although China has never stated that it wants to be the world’s number one, the strategic choices China now faces are very limited. It’s one of two choices: either bravely surpass America, or stop development and be number two forever.
If stopping is impossible, then the choice that remains for China is to “bravely surpass.” Now, the question is: Will America submissively hand over its number one spot? Will America continue to actively incite trouble with China, or will it allow a peaceful transfer of its power? This is a hot debate in America today. Ramo’s article is just one example of a public debate on this issue.
How to peacefully transfer the “number one” position is a little like a new “Goldbach Conjecture” in current international relations studies. It is impossible for China to count on a world war, and like America, first exercise sovereignty over only part, and then seize the whole through opportunism, quietly replacing the “former leader.”
China has never really wanted a “power struggle” with America. So ultimately, what are the prospects for China and America’s future? If America really will “not accept second place,” like Obama said in his State of the Union Address, what does this mean for a China that is doing its best to develop, and to resolve current domestic problems?
China and America have had diplomatic relations for more than 30 years now, and during this time, interactions and interfaces between the two have continuously grown. Even so, history has already proven that mutual economic dependence cannot prevent great power conflicts. Considering this, in 2010, it started to go beyond a struggle for concrete things, and — when America started to realize that China was attacking its “number one” throne — that’s when the true friction test of Sino-American relations really began.
(The author is a Beijing reporter.)
* Editor’s Note: Quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.
About three years ago, I asked this question of top-ranked American Northeast Asia expert, Richard C. Bush. He confidently remarked, “Innovation is the foundation of a nation. China cannot possibly catch up to America in this area.”*
More than a year ago, after China successfully hosted the Olympics, I interviewed Thomas P.M. Barnett, whose book, “The Pentagon’s New Map” is seen as the 21st century’s best work on American military strategy.
His answer expressed a lack in confidence, “You know, the E.U.’s GDP has already exceeded America’s, but, GDP doesn’t really count for anything.”* Then, not long ago, an American scholar half-jokingly asked me, “If China were number one, would America have a good reputation?”*
If America was steeped in an “end of history” sense of superiority long after the Cold War’s end, then over the past ten years, 9/11 began to shake America’s sense of being undefeatable, and “9/14” (the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt) destroyed America’s vain confidence.
At the same time, the success of the Beijing Olympics and China’s many years of strong economic growth have Americans starting to believe that China’s GDP will one day surpass America’s. China’s soft power and military strength would follow, and finally, it would be like the bestselling book, “When China Rules the World.”
Over the past six months, from President Obama’s speech “[we] won’t accept second place," to the point in time various press commentaries and think tanks have surmised China’s GDP will surpass America’s, it is evident that America has an ever-increasing sense of crisis about losing its number one status.
No great power is fiercer than America about its desire to “remain the world’s number one forever.” In the book, “The American Soul," the opening sentence indicates the fundamental strength of America, “America was once the hope of the world.”
In more than 200 years, the speeches of almost every American president have voiced this kind of logic, “God has appointed the American people as his chosen people, to lead in rescuing and redeeming the world.” American conservatives repeatedly expound on this logic: the Roman Empire lasted 1500 years, the British Empire 200 years, but the American Empire has existed for only 50 years, and it is still too early to call it the end of an empire. Moreover, America is a "benevolent empire," and ought to be an "eternal empire."
Clearly, if China really were number one, whether in GDP or in national power, for Americans, this undoubtedly would mean the collapse of the “superiority of democracy,” “American exceptionalism” and “God's people” — theories that have been around for more than 200 years, since the founding of America. Today, as China’s strength continues to draw close to that of America’s, we have to analyze this psychological bottom line of the Americans.
The author of “The Beijing Consensus," Joshua Cooper Ramo, recently published an article in Time magazine that gives us a panoramic view of this psychological bottom line. The difference is that Ramo is not a hawk advocating offensive realism, nor is he a dove who praises the free system. Ramo opposes containment and disagrees with engagement.
The “co-evolution” remedy Ramo prescribes is a little like a defensive realist without an alternative. Ramo firmly believes, “our biggest risk with China isn’t out-and-out war, but rather a failure to cooperate,” and that America must strive to find a way to make China cooperate with America. Then, at least it can guarantee that when “China is number one,” America will have preserved its own interests.
Although China has never stated that it wants to be the world’s number one, the strategic choices China now faces are very limited. It’s one of two choices: either bravely surpass America, or stop development and be number two forever.
If stopping is impossible, then the choice that remains for China is to “bravely surpass.” Now, the question is: Will America submissively hand over its number one spot? Will America continue to actively incite trouble with China, or will it allow a peaceful transfer of its power? This is a hot debate in America today. Ramo’s article is just one example of a public debate on this issue.
How to peacefully transfer the “number one” position is a little like a new “Goldbach Conjecture” in current international relations studies. It is impossible for China to count on a world war, and like America, first exercise sovereignty over only part, and then seize the whole through opportunism, quietly replacing the “former leader.”
China has never really wanted a “power struggle” with America. So ultimately, what are the prospects for China and America’s future? If America really will “not accept second place,” like Obama said in his State of the Union Address, what does this mean for a China that is doing its best to develop, and to resolve current domestic problems?
China and America have had diplomatic relations for more than 30 years now, and during this time, interactions and interfaces between the two have continuously grown. Even so, history has already proven that mutual economic dependence cannot prevent great power conflicts. Considering this, in 2010, it started to go beyond a struggle for concrete things, and — when America started to realize that China was attacking its “number one” throne — that’s when the true friction test of Sino-American relations really began.
(The author is a Beijing reporter.)
* Editor’s Note: Quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.
History has shown that all super powers come and go, none have lasted forever. The question to ask is will it be a slow decline like GB that took 10 years after WWII or will it be a quick overnight colapse like the Soviet Union. Then the world will run to China’s door wanting it to to do this and that and then blame China for any ill that befalls anywhere on the world and will China be able to deal with the position #1 has to deal with.