China vs. the United States: The Match of the 21st Century
Published in Les Echos
(France) on 9 March 2012
by Jaques Hubert-Rodier (link to original)
Since the Bush years, Barack Obama has managed to restore the United States’ global reputation, at least in part. Opinion polls show that, in spite of difficulties during his presidency and a large number of broken promises, such as the promise to engage in research towards a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global opinion of the United States remains positive in comparison to other world powers. But the United States — at the least in the perception of the rest of the world — is losing its status, obtained after the Cold War, as the only world superpower. This is not just because of the failure to instill U.S. values by force in Iraq or Afghanistan, but also because of China’s mounting power.
Last year, in a study carried out in 23 countries, the Pew Research Center found that a majority of people in the world believe that “China either will replace or has already replaced the United States as the world’s leading superpower.”
This view is particularly widespread in Europe, especially in France but also in Germany. The financial crisis of 2008, which significantly redistributed wealth in the world, has contributed to this sentiment. Numerous observers and experts are now speculating about the “American decline.” Decline, however, is relative.
In the magazine The New Republic, Robert Kagan, who was considered one of the leading American neo-conservatives under George W. Bush, recently attacked what he denounces as “the myth of American decline.” The debate on the issue has become so lively that president Barack Obama, who seemed less concerned at the beginning of his term, has descended into the arena. In his last State of the Union address, he affirmed that “anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
The president’s “about face” is remarkable but understandable. In Libya, two “medium powers,” France and Great Britain, led the large part of military operations against Colonel Gadhafi’s regime, with only minor support from the Americans. The United States has been largely absent from the revolution movements of the Arab world; in Syria, it is Russia and Vladimir Putin, rather than the United States, who continue to push for Bashar al-Assad’s departure. The Americans have pulled out of Iraq and are about to do the same in Afghanistan.
On the economic front, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy shows that China will overtake the United States in terms of GDP by 2025-2027. The other emerging powers, India and Brazil, will also become new centers of economic power. Nevertheless, China is still very far behind the United States in terms of other criteria. Per capita, China has still not caught up with the United States; the same applies even more so to India and Brazil. Here, the faith in emerging countries tends to run out of steam.
Like Russia, China’s military budget is growing, but the United States is still by far the premier military power in the world. Li Hong, secretary general of the Chinese Association of Arms and Disarmament, claims in the China Daily that Westerners overestimate both Chinese military growth and the country’s intention of triggering an arms race in Asia. In this same vein, Robert Kagan insists that China will have “trouble imposing itself as the hegemonic power in the region while Taiwan remains independent and strategically linked to the United States and while powers like Japan, South Korea and Australia continue to welcome American bases.”*
America continues to exercise its domination over powers such as China through the use of “soft power,” the capacity to influence and align with weaker powers. This is slightly less true for the alliances of the 21st century, which no longer fight only for the causes of the United States as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. During a conference over the launch of the International Alumni Association at the Harvard Kennedy School, political analyst Joseph Nye noted two recent changes: on the one hand, a transition of power from Western countries toward the East, and on the other hand, a “diffusion” of power toward “non-state” entities as a consequence of the information revolution.
The professor, who first developed the concept of “soft power” during the 1990s, postulates that today’s rivalry between China and the United States is not the same as the 20th-century rivalry between the United Kingdom and Germany, as both nations vied for supremacy in Europe. China remains focused on its economic development, above all, and has not yet shown much desire for world domination. “China isn’t trying to replace or supplant the United States in assuring security in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, or Latin America,”* said a recent study by CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). Above all, Chinese “soft power” seems to owe more to its direct investments in foreign countries and its businesses than an increase in Confucian institutions or the diffusion of Chinese culture.
Power is made up of not only force, but also the power of conviction and the weight of economics. “You conquer because you possess more brute force than the others. But you don’t convince. Because to convince, you need to have arguments,” said Miguel de Unamuno to the Spanish Falanges at the University of Salamanca in 1936. As far as conviction goes, the United States still has the advantage — but for how long?
*This quotation, while translated accurately, could not be confirmed in English.
Last year, in a study carried out in 23 countries, the Pew Research Center found that a majority of people in the world believe that “China either will replace or has already replaced the United States as the world’s leading superpower.”
This view is particularly widespread in Europe, especially in France but also in Germany. The financial crisis of 2008, which significantly redistributed wealth in the world, has contributed to this sentiment. Numerous observers and experts are now speculating about the “American decline.” Decline, however, is relative.
In the magazine The New Republic, Robert Kagan, who was considered one of the leading American neo-conservatives under George W. Bush, recently attacked what he denounces as “the myth of American decline.” The debate on the issue has become so lively that president Barack Obama, who seemed less concerned at the beginning of his term, has descended into the arena. In his last State of the Union address, he affirmed that “anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
The president’s “about face” is remarkable but understandable. In Libya, two “medium powers,” France and Great Britain, led the large part of military operations against Colonel Gadhafi’s regime, with only minor support from the Americans. The United States has been largely absent from the revolution movements of the Arab world; in Syria, it is Russia and Vladimir Putin, rather than the United States, who continue to push for Bashar al-Assad’s departure. The Americans have pulled out of Iraq and are about to do the same in Afghanistan.
On the economic front, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy shows that China will overtake the United States in terms of GDP by 2025-2027. The other emerging powers, India and Brazil, will also become new centers of economic power. Nevertheless, China is still very far behind the United States in terms of other criteria. Per capita, China has still not caught up with the United States; the same applies even more so to India and Brazil. Here, the faith in emerging countries tends to run out of steam.
Like Russia, China’s military budget is growing, but the United States is still by far the premier military power in the world. Li Hong, secretary general of the Chinese Association of Arms and Disarmament, claims in the China Daily that Westerners overestimate both Chinese military growth and the country’s intention of triggering an arms race in Asia. In this same vein, Robert Kagan insists that China will have “trouble imposing itself as the hegemonic power in the region while Taiwan remains independent and strategically linked to the United States and while powers like Japan, South Korea and Australia continue to welcome American bases.”*
America continues to exercise its domination over powers such as China through the use of “soft power,” the capacity to influence and align with weaker powers. This is slightly less true for the alliances of the 21st century, which no longer fight only for the causes of the United States as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. During a conference over the launch of the International Alumni Association at the Harvard Kennedy School, political analyst Joseph Nye noted two recent changes: on the one hand, a transition of power from Western countries toward the East, and on the other hand, a “diffusion” of power toward “non-state” entities as a consequence of the information revolution.
The professor, who first developed the concept of “soft power” during the 1990s, postulates that today’s rivalry between China and the United States is not the same as the 20th-century rivalry between the United Kingdom and Germany, as both nations vied for supremacy in Europe. China remains focused on its economic development, above all, and has not yet shown much desire for world domination. “China isn’t trying to replace or supplant the United States in assuring security in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, or Latin America,”* said a recent study by CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). Above all, Chinese “soft power” seems to owe more to its direct investments in foreign countries and its businesses than an increase in Confucian institutions or the diffusion of Chinese culture.
Power is made up of not only force, but also the power of conviction and the weight of economics. “You conquer because you possess more brute force than the others. But you don’t convince. Because to convince, you need to have arguments,” said Miguel de Unamuno to the Spanish Falanges at the University of Salamanca in 1936. As far as conviction goes, the United States still has the advantage — but for how long?
*This quotation, while translated accurately, could not be confirmed in English.