China to rise - America to fall?: So says world opinion

In the opinion of this old man who has seen the worst and the best of nearly a century, the worse thing that ever can happened to a country and especially its people is that it become a superpower. If China wants it, I say all the power to ya.

To me China is both a threat and an inspiration. I love the Eastern philosphy and culture and I love the free enterprise system. I believe the world is big enough for the US, China, Russia and Iranian super powers!

The only threats posed by China are to America's bottom line and to it's political clout. There's no way that China would ever actively attack the West. At most it would throw a few bombs around in a conflict over Taiwan, but none of them would even be aimed at America, let alone actually hit it.

The China that will rise to and maintain a superpower status will be fundamentally different from the nation we are looking at today. Additionally, this would not necessarily come at America's expense. For instance, China's success in obtaining raw materials determines the quality of life for American consumers since our retail supply chain is highly dependant on Chinese manufaturers. We are intertwined whether we like it or not. I feel a warm fuzzy when people talk of American decline because this galvanizes our institutions to change. Hubris can inhibit progress. Our singular hegemony will be a thing of the past but America will have a few tricks and unanticipated developments up its sleeve. In the final analysis China will become a superpower in a multipolar world. Lets not forget Japan and the EU-both economic superpowers.

History has shown such shifts in power to happen violently and if such theories hold true, it doesn't look like there will be much peace in the world over the next century with respect to the US, China, India and possibly Russia.

THM:

While that may be true in some cases, it the violence often only comes when

1) A power vacuum is left behind and several different groups with differing agendas try to fill it. for example Africa after WWII, or the Balkans after the fall of Communism where tribal or ideological groups all tried to fill the vacuum and came into conflict with one another. 2) The established power tries to maintain a grip against one or more factions who wish said power out. Such as various uprisings all around the world.

David Campbell:

I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you there. I can't see China undergoing any fundamental changes until after just yet. The main reason why Beijing is the way that it is (to be blunt: an authoritarian dictatorship) is that it wishes to keep China together as a single functioning unit on a single course, and it is this single course right now which is keeping China together and on the road to prosperity.

1) If Beijing stopped persecuting political opponents then they would gain power and influence and would create divergent ideas and courses, and in that country the size of China the first thing that would happen would be that everybody would become too busy fighting amongst themselves to get anything done. 2) If Beijing put the rights of farmers ahead of the rights of factory owners, industrial development would slow considerably and so would China's economic and industrial rise 3) As above, but with workers V factory owners, and the environment V the economy and Hans V non-Hans

In short, China is only rising as it is because of the way that it is. If China were to change and to be more like the West it would be crippled by indecision and internal disagreement that nothing would get done. It would be like the UN, except with 30 vetoing nations.

As for things staying the same with America. There are a couple of things that you might need to take into account. Firstly, the resources that China needs stretch all the way across the board. China is using more grain and oil than ever before. This is already having a noticeable effect on world markets. China's demand is stretching supplies already. When China buys lots of oil the world's refineries can't keep up so the price of gas for American cars goes up, as does the price of heating fuel and fuel for power plants making electricity more expensive, thus making running a home and business in the US more expensive to run. Also, when the price of grain goes up not only do the prices of main-foods such as bread and pasta go up in America but also the price of meat from animals who have grain in their diet such as cows.

America's domestic economy is highly consumer driven. It needs people spending money on goods and serrvices in order to remain healthy, and when these people suddenly find that the price of gas, electricity and food is rising they stop spending so much, which harms the US economy. Wal-Mart's shelves might be stacked full of Chinese goods, but if people have less disposable income to spend on them their lifestyles (not to mention the businesses themselves) will still take a hit.

Additionally, A rising China will hit America's influence overseas. Right now if a country wants something (trade, aid, military support, etc) it can go to America and Washington can put conditions on these things. For example, it can say that it will give aid to a country if it opens up its markets to foreign competition. But with a rising China, countries can go to Beijing instead and Beijing can put a different set of conditions on the aid which might not be in America's interests. For example, Beijing could say to the country that it will offer it aid in return for favorable trade conditions for Chinese businesses only, or in exchange for mineral rights. Thus a rising China will reduce America's ability to influence foreign countries.

Take, for example, Iran. America used its power and influence to get other nations to cut off Iran. Smaller nations could trade with Iran, but if they did so then they'd face sanctions or censure from Washington (EG: If a foreign bank helps an Iranian company, it risks being barred from doing business with America). However, China can deal directly with Iran without fear of US sanctions because it is too important for both the US economy and the world economy for Washington to do anything to it.

ACB: I believe the Power Transition Theory is more applicable here than the Balance of Power Theory. Then again, it's been quite some time since there has been such instances of possible shifts in power so close to one another. There are countries who are eager to rewrite the current set of rules as established by US Hegemony.

THM:

"There are countries who are eager to rewrite the current set of rules as established by US Hegemony."

If you mean that 'other countries don't like that America is setting everything up for its own convenience, and that they want change', then yes, I both whole heartedly agree that this is true and believe that it is the way forward.

THM:

I think that we were talking at crossed purposes.

It's true, Organski's writing does apply here somewhat, and you are correct in siting them. This is a transitionally period. China is rising economically, and it's economic rise is allowing it to both excerpt more political (soft) power and to purchase the tools required to exercise a greater level of military (hard) power, too. While America's domestic attitudes and foreign policy is causing it to become increasingly politically isolated and increasingly stretched militarily.

Where the danger lies is if America tries to hold on to its current status by tightening its grip rather than by modifying its approach. Holding onto power by tightening your grip is like trying to hold onto a rose by clenching your fist. You crush all that is beautiful and drive the thorns deeper into yourself.

Fortunately, surveys like this are poor predictors of what the future will hold. It is highly unlikely the US will decline in power in this century or be surpassed by China in anything that is not population dependent. Furthermore, the world would not benefit from a hegemonic China. Just ask the Tibetans, the Sudanese, the Taiwanese, and anyone else that China has any influence on.

Right now, there seem to be a great many people who disagree with you, many of them are Congressmen and Senators. Check out PBS, America's leaders are very worried indeed. American military, political, and economical power are all taking big hts and look set to take bigger hits still due to (in no specific order):

1) Other nations rising economies 2) Anti-American sentiment 3) Anti-Globalization sentiment 4) The fal of the Soviet Union and the the War on Terror 5) Increasing co-operation between regional groups

America's power base has changed somewhat over the last 10-15 years and looks set to change even further. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the global nuclear crisis in the 1990s America lost a great deal of its military influence. Nations who needed America for protection suddenly found themselves with an expensive and unpopular foreign military presence that they no longer needed, and with one sided treaties on their hands that no longer offered them as much as they used to and so they began to distance themselves. America's military then declined and has done so to the point that America's military sphere is now pretty much limited to force projection. It's no longer the global policy setter that it used to be.

China is growing militarily and is becoming a regional power. It might not be able to challenge the US on US soil, but it doesn't need to. Simply by growing as it is doing right now it means that America will to commit a higher percentage of its forces in order to counter China. Unfortunately for America its forces are not only overstretched, but are in the midst of being reorganized to fight the War on Terror. Fewer tanks, fewer long ranged weapons, fewer of all the things that it wold need to fight a war against a large Asian neighbor such as China.

Other nations are also becoming emboldened and increasingly advanced, thus further pushing down America's relative power and further forcing it to split its forces. Iran and Isreal, for example, are both nuclear states who've simply stopped bothering to listen to America. They do what they like and the US can't do a thing to them militarily or politically.

Member states in the EU are even pushing for their own army and their own force projection capabilities. At best this will mean that America's relative power (its power when compared to everybody else) will decline, and at worst it could lead to EU nations booting US forces out of their countries wholesale and replace them with EU troop. Something which would win their leaders many votes given how unpopular the US is with the common man on the street over there.

India, China and Brazil are all now world economies. They are chewing up American political and economic influence and are taking it over for themselves. Countries who used to ask for American help are also now asking for help from these three states instead. In days gone by if an African nation wanted to build a factory or to sink an oil well they would ask America and America would say "sure, we'll help, but first you have to open up your market to US goods" - Today, they ask China and they open up their markets to Chinese, not American, goods. Look at Africa. China now has power and influence places that America couldn't even reach before.

Similarly, anti-American sentiment and anti-globalization sentiment around the world is causing people and governments to look to renegotiate their relationships with the US. Giving the US far less influence than it ever used to have over the domestic affairs of other countries.

Of course, America's own domestic situation is also having an effect. America has lost most of its heavy industry , even its domestic auto market is in trouble, due to foreign competition. Rising grain and gas prices are putting up the price of living thus reducing consumer spending power, while the sub-prime-loan-crisis is harming consumer confidence so even people who have money to spend aren't spending it so much. This internal damage has marked external effects. For a start, Chinese businesses are now buying into American firms. IBM PCs are now Chinese products, not American, and US banks are now looking towards China for extra capital. How long before Chinese owned businesses in the US are powerful enough to have their own lobbyiests? It might not be too long before they can directly influence policy on Capitol Hill. If I were you I'd also be worried about exactly who owns the shirt on America's back.

Then there's the budget deficit. It's simply mind-boggling how big it is, and in case you weren't aware China is also a massive holder of Dollar debt. If it ever decides to cash this in the Dollar will plummet in value and open American companies up to buyouts and takeovers from foreign groups.

NO, American power is declining and will decline even further. Countries have alternatives now to American political, economic and military support, ad they are increasingly using them.

"the world would not benefit from a hegemonic China. Just ask the Tibetans, the Sudanese, the Taiwanese, and anyone else that China has any influence on"

Actually, China is gaining a lot of power by NOT being hegamonistic. Right now motto is "trade and aid, without strings attached". The US traditionally only offers trade and aid with conditions such as democratic or economic change/reform. For example, China will happily buy Iranian oil without asking for Iran to become a democracy, and without demanding that put in place free market reforms.

China has no hegemony in Sudan, in fact the US has repeatedly asked it to put pressure on Sudan to change and Beijing has refused to do so. China also doesn't have hegemony on Taiwan. I don't know what you've been reading, but Taiwan is an autonomous democratic state. China has no direct control over it.

As for Tibet. That's not hegemony, that's military occupation. It's worse, but still different.

Ahem.

"With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the global nuclear crisis in the 1990s America lost a great deal of its military influence."

Actually the impetus for post-Cold War global military retreat was the United States' own doing, as the American public concluded that the Cold War was over and therefore everything was fixed and we could go home. American legislators slashed the military budget as part of a 'peace dividend.' In many cases the result was allies feeling betrayed that we were leaving--not eagerly showing us the door (cf. Kishore Mahbubani, "end of the age of innocence"

"Unfortunately for America its forces are not only overstretched, but are in the midst of being reorganized to fight the War on Terror. Fewer tanks, fewer long ranged weapons, fewer of all the things that it wold need to fight a war against a large Asian neighbor such as China."

War on Terror is really just a new bureaucracy-friendly name for RMA policies. Since the USA knows "never get into a land war in Asia" it would NOT use a war of tanks and boots. It WOULD use long-range weapons, total air superiority, and networked warfare since the goal would not be invading Chinese territory but defending other territories from Chinese aggression.

"Member states in the EU are even pushing for their own army and their own force projection capabilities"

I believe you are referring to the EU "Rapid Reaction Force" which remains a pie-in-the-sky delusion of Brussels Eurocrats. The closest the EU has come to any pan-EU force is sticking an EU flag patch below the national flag patch on soldiers' uniforms. Europe doesn't have the military budget or the political will to establish any meaningful NATO replacement.

"Similarly, anti-American sentiment and anti-globalization sentiment around the world is causing people and governments to look to renegotiate their relationships with the US. Giving the US far less influence than it ever used to have over the domestic affairs of other countries"

Well the US has never had much in the way of domestic influence. As for diplomatic influence, while there was definitely a mid-2000s fling with anti-Americanism, that is coming to an end (cf. anti-American stalwarts being replaced by Sarkozy, Merkel, and the newly elected Lee Myung-bak).

"For a start, Chinese businesses are now buying into American firms. IBM PCs are now Chinese products, not American, and US banks are now looking towards China for extra capital."

All while being compelled to buy non-controlling shares. They are putting in money to make more money, not to gain control over American finance.

"Then there's the budget deficit. It's simply mind-boggling how big it is, and in case you weren't aware China is also a massive holder of Dollar debt. If it ever decides to cash this in the Dollar will plummet in value and open American companies up to buyouts and takeovers from foreign groups."

I am aware. However if China dumps a trillion dollars into the market then the dollar collapses and China's own holdings decrease in value from $1 trillion to worthless. With both nations then broke, the US would be in a better position to maintain political and social stability to begin recapitalizing. China would not be so fortunate.

While I do not doubt that America has many serious problems (such as other less contestable points that you raised), I am happy to see that America is finally lurching into action.

The world is now a richer place around and that is thanks to the diffusion of Western ideas of liberalism, rule of law, capitalism, public education, and business practices from Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc. This is to be celebrated, not mourned. There will be no superpower in 50 years. Not the US and certainly not China.

"the impetus for post-Cold War global military retreat was the United States' own doing"

That is only true up to a point. The military couldn't justify the budget to Congress, so Congress slashed it. However, I'm talking about power and influence, not capability. When communism fell America's ability to influence world strategy decreased notably. In days gone by America could direct thinking using its role as a leader in the fight against communism but with that threat gone America's overseas influence fell significantly. Today, the US military overseas largely represents force projection and has little influence on policy foreign making.

"total air superiority, and networked warfare since the goal would not be invading Chinese territory but defending other territories from Chinese aggression."

Where do you think these missiles and aircraft strike from, and where will the men needed to fight this war come from?

In order to fight a war against China America would need to commit Carrier Groups and land based fighters. Unfortunately, and you will know this if you follow troop movements, America has downsized its presence in Asia in order to fight in the Middle East. America's supply ships are supplying troops in Afganistan and Iraq, its Air Superiority and Ground Attack fighters are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ground crews, too, are also stationed elsewhere to support the War on Terror.

Take a look at Camp Zama. It's being restructured to to carry out rapid deployments of assault forces needed to fight the War on Terror. Which is reducing America's capability to fight a heavy metal air/sea war such as one in defense of Taiwan. Commando's can't fight a mass mobilization war.

"the EU "Rapid Reaction Force" which remains a pie-in-the-sky delusion of Brussels Eurocrats."

Today..... but maybe not tomorrow. If anti-American sentiment rises the will and the budget could follow. Equally, Washington itself has been encouraging European countries to take a more active role.

"meaningful NATO replacement."

Actually, this is pretty much the opposite of what an EU army would be. It wouldn't replace NATO or the UN, it would create a localized and self supporting force under NATO or the UN.

"Well the US has never had much in the way of domestic influence."

If you think that way, then your probably too young to remember what things were like. Time was that Britain and Japan wouldn't sneeze without America's say-so, and when America supported so many Latin American and African dictatorships/puppet regimes that American foreign policy was the word of the day.

"there was definitely a mid-2000s fling with anti-Americanism, that is coming to an end"

Only if you watch Fox. Grass root sentiment hasn't changes in Europe and absolutely nothing has changed in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East except for things getting more extreme in certain areas. Plus, America has lost some key allies. For example Australia recently elected a leader who stood on a platform of distancing himself from Washington, while in Britain the moderate Blair has been replaced with the socialist Brown who pro-European and far less supporting of America. SE Asia is also still undergoing an anti-American period with countries looking towards China as being a local alternative.

"They are putting in money to make more money, not to gain control over American finance."

Money is their motive, but the end result is the same. Chinese businessmen having a say in the US economy.

"With both nations then broke, the US would be in a better position to maintain political and social stability to begin re capitalizing. China would not be so fortunate."

Who taught you economics?

1) America is Dollar dependent, it would have to sell its gold reserves to refinance. China has greater fall backs, including a full domestic fall back which America does not have. 2) America's social welfare network is Dollar dependent but China's social welfare network is Yuan dependent. A Crash would hit America harder. 3) America's economy is consumer based, a dollar crash would send the price of imports rocketing which would destroy the consumer economy and thus much of America's economy (just imaging what would happen if Wal-Mart went under). China's economy is export based, if the Dollar crashed, it would simply ask for payment in a different currency. 4) If China were to sell its Dollars, it would gain other currencies instead. This would mitigate a percentage of its losses. American can't do that. 5) Chinese are used to being poor, and many are so poor that they wouldn't notice. Americans, on the other hand, aren't. Social unrest would rip America apart.