Is China the regional power?
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
- Status
Soft Power
The world's nations are often divided among the developed/developing, first/third world categories. If I were to grossly simplify things, it'd look like this:
First Tier Nations
* Has gone through industrial revolution/economic development
* Was at one time manufacturing powerhouse
* Leans toward service industry today
* Relatively wealthy & stable economy
* Relatively clean environment (polluting industries moved to 2nd tier)
* Provides economic/military aid and loans to Second-Tier countries
* Low savings rate, open access to credit
* High spending rate on credit - both citizens and government, resulting in high debts
* Defining moments in history: Protestant Reformation & acceptance of usury, industrial revolution
Second Tier Nations
* Going through industrial revolution/economic development
* Economy leans heavily toward manufacturing industry
* Dirty environment & pollution problems associated with manufacturing
* Depenent on trade with First-Tier nations
* Provides econoic/military aid and loans to Third-Tier countries
* Fast-growing economy, but not wealthy because the starting point is very low
* High savings rate from citizens, limited access to credit
* Defining moments in history: Decline of communism/centralized economic planning, rise of capitalism & world trade
Third Tier Nations
* Provider of raw natural resources to Second-Tier Nation's manufacturing
* Dependent on trade with Second-Tier nations
* High poverty rate with government corruption
* Citiens have little or no access to credit
* Government borrows heavily from richer nations, putting itself in perpetual debt
* Defining moments in history: era of colonization, when powerful nations defined borders and created 3rd-tier nation-states
There are some exceptions, i.e. small and rich oil-producing countries that are "petro welfare states".
I read yahoo news today and this article by R. Kiyosaki made an interesting observation:
One of the ways rich countries like the United States gain an economic advantage over weaker countries is by lending them money on the condition that the weaker country buy the rich country's products. Hot money, as it is sometimes called, enters the poorer economy and the economy booms, but then it later collapses when the country can't repay its debt.
On a more personal scale, many individuals fall prey to the lure of easy credit with credit cards, school loans, and mortgage debt. Once the lenders have you hooked on debt, they're assured of a steady stream of income for years, hoping you never pay it off. And if you default, they may force you into liquidating your assets.
As a "First Tier" country, the US can influence others with "hot money", that is, economic/military aid and loans. The recipent country becomes dependent on the first-tier nation's loans on credit, and the first-tier nation gains influence over the debt nation.
China today is a large 2nd tier country. It cannot compete easily against first tier countries like US/Japan/EU in gaining influence over other 2nd tier countries. BUT it can win against other 2nd tier countries in winning over influence on 3rd tier countries. A good example is the PRC-ROC diplomatic war, where ROC cannot compete against PRC's size. But the target, or "debt" countries tend to be small, weak, and poor 3rd-tier ones like Nigeria.
Can China be a regional power today? In economic "soft power" sense, yes, but only with 3rd tier nations, and some smaller 2nd tier ones. We've already seen the growing Chinese investments in Africa, and I believe they have the potential to do the same in SE Asia (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.). But for other 2nd-tier countries that are firmly in first-tier country's sphere of influence, it'd be very difficult, unless if the first-tier countries over-extend itself and suffers a bubble burst/collapse and present an opportunity for China to step in.
The world's nations are often divided among the developed/developing, first/third world categories. If I were to grossly simplify things, it'd look like this:
First Tier Nations
* Has gone through industrial revolution/economic development
* Was at one time manufacturing powerhouse
* Leans toward service industry today
* Relatively wealthy & stable economy
* Relatively clean environment (polluting industries moved to 2nd tier)
* Provides economic/military aid and loans to Second-Tier countries
* Low savings rate, open access to credit
* High spending rate on credit - both citizens and government, resulting in high debts
* Defining moments in history: Protestant Reformation & acceptance of usury, industrial revolution
Second Tier Nations
* Going through industrial revolution/economic development
* Economy leans heavily toward manufacturing industry
* Dirty environment & pollution problems associated with manufacturing
* Depenent on trade with First-Tier nations
* Provides econoic/military aid and loans to Third-Tier countries
* Fast-growing economy, but not wealthy because the starting point is very low
* High savings rate from citizens, limited access to credit
* Defining moments in history: Decline of communism/centralized economic planning, rise of capitalism & world trade
Third Tier Nations
* Provider of raw natural resources to Second-Tier Nation's manufacturing
* Dependent on trade with Second-Tier nations
* High poverty rate with government corruption
* Citiens have little or no access to credit
* Government borrows heavily from richer nations, putting itself in perpetual debt
* Defining moments in history: era of colonization, when powerful nations defined borders and created 3rd-tier nation-states
There are some exceptions, i.e. small and rich oil-producing countries that are "petro welfare states".
I read yahoo news today and this article by R. Kiyosaki made an interesting observation:
One of the ways rich countries like the United States gain an economic advantage over weaker countries is by lending them money on the condition that the weaker country buy the rich country's products. Hot money, as it is sometimes called, enters the poorer economy and the economy booms, but then it later collapses when the country can't repay its debt.
On a more personal scale, many individuals fall prey to the lure of easy credit with credit cards, school loans, and mortgage debt. Once the lenders have you hooked on debt, they're assured of a steady stream of income for years, hoping you never pay it off. And if you default, they may force you into liquidating your assets.
As a "First Tier" country, the US can influence others with "hot money", that is, economic/military aid and loans. The recipent country becomes dependent on the first-tier nation's loans on credit, and the first-tier nation gains influence over the debt nation.
China today is a large 2nd tier country. It cannot compete easily against first tier countries like US/Japan/EU in gaining influence over other 2nd tier countries. BUT it can win against other 2nd tier countries in winning over influence on 3rd tier countries. A good example is the PRC-ROC diplomatic war, where ROC cannot compete against PRC's size. But the target, or "debt" countries tend to be small, weak, and poor 3rd-tier ones like Nigeria.
Can China be a regional power today? In economic "soft power" sense, yes, but only with 3rd tier nations, and some smaller 2nd tier ones. We've already seen the growing Chinese investments in Africa, and I believe they have the potential to do the same in SE Asia (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.). But for other 2nd-tier countries that are firmly in first-tier country's sphere of influence, it'd be very difficult, unless if the first-tier countries over-extend itself and suffers a bubble burst/collapse and present an opportunity for China to step in.
Last edited:
I think PRC influence that we see today is just the begining of the begining 
With current disatisfaction of a lot of countries with US foreign policies it looks as if the US themselves is begging the world to look for an alternative power.
Even between their own allies US is having a problem with these countries populations opinion (here I say the population not the government).
My question is, would in the near future these country ever be able to stand up, shake off the US dominance over them. And whether China would be able to exploit this and able to maintain their growth?
Personally I have fears that the Chinese growth may collapse due to economic overheating and problem in planning, increase in political awareness, Corruption etc etc (fill in the blanks)
The opportunities are there but whether PRC can reach there is another matter.
With current disatisfaction of a lot of countries with US foreign policies it looks as if the US themselves is begging the world to look for an alternative power.
Even between their own allies US is having a problem with these countries populations opinion (here I say the population not the government).
My question is, would in the near future these country ever be able to stand up, shake off the US dominance over them. And whether China would be able to exploit this and able to maintain their growth?
Personally I have fears that the Chinese growth may collapse due to economic overheating and problem in planning, increase in political awareness, Corruption etc etc (fill in the blanks)
The opportunities are there but whether PRC can reach there is another matter.
I agree realistically you cannot exclude the US from the region because they are directly influencing issues like Taiwan and North Korea but there is no way Japan's influence or power is more than China's if we're talking East Asian countries. Japan is an economic superpower but China has grown rapidly since Deng Xiao Ping and because of size will inevitably overtake Japan. At the moment though, the US is the most important economic player for both countries.
Militarily, Japan's military is dwarfed becasue they cannot build offensive weapons while China has quite an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Sure, both countries probably can't successfully invade each other but China is the only country in Asia with ICBM capabilities. You can ofcourse argue that Japan has the technology to have a strong nuclear program too but its highly unlikely that scenario will ever happen. Japan and South Korea rely on the US for military protection especially under that 'nuclear umbrella' or whatever. But the fact that they are dependant on a foreign country for military support itself shows weakness.
In International politics China is a permamanent member of UN Security Council, the only country in Asia with that status. The veto power gives them a lot of power and though they have used it sparingly in the past they will most definitely veto a vote to give Japan or any other country a seat. In S.E Asia China has a better chance of exerting influence there as there are a large number of ethnic Chinese in the region like Singapore.
There currently is no sole regional power of East Asia. The US has the hard military power with all their bases and warships in the area but becasue they are not in the region itself their power has limits. Japan is an economic superpower but they've reached their limit, they cannot get much more powerful than what they are at now. How much influence have they asserted on ohter parts of Asia? Yes, there are many strong multi-national Japanese companies but Japan doesn't have much clout in politics outside their borders partly because of their aggresive history. Also, size does matter and Japan simply isn't big enough to ever become a superpower like the US, while China and India have that potential.
China has the potential to have the whole package, hard power, soft power, and economic power. At the moment there is no single regional power in the region as China still has a way to go before becoming that powerful and Japan seems to have hit its peak. A combination of Japan and US could qualify as the regional power but that is assuming they are one unified group...which they are not.
I agree realistically you cannot exclude the US from the region because they are directly influencing issues like Taiwan and North Korea but there is no way Japan's influence or power is more than China's if we're talking East Asian countries. Japan is an economic superpower but China has grown rapidly since Deng Xiao Ping and because of size will inevitably overtake Japan. At the moment though, the US is the most important economic player for both countries.
Militarily, Japan's military is dwarfed becasue they cannot build offensive weapons while China has quite an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Sure, both countries probably can't successfully invade each other but China is the only country in Asia with ICBM capabilities. You can ofcourse argue that Japan has the technology to have a strong nuclear program too but its highly unlikely that scenario will ever happen. Japan and South Korea rely on the US for military protection especially under that 'nuclear umbrella' or whatever. But the fact that they are dependant on a foreign country for military support itself shows weakness.
In International politics China is a permamanent member of UN Security Council, the only country in Asia with that status. The veto power gives them a lot of power and though they have used it sparingly in the past they will most definitely veto a vote to give Japan or any other country a seat. In S.E Asia China has a better chance of exerting influence there as there are a large number of ethnic Chinese in the region like Singapore.
There currently is no sole regional power of East Asia. The US has the hard military power with all their bases and warships in the area but becasue they are not in the region itself their power has limits. Japan is an economic superpower but they've reached their limit, they cannot get much more powerful than what they are at now. How much influence have they asserted on ohter parts of Asia? Yes, there are many strong multi-national Japanese companies but Japan doesn't have much clout in politics outside their borders partly because of their aggresive history. Also, size does matter and Japan simply isn't big enough to ever become a superpower like the US, while China and India have that potential.
China has the potential to have the whole package, hard power, soft power, and economic power. At the moment there is no single regional power in the region as China still has a way to go before becoming that powerful and Japan as I pointed out earlier is limited in influence. A combination of Japan and US could qualify as the regional power but that is assuming they are one unified group...which they are not.
What a way to avoid addressing the predominant power in the pacific! The US is THE power in Asia, both in terms of military power, economic strength and political strength.
As per usual doctrine, where you people are not there yet, you talk about the future as if it is certain. Japan is still a bigger economic power than China. Japan has clout with countries in the region by virtue of its economic ties and financial support grants. As Japan emerges from its self-imposed shell of pacifism and takes a more active role in world affairs its influence will increase proportionately.
China will not likely ever be THE power in Asia. It will in future likely be one of multiple major players in region, which will include Japan, India, China and the US. And the US is likely to be the one leading the pack.
Crobato I think you said something about the USA achieving GDP of 20 Trillion by 2020. Not quite, if it kept growing at 3% pa from its 2006 value of 11.5 it would acheive about 18 by 2020. However we know that the US is slowing down, so if we assume an average of 2% it will achieve a value of 15.5 Trillion.
Starting China from 2.2 Trillion and allowing for a slowdown to 8% growth pa, it will achieve 6.5Trillion by 2020. that incidently means Income per Capita of $5000, which strangely enough is the CCP target :china:
Starting China from 2.2 Trillion and allowing for a slowdown to 8% growth pa, it will achieve 6.5Trillion by 2020. that incidently means Income per Capita of $5000, which strangely enough is the CCP target :china:
I would say that in the future the playing field in Asia will be leveled, with the US and Japan competing with China and India for power. China will probably be the most powerful of those three within Asia and could be considered the regional power in Asia, but considering that it will have to compete with the US and India as well as probably a resurgent Russia on its home turf it will not be able to translate its regional power into a truly global reach like the US has.
If they were 'THE Power' in the region then how come they can't get North Korea to stop building nukes? Why have they agreed to a 'One-China' policy when dealing with Taiwan? Even in their specialty military, they failed to beat a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam. If their economic influence is so great why have they failed to get China to seriously re-value the yuan? The US has a lot of influence in the region like they do all over the world but their influence has limits, enough limits that it would be very inaccurate to call them the sole power in Asia.
Japan gives a lot of financial support to Asian countries but that doesn't neccesarily buy them power or influence because a lot of it is seen as retribution for their agressive past. Tell me what kind of clout are you suggesting they have? Because they have a dwarfed military they haven't managed to turn their economic power into much more than that. You saying Japan will gain more influence in teh future is no more certain than China having a bigger economy than Japan. And its not just Chinese who are prediciting a strong economy for China, American and Japanese companies are investing heavily in China because they know it is the future.
That is more like what the situation is right now, except the US doesn't neccesarily lead the pack for the reasons I mentioned above. And South Korea will also become a serious player if they re-unify with the North.
No power is without limits. When I said that America is 'The power' it means that America has a significant lead over every other country in Asia in terms of every index of influence. That doesn't mean that it is almighty. N.Korea could not be persuaded to halt nuclear testing because military options are not available considering the extent of damage S.Korea would face if shit hits the fan. Vietnam is almost 40 years ago - are we talking about who's the superpower now or who's the superpower 40 years ago? America agreed to a One-China policy because America benefits from recognising such policy without it losing anything in return. America could force China to revaluate their yen - it's only a matter of how much they want to push it, and how much they are willing to suffer in retaliation. And all your points doesn't in any way prove that America is NOT the dominant power in the Pacific.
Not exercising power is not power non-existent. They have a lot of economic influence in terms of investment capability. Those money they provide - whatever their reasons for providing them, that countries receive those money in turn gives Japan some influence over the beneficiaries. Japan has a dwarfed military? Japan's navy will beat PLAN senseless if it wishes to. And with Japan's military spending at just 1% of their GDP, they could ramp it up significantly if they so desired. Not exercising power is not power non-existent. Japan is an undeniable power in Asia.
- Status