The move towards containing China has been coming at least since Obama's presidency. It is just that this President has a different approach to get to the same results. Instead of trying to make a grand coalition against China with negotiations he's trying to strong arm everyone into a coalition.
US now calling China out as a superpower
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
As it current stands, China is a global power, but not quite a superpower. A superpower is a global power with significant influence across full-spectrum of power dimensions: political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, and military. China is clearly an economic superpower, but its cultural and military influence are more regional. Political and diplomatic powers are somewhere in between.
On the other hand, China is also clearly much more than a regional power, as some would claim. China has , but its impact and influence are also felt across the globe, though the significance of them vary from region to region and in different aspects.
I understand the definition of superpower is vague and fluid, but at least we can all agree that it can be measured by power and influence of a nation on other nations in various aspects.
On the other hand, China is also clearly much more than a regional power, as some would claim. China has , but its impact and influence are also felt across the globe, though the significance of them vary from region to region and in different aspects.
I understand the definition of superpower is vague and fluid, but at least we can all agree that it can be measured by power and influence of a nation on other nations in various aspects.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's a rather superficial title. Do you think the US follows a general universal definition? I remember a US congressman who wanted China charged with international crimes for selling weapons of mass destruction in the form of conventional bombs and missiles to other countries. The US doesn't do that being the number one arms dealer in the world? Or how about another US congressman who charge China's nuclear arsenal was designed to kill specifically American children. Everyone else that dies is just collateral damage. Let's not forget the article that charged China's air-to air missiles were designed to kill the pilot of a fighter while American A2A missiles were designed to destroy the aircraft...
The problem with the world is they value superficial nonsense. If you value these superficial titles, they have power over you. If you don't... they're powerless over you. You know what the number one slayer of history's religions worshipping a god was? It's wasn't a more mightier powerful god. It was simply people stopped believing. No lightning bolts thrown down from the heavens. No wars. Just a silent death into irrelevance.
The problem with the world is they value superficial nonsense. If you value these superficial titles, they have power over you. If you don't... they're powerless over you. You know what the number one slayer of history's religions worshipping a god was? It's wasn't a more mightier powerful god. It was simply people stopped believing. No lightning bolts thrown down from the heavens. No wars. Just a silent death into irrelevance.
It goes somewhat beyond that when they can conduct anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and bring ships to St. Petersburg for a naval parade with the Russians. Anyone who still considers the Chinese military unable of power projection must be sleeping at the wheel.
Lethe
Captain
Very interesting pick-up, AndrewS. I agree it is significant, though in what sense remains to be seen. This could well be merely a tactical ploy (akin to the climate negotiations noted by AssassinsMace) on the part of the United States to influence China's behaviour in a particular context, or it could indeed mark an enduring shift in how the US government refers to and thinks about China, slowly percolating through all levels of American society.
Personally I think the label is a little premature. I'd wait until China's GDP (in USD) eclipses that of the United States (on current trends around 2025-2027) before deploying the term. Not that GDP alone dictates whether a country is a superpower or not, but because it lines up with other trends we are seeing in Chinese technology, power projection capabilities, etc.
China's long-term potential is as an advanced nation with ~1bn people, the USA's long-term potential is as an advanced nation with up to 500m people. That's only a 2:1 disparity in favour of China. For better or worse, there is no chance that China's power will come to totally eclipse that of the United States as the United States' did its strategic competitors in the 20th century.
Of course it is possible that the US could descend into civil war and break up, or that China's politico-economic system could prove comprehensively superior to western models in dealing with the challenges that confront advanced societies in the mid-21st century and beyond, but both of those are highly speculative notions that should not, IMO, be included in mainstream projections.
The two categories are not exclusive. The Soviet Union (or even Russia) never had the level of general development that the United States or western Europe did, although it did of course over-achieve in areas such as healthcare and scientific and engineering accomplishments.
Personally I think the label is a little premature. I'd wait until China's GDP (in USD) eclipses that of the United States (on current trends around 2025-2027) before deploying the term. Not that GDP alone dictates whether a country is a superpower or not, but because it lines up with other trends we are seeing in Chinese technology, power projection capabilities, etc.
China's long-term potential is as an advanced nation with ~1bn people, the USA's long-term potential is as an advanced nation with up to 500m people. That's only a 2:1 disparity in favour of China. For better or worse, there is no chance that China's power will come to totally eclipse that of the United States as the United States' did its strategic competitors in the 20th century.
Of course it is possible that the US could descend into civil war and break up, or that China's politico-economic system could prove comprehensively superior to western models in dealing with the challenges that confront advanced societies in the mid-21st century and beyond, but both of those are highly speculative notions that should not, IMO, be included in mainstream projections.
The two categories are not exclusive. The Soviet Union (or even Russia) never had the level of general development that the United States or western Europe did, although it did of course over-achieve in areas such as healthcare and scientific and engineering accomplishments.
Last edited:
During the climate change negotiations a few years ago, I agree the USA calling China a superpower was just a ploy.
But my read is that there is now an enduring shift in how the USA views China. We're seeing this in how the US Senate, Congress and the Executive Branch is being briefed on China, as China impacts most issues these days.
I would agree that another 10years is required before we see Chinese technology and the military power projection become truly comparable to the USA.
In the long term (the next 30 years), we're looking at the USA with 450M people and China at 1400M people, which is a 3:1 disparity in favour of China.
But yes, even that disparity isn't enough for China to completely eclipse the USA and become a global hyperpower.
Lethe
Captain
My difficulty is that if the US is embracing the term "superpower" as referring to China, that implies a level of parity that American culture -- including the US federal government in other contexts -- seems entirely unprepared to accept. The process of America's psychological adjustment to a world in which it no longer enjoys global primacy is likely to be tortuous and require multiple generations.
I guess the Soviet Union was referred to as a superpower without compromising Americans' sense of their own superiority, and Americans have long grown accustomed to adversaries that are said to be both comically inferior and yet capable of just about anything.
I think it will be rather more than 30 years before China's GDP per capita approaches that of the USA, and that by the time it does China's population will be well into decline (WPP 2017 estimates population <1.2bn in 2071). Of course there are uncertainties in US population projections also, and indeed the most recent series offer somewhat lower projections than those I had in mind earlier, with the US population only passing 400m in 2057. Still, I would regard a 3:1 power ratio between China and the USA as long-term best case scenario for China, excluding the more speculative factors noted previously. That is a much narrower gap than the USA enjoys over Russia today, yet Russia has successfully pursued its interests in frustration of US power.
Adjusting to changes in the balance of power really require a "crisis" event which clearly demonstrates what has changed. That doesn't need multiple generations.
Plus if China starts *spending* more on the military than the USA, that alone will be a clear marker for most Americans.
And 30 years should be enough for China to become a wealthy and hi-tech society, given the historical growth rates of the other East Asian Economic Tiger economies when they were developing.
Note that US GDP is some 5x-12x larger that Russian GDP, depending on how you measure it.
Lethe
Captain
I agree that a crisis that clearly and publicly demonstrates the shifting balance of power can act to short-cut the psychological adaptation process, but even then the story is far from complete. For example, while many Americans today are willing to acknowledge China's growing power in the world, they also tend to frame this in terms of particular domestic policy choices that are enabling China, or holding America back or somesuch. The notion that China's rise is something that is fundamentally outside America's control, the idea that the self-described greatest country in the world might be surpassed and that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it, is entirely too bitter a pill for most Americans to swallow at this point. It's that deeper adaptation that will require generations I think, and it's not really about China at all, but about Americans and how they see themselves and their nation.
This is possibly verging too far from the original topic, but I think the question of how nations and civilisations cope psychologically with significant shifts in power is a very interesting one, from the self-assured myths that are created when nations are at the apex of their power (e.g. US, China, UK, Spain, etc.), to the denial and anxiety of nations in decline (e.g. Russia) to the reactions when old certainties are shaken (reform, revolution, fundamentalist religion). Patrick Smith's book "Time No Longer: Americans after the American Century" is a good work in this area.
Last edited:
One thing about China is that it has faced this up and down cycle before in its long history, so facing and overcoming difficulties related to major civilizational changes has a stronger basis in the Chinese historical experience than others who may not have gone through such cycles, especially the Americans.