Material strength is the idea that a great power can survive a natural disaster or a man-made catastrophe by virtue of its geographical advantage or large population. Russia, for instance, was able to hold back Napoleon’s ambitions and, later on, undermine Hitler’s aggression. The United States also had enough material strength to play a dominant role in rebuilding the world after the devastation of World War II. And, more recently, China’s material strength led it to dominate the regional response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis.
Leaders of great powers often feel obliged to take on more responsibility in governing the world. This sense of responsibility is rooted in national identity. But looking for this international recognition can lead to both the overestimation and underestimation of national power. Japan’s quest for dominance in Asia is a pertinent example of the former. And the latter can be seen in present day China, which is already a major power in the world but still unprepared to play its role.
Finally, great powers are expected by the rest of the world to provide leadership and help maintain international order as only great powers can be relied upon to do so.
China’s continuous economic growth over the past three decades has led to rising international expectations that it will take on a leadership role. New concepts such as a ‘G2’ of China and the United States, and the emergence of China as a ‘responsible stake holder’ in the international order illustrate this trend. The rest of the world, and particularly the United States, has an important role to play in encouraging China to accomplish its mission in a constructive way.
But they must wait patiently as China is not ready to become a great power just yet. There are four reasons for this.
First, there is no domestic consensus within China. Chinese leaders and the Chinese people are deeply divided over a wide range of domestic issues, from the government’s role in economic and social life, to foreign policy issues such as the the South China Sea territorial disputes. New ‘leftist’ arguments (promulgated by scholars such as Wang Wen, Su Changhe, Wang Yiwei) currently hold favour in China, and tough nationalist arguments are on the rise. The rift between the left and the right in China is deepening. How can a divided China lead the world?
Second, China refuses to accept key values of the liberal international order such as democracy, liberty and the rule of law. In recent years, lecturers within China have been given repeated orders that they cannot discuss these values in the classroom. This raises more questions regarding China’s leadership potential.
While rejecting popular liberal values, China also fails to provide any appealing alternatives. Communism has lost its attraction domestically and abroad, and the core values of Confucianism — which emphasise social hierarchies — appear unacceptable in light of the contemporary importance given to equality. China will be considered a leader once it either accepts the dominant liberal values or else establishes some viable alternative that is internationally acceptable.
Third, China does not provide sufficient public goods for the international community. The United States rose to global hegemon status by facilitating a diverse range of public goods under the umbrella of the Bretton Woods system. Thus far, China has initiated the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and is now leading development of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, but these are only regional initiatives.
The provision of public goods is a function of both the material resources of a nation and its human resources. China is severely constrained in its ability to provide public goods due to the gap between skyrocketing demand for international talent and China’s actual domestic supply. For instance, until November 2011, there were only 519 Chinese young volunteers working in 19 countries, compared to the more than 220,000 American Peace Corps volunteers who have served in 140 countries since 1961.
China also lacks a ‘great power mentality’ that can inspire the world. The citizens of a great power should care about the wellbeing and prosperity of people both domestically and abroad. Great powers are expected to be happy to give more and take less, rather than operate on a strict cost–benefit basis.
But China is not ready to give more. China offers foreign aid bilaterally based upon mutual benefit rather than seeking to foster multilateralism. Foreign aid policy, more often than not, attracts fierce opposition in China. And, to make matters worse, nationalism is on the rise within the netizen community, a trend that will likely result in China’s isolation from the world rather than any deeper integration.
So, while it might be time for China to take on the burden of global responsibility on a partnership basis, China is still not ready to become the great power.
Liang Xiaojun is an Associate Professor in the Department of Diplomacy at China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing.
Readers of East Asia Forum have been presented this week with two differing views of China. The editors of the website have described China as one of the two world superpowers. On the other hand, the author of this very interesting post asserts that China is not ready to become a great power.
Personally, I find Professor Liang’s case the more compelling one, not least because he provides arguments to support his point of view. I would go on to suggest that William Overholt’s post also lays dynamite beneath the claim that China is now the world’s second superpower.
The concept of ‘great power’ emerged a couple of centuries ago and it was from the start a Eurocentric concept. There was no question of one European great power ‘leading the world’.
Whatever British pretensions might have been, France would never have approved of them, or vice versa. The French found it very hard to see Britain’s claims to moral superiority as anything but humbug, and no Englishman is on record for having believed in the French ‘mission civilisatrice’.
Germany’s and America’s promotion to great power status towards the end of the nineteenth century didn’t change anything in this respect.
In short, great powers don’t lead the world. If they are lucky, they may perhaps lead part of it.
In too many respects to enumerate, the United States is still the only superpower. To take a couple of examples, what other countries divide up the world militarily into Central Command, Pacific Command, Southern Command, Africa Command etc? When will China create a rival system of global commands? When will China have even a tenth as many as America’s overseas bases?
The author points out that China lacks a ‘great power mentality’. The US has this mentality ‘in spades’, to use a vulgar expression. That mentality is best encapsulated in ‘American exceptionalism’, a doctrine resting on no scientific basis but effective nonetheless, as Obama showed in his clumsy and unpopular efforts to shed himself of this chicanery. An alternative formula is the claim that the US is the ‘indispensable nation’, whose author may have been Madeleine Albright.
Professor Liang could have gone on to point out that China doesn’t deploy remotely as many soft power resources as Washington, or should one say, Hollywood?
Thanks for a very interesting analysis. I did not know/had not read of internal domestic struggles going on in the PRC about the role it should play in the world, etc. As China tries to present itself to the world as a unified force it was fascinating to read about this. Also hopeful in teo respedts. First, perhaps some healthy dialogue about policy, etc amongst the country’s leaders is actually going on. Second, that a professor at a university in the country can write about this and other aspects of the country which most of us Westerners are not aware of/privy to. I have under the belief that such freedom of expression which is mildly critical of the status quo is not allowed in the PRC
China is forever destined to lead the world so long as the Chinese retain the mindset of the Middle Kingdom forever; China is forever not ready to lead because it has lost the qualities forever.
China had never ruled the whole world; all that can be said is that it ruled only part of North East Asia as an empire. It fancied itself the Middle Kingdom because it as an isolated civilization virtually did not know the existence of other great civilizations of Greece and Rome, Byzantium, Islam and India.
It is forever ready to lead because there has been no time in its history when it is so heavily dependent on the outside world as it is today. It has lost the time forever when it can boast of its monopolistic granduer and competitiveness in technology, industry, economy, arts, political ideals and social values.
Hmm. This is a very weak analysis.
>Second, China refuses to accept key values of the liberal international order such as democracy, liberty and the rule of law
This is a misreading of reality. USA overthrows democratically elected governments that do not bend to its will. China believes all nations deserve mutual respect – big or small. USA has a police state with one of a far higher per capita prison population than China. Finally, USA legalizes its corruption and calls them “political contributions / lobbying” while China hunts corrupt officials over 10,000 km away.
The reason it is more tight-lipped about these “values” is because they are mere buzz words used by groups like the American CIA’s front group, National Endowment for Democracy, to incite subversion. See examples of Ukraine, Xinjiang, and Tibet.
>Third, China does not provide sufficient public goods for the international community. The United States rose to global hegemon status by facilitating a diverse range of public goods under the umbrella of the Bretton Woods system.
I’m not sure if this is a joke. America went off the gold standard and betrayed the world. For the past 40+ years, it has been eating a free lunch with its petrodollar scam that exports its inflation across the world. Meanwhile, China is building infrastructure all across Africa, South America, and with the AIIB, soon, across the undeveloped mass of South East Asia. A few years back, it was the only engine of global economic growth despite the colossal failure of America’s world financial crisis created by America in 2008 due to its “rule of law” capitalism, where the criminals were bailed out and given zero prison time while its citizens and the world suffered.
I haven’t even gone into the dozens of genocidal wars America started to uphold its empire across Asia and now the Middle East. Thanks to them there is a refugee crisis and a several thousand percent increase in terrorism.
>China also lacks a ‘great power mentality’ that can inspire the world. The citizens of a great power should care about the wellbeing and prosperity of people both domestically and abroad.
This is perhaps the most misinformed point of all. Compare how China treats Africa vs the European colonizers. Compare how China leads the world in green energy investments vs the developed world. Compare how China seeks bilateral discussions over territorial disputes vs American expansionism such as Monroe Doctrine.
It is China who inspires the world by showing a peaceful alternative to Anglo-American terrorism.
It is China who kicked the Western imperialists, rebuilt itself in record time, uses its power responsibly and peacefully, and helps poorer nations up the development ladder – all the things an inspirational great power should do.