China as the Greatest Threat to U.S. Hegemony?: A Reflection

This week’s debate caused me to deeply reflect on the idea of China and its ability to challenge the U.S. as the current world hegemon.  Before our discussions both in class and in the formal “debates”, I would have definitely gone straight to China as being the most substantial threat to American hegemony (and truthfully, was hoping our group could debate from this perspective).  Today, however, I am not so sure that is the case.

In assessing who possesses the ability to challenge a hegemon, you must first assess the metrics you are using to define that hegemon.  In the case of the United States, there appears to be three primary boxes to check: military power, economic power and soft power. 

Realists who subscribe to a Waltz-like view of the world would argue that military power is the most important metric to use when assessing power equilibriums (polarity and hegemony).  If we adopt this approach, China is decades behind the United States.  As we mentioned in our rebuttal, the Chinese spends about a sixth of what the U.S. does on its military and by even the most liberal estimates, is decades (if not a generation) behind U.S. tactics and technology.  With this in mind, it would be very difficult to make the argument that China has the ability to challenge U.S. hegemony at any point in the foreseeable future.  Additionally, in Waltz-like fashion, we don’t see a large number of powers working with the Chinese in an effort to “balance” global power.  One would think that if the Chinese were emerging as a potential challenger, numerous powerful states would bandwagon with them to offset U.S. influence.  At present, Russia (and potentially North Korea, though that’s a tough one) serves as the only real “ally” China has and we have seen the rockiness of this relationship play out on numerous occasions.

An additional approach to adopt would be to look at this dynamic from the perspective of economic gains.  This is where, in my opinion, the best case can be made to support Chinese ‘challengership’.  That said, however, there are a few problems with this approach.  For starters, the Chinese economy presently remains considerably behind that of the United States, particularly when regarded in terms of per capita GDP.  Additionally, how China chooses to leverage its economic growth (and the means it adopts to get there…which will be discussed momentarily) matters a great deal in determining whether or not its economic growth will actually matter in the long run.  Team China suggested that economy matters most because states must use the wealth they acquire to support their military.  If, however, China continues its current trends in military spending (as a percentage of GDP), when compared with the U.S., it will take an incredibly long period of time for them to even reach equilibrium with the U.S., let alone surpass it, despite its economic gains.

Finally, the soft-power approach must be considered.  While it is easy to argue that the United States’ influence abroad is in decline, we mustn’t forget just how influential the U.S. really is.  Today, you can travel almost anywhere in the world and find evidence of the United States…be it a McDonald’s, Nike shoes, or Microsoft computers.  The U.S. principles of freedom, its economic and political models of governance, and the capitalist principles it pioneered are incredible popular the world over and the same simply cannot be said for China.  Additionally, there is a great deal of political tension within China that would prevent it from being able to use its economic gains to truly beef up its military.  Instead, wealth would need to go toward strengthening China domestically to improve quality of life and this would offset its ability to compete with the U.S.  If it decides instead to neglect its people in favor of a military buildup, then it risks creating tension so substantial, it would negate any ability the state has to truly influence the rest of the world as it would be distracted by domestic disputes and legitimacy challenges. 

Consistent with the “constitutional moments” approach, the U.S. was able to seize upon the period post-WWII to really establish itself the world over and to embed its principles and ideologies within the construct of the current international system.  In order for China to do the same, something (like a world war) would have to occur to shake up the status quo, in which case, any number of powers have the potential to ascend into the U.S. role, with no guarantee that China would possess the capacity or the influence to do so.

All of these objections to the concept of China as the greatest threat to American hegemony emerged as a result of the research and discussions conducted for this module’s debates.  It was incredibly insightful and caused me to reflect upon many of the assumptions we have about the present international system.  I think the biggest takeaway here is that perspectives really matter in discussing international relations (or politics in general).  Depending on what mode of personation you adopt on the 2x2, you could get a number of different answers concerning the current state of affairs and who is the greatest challenger to whom.