중국의 패권은 불가능

Unlikeliness of China to be a Hegemon

연구공간 자유 (www.TheInstituteForLiberty.com)

중국의 패권은 불가능

Unlikeliness of China to be a Hegemon

Sang Hyuck LEE

(Ph.D. in Internatonal Law / Texas MBA)

(sanghyuckleephd@gmail.com)

[Source: Open Democracy (2020)]

Arguably, the inauguration of the Donald Trump administration has been regarded as the end of Pax Americana, which means that “the United States is no longer a hegemon and cannot wield its power effectively in the international stage.”[1] Niall Ferguson, professor of economic history at Harvard University, once coined a new term “Chimerica” to describe a new world economic order that combined the export-led development of China with the over-consumption of the United States. More broadly, Chimerica is frequently used to denote the bipolar system or bipolarity led by the two great powers—i.e. the United States and China.[2]

Then, what about the possibility of Pax Sinica? Is it likely that China becomes a hegemon following the Unite States? The answer is clearly no. It seems to be extremely difficult or nearly impossible for China to be a hegemon, judging from the following three factors.

[Source: Wall Street Journal (2018)]

First of all, economically, China cannot be considered as a hegemon. Of course, it is true that China has achieved extraordinary economic performance. From 1979 to 2010, China’s average annual GDP growth was 9.91%, which is remarkably higher than any other countries. As of 2016, China’s nominal GDP was US$ 11.39 trillion, ranking at the 2nd largest economy after the United States whose 2016 nominal GDP was US$ 18.56 trillion. Notably, if adjusted for PPP (purchasing power parity), China has been the 1st largest economy surpassing the United States since 2014.[3] However, don’t be misled by the numbers! In reality, still China is simply a poor agricultural country, whose GDP per capita is only US$ 6,497 in 2015.[4] For example, George Friedman, renowned geopolitical forecast and strategist on international affairs, describes China as “an incredibly poor country” whose prosperity “is built on the willingness of the U.S. and Europe to buy its products.”[5]

In addition, militarily, China is far cry from a hegemon. Yes, it is true that China has been growing its military capabilities at a shockingly rapid speed, developing ships, submarines, aircraft, intelligence systems, foreign basis etc.[6] China is the only non-western country among the 5 NWSs (nuclear weapons states) under the NPT system. Thus, in certain local or regional conflicts, China may match U.S. forces. However, China does not have sufficient capability to intervene in global events far from its territory. Judging from the goals of Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) to “secure China’s status as a great power and, ultimately, reacquire regional preeminence”, it seems that China have neither capability nor ambition/will to be a global military superpower or military hegemon.[7]

[Source: South China Morning Post (2008)]

Last but not the least, in terms of soft power, China cannot be accepted as a hegemon by other countries. Especially in the global information age, not only hard power (military power plus economic power) but also soft power (attractiveness) is necessary for a country to be a global superpower.[8] Yes, China has made a lot of efforts—e.g. 2008 Beijing Olympics, 2010 Shanghai Expo, 2016 Paris Agreement, 2017 President Xi’s speech on pro-globalization at Davos etc.—to accumulate greater soft power.[9] In 2005, China spent roughly US$ 10 billion in external propaganda or public diplomacy, while the US spent only US$ 666 million.[10] However, public attitudes in North America, Europe, India and Japan toward China are still predominantly negative, especially due to its human rights violations.[11] Considering the current Chinese anti-democratic, illiberal and suppressive political system, it seems to be very difficult for China to obtain credence from the global community.

[Source: South China Morning Post (2018)]

In conclusion, considering the above three factors—i.e. economic power, military power and soft power, it seems to be quite clear that China is not and cannot be a hegemon. It seems to be unreasonable to expect the emergence of Pax Sinica or the unipolarity led by China as a hegemon, following the end of Pax Americana. It is also unreasonable to expect the emergence of Chimerica or the bipolar system led by the two great powers—i.e. the United States and China. As discussed in my previous essay titled “Distinguishing Multipolarity from Nonpoalrity: A Starting Point to Reduce Global Uncertainties”, the world has transformed from Pax Americana or the unipolar system led by the United States as the only superpower—i.e. a hegemon—into the multipolar system led by some great powers. Therefore, China is not a new hegemon or the only superpower but simply one of these great powers within the current multipolar system.

---

[1] Alexander Clarkson, “End of Pax Americana” Politico (February 14, 2017),

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-end-of-pax-americana-us-president-donald-trump-russia-china-pakistan-india/ (accessed June 2020).

[2] Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (2008). Also see Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick, “The End of Chimerica” (2009), http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-037.pdf (accessed June 2020).

[3] World Bank, “GDP Ranking”, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table

(accessed June 2020).

[4] Trading Economics, “China GDP per capita”, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-per-capita (accessed June 2020).

[5] George Friedman, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century (2009).

[6] Bill Gertz, “China’s Military Capabilities Are Growing at a Shocking Speed” The National Interest (November 7, 2016), http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-chinas-military-capabilities-are-growing-shocking-18316 (accessed June 2020).

[7] David Axe, “Why China is far from ready to meet the U.S. on a global battlefront” Reuters (June 22, 2015), http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/21/why-china-is-far-from-ready-to-meet-the-u-s-on-a-global-battlefront/ (accessed June 2020).

[8] See Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (1990) and Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004).

[9] John Ford, “The Obstacles to China’s Bid for Soft Power” The Diplomat (January 28, 2017),

http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-obstacles-to-chinas-bid-for-soft-power/ (accessed June 2020).

[10] David Shambaugh, “China’s Soft-Power Push” Foreign Affairs (July/August 2015),

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-06-16/china-s-soft-power-push (accessed June 2020).

[11] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “The Limits of Chinese Soft Power” Project Syndicate (July 10, 2015),

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-civil-society-nationalism-soft-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2015-07?barrier=accessreg (accessed June 2020).