[Salon] China lacks will and way to lead the world



https://asiatimes.com/2024/10/china-lacks-will-and-way-to-lead-the-world/?mc_cid=15b34d1610&mc_eid=dfaa9bd611

China lacks will and way to lead the world

Beijing has no interest in overthrowing the US-led international order, a reality American policymakers would be wise to recognize
Performers dance during a show as part of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, at the Bird's Nest stadium in Beijing on June 28, 2021. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP / Noel Celis

The “China Dream,” President Xi Jinping’s vision to restore China’s great power status, was the underlying theme of Xi’s 75th National Day speech.

Many influential individuals and policymakers in Washington agree as a matter of fact that the one of the China Dream’s goals is to displace the US-led international order and thus Washington’s global leadership and power.

As exemplified by the lack of concern for foreign affairs in Xi’s recent remarks, they’re wrong. Beijing is unwilling and—more importantly—unable to replace America on the global stage. US policy must adapt to this reality to put American interests first.

Xi’s 2017 speech to the 19th National Party Congress is often cited as evidence of Beijing’s intent to overturn America’s role in the world. In that speech, Xi envisions China as “a global leader” having “mov[ed] closer to the center stage.”

If Washington is to take Xi at his word, as some are wont to suggest, then China merely seeks a greater say in the global order commensurate with its rise in power – not world domination.

When assessing Xi’s remarks at the 20th National Party Congress in 2022, he had even less to say about global leadership – only that China should aim to have the most “comprehensive national strength” and “international influence” by mid-century.

While a stronger statement than in 2017, it is based on highly subjective measures. Comprehensive national strength is based on the Chinese “Comprehensive National Power” concept, which seeks to calculate power through qualitative and quantitative factors.

Different inputs will lead to different outputs. With China’s low productivitybrewing demographic crisis and limited natural resources, it is difficult to see how Beijing claims the top power spot by 2050.

Equally, given the decline in China’s favorability in the United States, Europe and US-allied Asian countries and growth of “tough on China” policies, China has a long road ahead to reverse its influence fortunes.

Even if one were to read the worst into Xi’s and other Chinese Communist Party leaders’ speeches, Beijing’s three major foreign policy visions – the Global DevelopmentGlobal Securityand Global Civilization Initiatives – don’t call for an overthrow of “American leadership” or the international order.

At worst, they collectively entail a vision of a multipolar order where China has a sphere of influence in East Asia and is the most respected great power.

Outside of China’s words and ideas, the People’s Republic’s actions show that it is not willing or capable of displacing the United States’ global role.

While Beijing has established and expanded various international institutions, such as BRICS and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, these have been opened to new members who will likely dilute China’s influence.

By virtue of their more limited scopes, Chinese-created institutions cannot replace the UN system, which even Beijing acknowledges is the premier representative of international order.

Militarily, China cannot project power globally. It has only one formal military alliance with its neighbor North Korea compared to the United States’ 51 treaty allies across the Americas, Europe and the Indo-Pacific, thereby limiting the scope of its military activities.

So far, China hasn’t sought additional treaty alliances – including its “better than an alliance” with Russia, which has not seen Chinese troops join Russia’s in Ukraine.

Beijing also lacks the global network of bases essential to power projection. While US intelligence asserts China is working to establish bases in eight other countries outside of existing arrangements in Djibouti and Cambodia, this would be a far cry from Washington’s over 750 military bases in 80 countries.

If successful, Beijing’s facilities would be limited to countries along its global trade routes.

Unlike global military power, China does seek global economic and cultural influence but this will likely fail. De-risking, reshoring, nearshoring and friendshoring are the commerce terms of the day with countries and companies seeking alternative sources to China.

Beijing is unlikely to buck these global trends as it seeks to produce more at home while its economic coercion fails abroad. Similarly, Chinese cultural exports have not taken off and improved views of China, a striking contrast with its neighbor South Korea.

American levels of global culture status appear out of reach thanks to China’s more conservative culture, difficult language and censorship concerns.

Finally, China likely sees the costs of displacing the United States as the sole global leader as too high. Historically, overextension has led to the fall of states. From a contemporary standpoint, the multitrillion-dollar price tag of US-style global leadership is astronomical.

Beijing must realize those resources could be better used at home and within East Asia.

Washington would be prudent to understand Beijing does not seek to and cannot supplant America’s global superpower role. Instead of wasting resources on preventing something China doesn’t want, policymakers should put tangible American interests first.

This means maintaining dominance of the Western Hemisphere, bolstering economic security, deterring threats to the homeland and adhering to Constitutional principles. Only then can US global power and security be maximized.

 Quinn Marschik is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities.



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.