When will you classify China as a superpower?

[RedRalph]

Well, the last time Chine underwent a large social upheaval, it ended in its fragmentation and decades long civil war, so I wouldn't be so sure.

Srsly? Ever heard of Mao?

 

[Virote_Considon]

I'm enjoying this thread thus far

I guess the main thing for me as to when to call China a superpower would be when there is no state with significantly more power than them. The USSR and USA were superpowers in the Cold War quite specifically because from the start, neither had any leverage above the other, and this carried on (i.e., at the start of the Cold War, Russia had a much more powerful land army than America, but America had nukes, which leveled the playing field. Then, Russia got nukes whilst America beefed the rest of its forces up)

Of course, there are other very important factors (economics, technology, the level of smog, etc.), but I think that China needs to be a little more capable in the military field before it can be considered a superpower.

 

[boogaboo]

I think China is an economic superpower for a few years now, and a military one for at least a decade or 2. If one can't c it , he's blind!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Interesting question of semantics.

A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."[1] It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

So it seems quite mandatory that a superpower be a unilateral hegemon. It must have an offensive military which tries to protect its intrests and even inflict its views on others through force or the threat of force. So here's hoping that China, or any other country for that matter, ever attains that state in the future...

After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status.[3] China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[4] Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[5][6][7][8]

Here's an article about the book to which it refers:

http://news.illinois.edu/news/08/0508superpower.html

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The United States remains a formidable but besieged global power, according to the editors of “From Superpower to Besieged Global Power: Restoring World Order After the Failure of the Bush Doctrine” (University of Georgia Press).

The new book, co-edited by Edward A. Kolodziej, the director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois, and Roger E. Kanet, a professor of international studies at the University of Miami, evaluates the extent to which the Bush Doctrine, as the rationale for the projection of American power and purpose, has succeeded in shaping world order and regional politics to reflect and support American interests and values.

The editors and contributors, drawn from 10 nations, conclude that the doctrine, detailed in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, squandered enormous military and economic resources, diminished U.S. power, undermined the nation’s reputation as a defender of democratic values and human rights, divided Americans, and gravely (but still not fatally) undermined American hard and soft power to influence world order in preferred ways.

A central explanation for the failure of American security and foreign policy under the Bush administration lies in the unfounded assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine that the United States is a superpower capable of coercing rivals and inducing allies and neutral nations to support the Bush vision of world order. The doctrine led to policies that overextended the reach of American power beyond its grasp, most obviously in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also around the globe.

Notwithstanding recent setbacks, the U.S. remains a formidable global power, one of a few states capable of significantly influencing but not dictating the trajectories of global and regional politics and the evolution of world order, the editors say.

The volume rejects the Bush administration’s unilateralist, pre-emption strategy, inspired, the editors argue, by neo-conservatives, whose championing of the United States as the world’s sole superpower dominated, until recently, the administration’s security and foreign policies.

“The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower, which has used its material and human resources incompetently,” Kolodziej said. “According to this train of thinking, all that is needed is a better management of its soft and hard power to retain what is misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States.”

Finally, the authors dismiss what Kolodziej calls the declinist argument, most popular in the 1990s and still accepted by some at home and abroad, that holds that the U.S. is a quickly declining power that will be overtaken soon by China – much as Japan was once thought to be on the verge of overtaking the U.S.

“Prevailing schools of foreign policy must be rejected,” Kolodziej said, “because they err in fundamental ways about the limits and opportunities of American power. There must be a return to the proven strategies of cooperation after World War II. These resulted in the ascendancy of a strong coalition of free, democratic, market states in the Cold War – a coalition mindlessly ruptured by the misguided application of a strategic doctrine based on the assumption of American superpower omnipotence.”

U.S. power and influence are greatest when the U.S. adheres to moral norms and legal standards, and operates according to the political accords and agreements reached with other like-minded states and peoples, Kolodziej said. The latter, in cooperation with the United States, form the coalition of open, democratic, market-oriented states and peoples who arose ascendant from the Cold War struggle. It is this winning coalition that the ill-advised policies generated by the Bush Doctrine place in jeopardy.

The editors and the contributors agree that U.S. security and foreign policy must be based on understanding the limits of U.S. economic, cultural and military power to mold world order in a way that reflects American interests. They also propose ways, emphasizing the reconstitution of American power at home, as the precondition for the effective projection of American power abroad. This reversal of priorities in which domestic imperatives are privileged, will help to repair the damage that has resulted from flawed security and foreign policy decisions, a process of reorientation that will take a generation to be fully completed.

The book is the inaugural volume in the series Studies in Security and International Affairs under the aegis of the University of Georgia Press and the department of international relations at Georgia.

So, one could argue there are no superpowers anymore. Once again, here's hoping...

 

[Gooblah]

When it can project its power on a global level.

China doesn't have single aircraft carrier. Its influence is basically economic, and mostly focused in Asia and Africa; in Africa, it's jockeying with the EU and the US; in Asia, with India and Russia and the US.

 

[MobBoss]

When it can project its power on a global level.

China doesn't have single aircraft carrier. Its influence is basically economic, and mostly focused in Asia and Africa; in Africa, it's jockeying with the EU and the US; in Asia, with India and Russia and the US.

Seconded. /10 chars

 

[Danielos]

When it can project its power on a global level.

China doesn't have single aircraft carrier. Its influence is basically economic, and mostly focused in Asia and Africa; in Africa, it's jockeying with the EU and the US; in Asia, with India and Russia and the US.

China has little naval tradition. I think the last time China had a powerful navy was in the late 15th century, and then the emperor decided that naval exploration, trade and communications was a bad idea and burned the whole fleet. I would suspect they would go the Russia route and build maybe 1-2 carriers and then rely on a missile cruisers, destroyers, nuclear submarines and helicopters. I don´t think China is really interested in building up a major carrier task force.

 

[lovett]

Gonna jump into this thread without really reading it, so I'm sure I'm repeating others.

What would it take? Clearly it's an economic superpower already. what would make you consider it a superpower overall? A military that was clearly in second place? Several bases abroad? Winning some sort of face off with the USA over Taiwan/Formosa?

I really don't think it's 'clearly' an economic superpower. Great power would be a better definition. In terms of GDP itt's in the same league as a half dozen other countries. Japan, Germany, the UK so on and so forth. Yet Very few would c all those states 'superpowers'.

Chinese culture is incredibly, incerdibly influential. I cannot comprehend how you can not know this. Nearly all Asian culture has been influenced by China in some way (if not based on Chinese culture altogether). Seriously, if you arent aware of this fact, you have no business discussing China at all. I honestly didnt think anyone could be so ignorant as to how culturally important China is.

I don't think this is really a fair basis on which to demonstrate cultural hegemony. Th cultural power of the US is remarked on because it is exported directly from the US. I literally can't walk down the street or turn on the telly without being suffocated by US cultural export.

Not to say that China doesn't have an incredibly rich and worthwhile culture. But it's not geared for export. It obviously influences all Asian culture but that does not a superpower make. I.e influence and formation is qualitatively different than what it takes to be a cultural superpower. To draw a comparison, one can recognise the incredible debt the West owes to Ancient Greece in terms of cultural development. That doesn't make modern Greece a cultural superpower.

 

[MobBoss]

China has little naval tradition. I think the last time China had a powerful navy was in the late 15th century, and then the emperor decided that naval exploration, trade and communications was a bad idea and burned the whole fleet. I would suspect they would go the Russia route and build maybe 1-2 carriers and then rely on a missile cruisers, destroyers, nuclear submarines and helicopters. I don´t think China is really interested in building up a major carrier task force.

Simply because it does not have a tradition of having a powerful navy doesnt mean it couldnt develop one.

The question being is a powerful navy capable of projecting military power across the globe a requirement for a superpower?

I think it is. If China, for whatever reason, declines to support a navy required to project that military power, can it be legitimately reach the level of what we define as a 'superpower'?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

China has economic and political power. However, it is yet to enter the category of superpower because of gaps in power projection. This is not all 'hard power', but that has a very big role...the Pax Britannia, Pax Americana etc relied on the ability to make their power be felt up close and personal. China is getting there, but is still behind in this area. It is expanding, as can be seen in Africa, and unchecked will get to the requisite level within the next 15-20 years, all things considered.

 

[Ramius75]

When people want to go to emigrate to China, then yes I'll consider it one.

It did crossed my mind...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I will consider China a superpower if it can project strength globally politically(allies abroad, influence on various governments), economically(this might already be happening), and militarily(full-fledged blue water navy, modernized army and air force). Its cultural influence may expand as a byproduct of these criteria.

 

[Winner]

Srsly? Ever heard of Mao?

Ehm, ever heard of this, or did Mao managed to erase China's previous history from your head, 1984-style?

When the imperial government collapsed, China experienced decades of chaos and strife followed by the Japanese invasion and then another round of civil war in which your beloved commies gained power, so they could slaughter/starve tens of millions of people.

Anyway, this is not the point. China seems to be going through cycles beginning with strong central government, stability, growth and prosperity and ending in revolts against the central government, chaos and civil war, after which a new "dynasty" is formed.

Many people see the Commies as just another "dynasty" ruling over China. They enforce their dominance by repressing dissent and gain legitimacy from the fast economic growth and occassionaly by appealing on Chinese nationalism.

But what would happen if the growth slowed down entirely? What will happen if the social contrasts between the developing urban middle class and the poor countryside/industrial workers erupt in a violent riots? What if the regime becomes paralyzed by an inter-party struggle between reformists and hardliners (which areso common in communist regimes)?

There is of course no reason to believe that China would collapse in few years, but you can hardly deny it has a lot of serious internal problems and that the government might not be able to properly deal with them when the time comes.

 

[CaptainF]

China already has considerable cultural, political and especially economic power world wide. In Asia it is already a giant.

However, the weak point in the case for China as a superpower is obviously the military. While they have been very good at trimming their military down to size and making it vastly more mobile and modern, they still lack an aircraft carrier fleet and also do not have any military bases abroad (IIRC). Thus they lack global power projection.

There is also the question of their own internal affairs. The gender disparity within China is an oft mentioned example of the social upheaval that exists today in China, which is only further exacerbated by the massive wealth gap and corruption of the government which infuriates Chinese citizens.

I think in about 50 years China will undoubtedly be a major global player not only within the soft power realm (economic, political and cultural clout), but by that point they will also have formidable military strength as well. This does not necessarily mean that they would be capable of defeating the United States in a military conflict, but that any conflict we would have with China would be unbearably destructive.

 

[RedRalph]

Winner, you said

the last time Chine underwent a large social upheaval, it ended in its fragmentation and decades long civil war

, and thats not true. the last time it underwent a large social upheaval was under Mao, and it didnt fragment.

In any case yeah undeniably China has internal problems, of course. But in actual fact when it comes to dealing with them (and when it comes to dealing with ecological problems), their government style will actually be quiote advantageous. When the willpower exists to fix these problems, the controls are there.

 

[Winner]

Winner, you said , and thats not true. the last time it underwent a large social upheaval was under Mao, and it didnt fragment.

No, Mao was the result of this upheaval. His rule was a result of the civil war which brought him to power.

In any case yeah undeniably China has internal problems, of course. But in actual fact when it comes to dealing with them (and when it comes to dealing with ecological problems), their government style will actually be quiote advantageous. When the willpower exists to fix these problems, the controls are there.

I don't think that having an authoritarian government is an advantage in the long term.

 

[Dachs]

No, Mao was the result of this upheaval. His rule was a result of the civil war which brought him to power.

He's talking about the Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution. Whether you wish to consider that to have been anything even remotely like the same kind of upheaval as the warlord eras and interdynastic periods in Chinese history is up in the air.

 

[RedRalph]

No, Mao was the result of this upheaval. His rule was a result of the civil war which brought him to power.

Winner, like it or not, you got it wrong. the last time China underwent a large social upheaval was the cultural revolution, it was under Mao, and it didnt result in China's fragmentation. I know what you are referring to, but that wasnt the last big upheaval.

I don't think that having an authoritarian government is an advantage in the long term.

Whne it comes to protection of the environment, I believe it will be. If the CCP were to decide that environmental protection was priority no 1, and nothing was to obstruct it, you damn well better believe it would happen. In countries with weaker govts, this is not the case.

 

[RedRalph]

He's talking about the Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution. Whether you wish to consider that to have been anything even remotely like the same kind of upheaval as the warlord eras and interdynastic periods in Chinese history is up in the air.

similar to the warlords era or not, it was definitely the last large social upheaval in China.

 

[Patroklos]

Whne it comes to protection of the environment, I believe it will be. If the CCP were to decide that environmental protection was priority no 1, and nothing was to obstruct it, you damn well better believe it would happen. In countries with weaker govts, this is not the case.

The government of China might be authoritarian, but it is not unified. The cronyism and corruption inside the party is extreme, nothing in the Western industrial revolution comes close. China already has all the enviromental protection laws on the books, the problem is nobody cares and most of all the party.

About the only time you see the Chinese state act in a unified nature is when it comes to maintaining its own power which every member can see the benefit of.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I have little confidence in the Chinese government/party tackling complex internal issues that actual pit the various power centers withing the governing stucture against each other. Things like external threats and straight up internal decent are easy for everyone to get behind and crush.