Global power

The dangers of a rising China


See article

Readers' comments


Subash S

When has "History [showed] that superpowers can coexist peacefully when the rising power believes it can rise unhindered and the incumbent power believes that the way it runs the world is not fundamentally threatened"?

First, the term 'superpower' was not coined until the 20th century to describe Russia, the US and perhaps Britain. Second, the pure desire for economic superiority would drive them towards conflict, let alone political, ideological, nationalistic, or imperialistic reasons.

Human nature has remained the same since the dawn of time. As long as Hobbes is right about it, there will always be war. "You do not understand war without peace", and vice versa.

Andover Chick

As China's aging ruling regime is replaced the young then relations between China and the USA will certainly improve.

Separately, China's military worries likely would not come from the USA. What China should worry about is Japan. If Japan decided to rearm the it would cut thru China like a hot Samurai sword thru butter, even with a tenth of the population. Japan is a culture made for war, even if they're peaceful now. China should think twice about irritating or tweaking the nose of Japan.

Ed (Brazil)

@ Andover Chick

I disagree with you on Japan. How will they fight any wars without young people ? Will you give a rifle to an 80 years old Japanese ? Better yet, what will convince an old country like Japan to go to War ?


I think the greatest threat will be the day the Party fails to provide growth for the people (which WILL come some day) and needs to find a different way to legitimize their rule.

Ed (Brazil)

As Maquiavel very smartly put it:

"The best way to avoid wars is to show your army. Cause if someone really wanted war, you would never lose the element of surprise, and therefore keep your powers in secret."

Eulogio B.

"If America wants to bind China into the rules-based liberal order it promotes, it needs to stick to the rules itself. Every time America breaks them—by, for instance, protectionism—it feeds China’s suspicions and undermines the very order it seeks."
Or by, for instance, ignoring international bodies (say, the UN Security Council) and international law when wanting to invade, say, Irak or whatever.
Pay respect to international law, to international bodies authority, and then ask for the same commitment to your counterparty. The alternative to the rule of law in the world, as would be in any national society, is chaos.

Spanish pig

I agree. China and the US do not need to be enemies. Let us hear now the American explanation on being enemies to so many dictatorships in the past.


Excellent article. While it doesn't quite add too much new to the understanding of the whole China-US situation, this was written very well.

I wonder what the dynamics would be like between the US and China if the US never got caught up in all those wars in the Middle East.

Stupid prisoner's dilemma. We'd all be better off if nobody expanded their military, but as long as someone might defect, everyone is in a worse situation.

Jeremy Wong Fischer

I don't get it. The title completely contradicts the article's content (and even the subtitle). I don't really see any "dangers" listed in this article.

Surprising balance to be found in an Economist article.


If the US would get out of Taiwan's corner, China wouldn't attack - instead, the long-awaited reunification a la HK1997 would seem like a reasonable and inevitable alternative, and a huge sticking point in Sino-American relations would be relieved.

Likewise with North Korea, it is not clear that the US strategy of, apparently, trying to frighten the DPRK into militarizing itself to death is working. US military retreat from Asia would probably lessen tensions, since resolution of the Taiwan and Korea conflicts would no longer necessarily entail US, and therefore Chinese, involvement. It seems clear that North Korea could never prevail in a new Korean War. They know it. Why not leave them alone?

The US military's presence in Asia is not about US security - instead, it is about keeping three very important markets, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, in the US corner, and also about justifying the large and reasonably profitable and useful defense industry that builds and maintains warships, warplanes, and other weapons that are constantly cycled through the Asian theater.

End of story: if the US would back out of WW2 mode in Asia, relations with China would only improve, not only for the US, but probably also for Japan, Taiwan, and both Koreas.


England tolerated the rise of the US in the nineteenth century. The twentieth century saw proof of the wisdom of this course.

The US permitted China into the WTO. The US protectz the trade routes that have allowed China to become a rising economic superpower. For now, the US tolerates China's covert and overt attempts to discomfit the US.

The US does not seek the containment of China. Rather, the US seeks to convince China that it should comport itself in the manner that its power and desired prestige would dictate. The US seeks a collegue, not an adversary.

China is learning. It may be a democratic state in this century. It is to be ardently desired that China does not choose the way of force over that of gradually accumulated influence to find its place in the sun.

What about Bob

My greatest fear isn't war between the USA and China. It is the sudden collapse of one or the other. The USA for economic reasons and China for social reasons.

Thus these reasons could cause conflicts as a group or party trys to maintain order. Falkland Island War comes to mind when the Junta of Argentina bet on Nationalism to keep them in power and ended up not only out of power but also loss of many soldiers.


Perhaps, the United States followed the wrong foreign policies, after the demise of Stalin. Nikita Khrushchev was not keen to export the Communist ideology abroad, outside of the Eastern Bloc. The United States, was perhaps unmindful, that the Soviet Politbureau, along with the Communist assembly, had given their choice of Nikita Khrushchev. In fact, the most successful leaders of Communism, were the cause of the decline of Communism. The two most successful Communist leaders were Mao Tse-tung, and Stalin. The United States' foreign policy has been strange. Afghanistan happened to the Soviet Union, because they were weary and worried about the Warsaw Pact being surrounded by either NATO, or a disenchanted Communist China. And, the United States added fuel to the fire. Perhaps, they were right, but was the foreign policy of the United States right before Afghanistan, towards the Warsaw Pact? China, on the other hand, is rumored to have helped the United States, with the USSR. This theory is not very far fetched. I have regard for the late Mr Xiaoping. Perhaps, the Chinese leadership today, is more inflexible than in the days of Mr Xiaoping, in the sense, that the present leadership is not challenged, as Mr Xiaoping challenged his own beliefs. The United States has, in my opinion, failed herself, when facing her own insecurities. Repeatedly. Why not make a new beginning with Iran, and China?


Many commenters here feel compelled to point out the competition between the US and China has taken an adversarial twist.

How infinitely to be preferred are trade wars to nuclear exchanges! How supremely to be desired are espionage to bloodshed!
Let the Chinese do their worst in these arenas. The US knows a thing or two about how tweak its opponents as well.


The Economist is to be commended for finally addressing this issue in a relatively comprehensive, rational and balanced fashion, and to see the solution in its essential simplicity. “The best way to turn China into an opponent is to treat it as one.”

So I was disappointed to see the authors contradict the central thesis in the very same article. “Some would say the solution is for America to turn its back on military rivalry. But a weaker America would lead to chronic insecurity in East Asia and thus threaten the peaceful conduct of trade and commerce on which America’s prosperity depends. America therefore needs to be strong enough to guarantee the seas and protect Taiwan from Chinese attack.”

I believe Einstein said “you cannot solve a problem at the same level of consciousness in which it was created.” So to solve the central problem of the 21st century, we are due for a rethink. Why, exactly, is America presumed to be the sole and just arbiter of 21st century security OVER THE ENTIRE PLANET? Does this not, in a global historical perspective, seem extraordinarily presumptuous? If we accept and welcome the growing prosperity of regional powers like Brazil, South Africa, India and China, why do we not accept and welcome their growing regional security roles? To be frank, it is simply just, rational, and realistic to expect a strengthening Brazil to become the watchdog for South America. It is simply just, rational, and realistic to expect a strengthening South Africa to become the watchdog for Africa. It is simply just, rational, and realistic to expect a strengthening India to become the watchdog for South Asia. It is simply just, rational, and realistic to expect a strengthening China to become the watchdog for East Asia. And it is simply just, rational, and realistic to expect America to remain the watchdog for North America.

This means that each regional power can and should maintain a blue water navy and air force appropriate to patrol regional seas and skies. For Brazil, South Africa, India and China, this means an expansion in military expenditure, global peacekeeping leadership, and diplomatic maturity and stature. For America, this means we can stop paying to be the world’s cop. And we can rewrite the paragraph to read: “The solution is for America to gracefully turn away from military rivalry in other peoples’ regions. A more prudent America would guarantee security in its own region and support other regional powers in their parallel duties. Together, all regional powers would guarantee the peaceful conduct of trade and commerce on which global prosperity depends. America therefore needs to be strong enough to guarantee North American seas alone. If America thinks it should protect Taiwan, China will think it should protect Cuba.”


What's next, India? As long as there are Rising Powers that threaten America's position in the world, it will be regarded as a "danger."


After the Economist has unreservedly promoted "free trade" now it's worried about China the rising of which is fully due to free trade.

Are we supposed to buy into this madness?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Guns and consequences: What are the costs of gun ownership?
Democracy in America 1 hrs 47 mins ago
Daily chart: Pot luck
Graphic detail July 10th, 13:44


Products and events



