WILL CHINA BE THE WORLD’S FIRST WORLD POWER IN THE NEXT DECADE?-Author CAm. (r) PhD Corneliu BOCAI
Analysis assumed by the Maritime Security Forum
For several years now, more and more analysts, political, military, economic, based on their own analysis, studies and research, state that by the year 2030, the place of the USA as the world’s authoritarian leader will be taken by CHINA. It is obvious that their claims are based, in principle, on the strong rise and economic growth of this country (it is currently considered the second economic power after the USA and the third in military terms after the USA and RUSSIA) but also on CHINA’s desire to get involved in solving certain global problems, which concern its interests. Apparently they would be right, given that their claims are based on official data and figures, uncontested by anyone, and CHINA would be entitled to claim the number 1 position in the world. For the time being, the Chinese leadership is preoccupied with strengthening its position as a regional leader (especially in the two seas – South and East CHINA) in the area of great strategic importance delimited by the two seas. Only that in this area CHINA has big problems with its neighbors ( problems in terms of energy resources, economically and geostrategically ) such :
– with JAPAN – dispute over the SENKAKU (DIAOYU) islands – dispute over their ownership and implicitly their territorial waters, which contain substantial oil and gas resources that are necessary for CHINA’s economy in its rise to world leadership;
– with the PHILIPPINES – for the SCARBOROURGH reef – in principle for the same reasons;
– with VIETNAM and the PHILIPPINES – for the SPRATLY (NANSHA ) islands;
– with VIETNAM – for the PARACEL ( XISHA ) islands – to increase territorial waters.
The acquisition of these islands by CHINA (for the time being it is trying peaceful means, but until when will they be valid?) would increase the area of its territorial waters, giving it the possibility to exploit, without restrictions, its submarine resources and other resources… To these must be added the problems with TAIWAN, concerning the recognition of CHINA, or those with MALAYESIA and BRUNEI, related to the free sea regime! In other words, CHINA has problems with just about every country in the South-East Asian region! As these disputes cannot be settled diplomatically, CHINA will resort to a policy of intimidation, demonstrations of force, violation of the principles of international law and even threats to achieve its objectives.
In the light of these observations, CHINA will not be able, for the time being, to attain the status of a great power (as some see it in the not too distant future), replacing the status of the USA for the following reasons:
1. I don’t think CHINA wants (at least for the time being) to dominate the world as the USA did and still does. I believe that it will be content to dominate its area of interest, possibly even the Pacific and Indian areas (not all of the latter, although it has such aspirations), or it will find another way of imposing itself (in principle, of influencing the policies of those countries), different from that of force (used by the US);
2. a leading position, from a military point of view (supported by a strong economy) is usually obtained after a major conflict (war) won (as happened in the 2nd world war, after which the USA imposed itself) by CHINA, directly and less indirectly. At the moment in any major conflict in South East Asia, CHINA will inevitably clash with the South East Asian states, substantially supported by the USA, and the outcome will not be difficult to predict;
3. from the economic point of view, I believe that CHINA will not be able to sustain a prolonged crisis situation (triggered by a possible major conflict), its limited resources and the living standards of its hundreds of millions of inhabitants will not allow it to do so, at war; the discontent of the masses could quickly turn into violent protests against the communist government;
4. diplomatically, CHINA is almost isolated in SE Asia. It has no allied or loyal neighbors like the US, although it is trying to gain, through policies of rapprochement and goodwill, influence and openness for cooperation, especially economically but also militarily;
5. the existence of a state of relative tension in the area with its closest neighbors, JAPAN and VIETNAM, is not beneficial to CHINA from the perspective of a possible conflict (the history of atrocities committed by the Japanese imperial army in Manchuria in the 1930s has not been forgotten);
6. the existence of an internal problem in Chinese society (kept under control for the time being) in the minority regions of TIBET and UIGURIA-the largest provinces in terms of surface area, plus the still uncertain and unclear relations with INDIA (there are problems on the border with the Tibet region, where two fairly small territories are claimed by both states), leads it to be more cautious;
7. CHINA’S resources (especially oil, gas and minerals of all kinds) are insufficient for its development and pace of development, which leads it to import massively from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran) but also from Africa (South Sudan, Nigeria, Angola, Congo) where CHINA has imposed a policy of helping African states (taking advantage of the fact that no other power is competing with it) by writing off the debts of certain states or by investing in rail and road infrastructure, opening up mineral mines (mainly those needed by China), even going as far as military assistance! !;
8. the collapse of the USSR and later of the Russian federation between 1991 and 2000, gave the impression to CHINA that it would occupy quickly and without problems, the place left free (from a military point of view); Russia, however, with a firm and authoritarian leadership, since 2001, has “woken up” and managed in less than 20 years to regain its place, primarily from a military point of view, because from an economic point of view is far behind China (Russian exports are based mainly on oil, gas and weapons). Russia is trying to get closer to CHINA, seeking to counterbalance US policy in the Pacific area, although I believe that RUSSIA’s main interest is still in Europe (more specifically Eastern Europe);
9. the current CHINESE People’s Army has little combat experience (the last conflict in which the army was involved was in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s (China avoided getting involved in the Balkans or the Middle East in the 1990s);
10. from the point of view of the army’s endowment, CHINA possesses less advanced weaponry and combat technology compared to the USA or RUSSIA. In order to deter a state, it is necessary to have high-performance and credible military technology, which, in general, the adversary does not possess. With one aircraft carrier (also purchased from the Ukrainians and refurbished) and two others in various stages of construction, as CHINA has, compared to the 10 of the USA, you cannot dominate the world! On the other chapters, i.e. destroyers, frigates, submarines, strategic aviation, CHINA has been content to increase their numbers and less their performance;
11. – has an official alliance only with NORTH KOREA, a strategic partnership with PACHISTAN and a defense cooperation with RUSSIA, as well as other forms of cooperation with some states, but on a smaller scale! For example, the USA has official defense commitments, plus strategic partnerships with 62 countries around the world, plus NATO membership as a lead nation;
12. – the lack of military/naval bases (with the exception of Djibouti) on the territory of other states, which would ensure the possibility to intervene quickly and efficiently, affects its credibility and operational capability (something is looming in Greece – Piraeus port, in Spain and R.Djibouti). It will have to position its naval forces in sensitive points from where it can control naval traffic (as a major naval power does). The U.S. for example, which has 702 military bases in 130 countries on all continents with enough forces to control the entire planet if they wanted to;
13. limited freedom and strict control of the society, by the communist leadership, I consider as obvious hindrances in the overall evolution of the Chinese society, which in times of crisis ( I mean a large scale conflict ) it is not known how and in what way they will react;
14. is heavily dependent on large-scale transportation infrastructure – I am referring to airplanes for personal transportation, military technology, armament, which mainly comes from other countries (France, Russia.);
15. -CHINA is not an advocate of “HARD POWER”, i.e. the use of military force or economic constraints, but of “SOFT POWER”, which manifests itself through technology, communication, education, principles which it applies in particular in countries on the African continent, where it is involved in infrastructure development and not only in exchange for mineral and other resources which it badly needs in its economic rise;
16. China is also beginning to penetrate, also in the SOFT POWER spirit, Europe, more specifically Greece, Serbia, Russia and Spain, with investments in various areas of interest, primarily for this country, but also for the countries concerned.
CONCLUSIONS
So if, from an economic point of view, CHINA could aspire to be the world’s number 1 (although the other contenders are not standing still either), from a military point of view, I do not believe so. World power status is not only limited economically but necessarily militarily. When a nation combines “mastery of the seas” with continental power, and with permanent air support, regardless of the conflict zone, as is the case with the US, it is virtually invincible. At the moment in China, there is still no such thing. It’s quite another thing to have 10 aircraft carriers that you can deploy at the same time in any sea or ocean and impose your policy and interests through an appropriate strategy, and quite another to have only one operational carrier that you don’t know where to deploy first. The way societies, the world and science are evolving, we can expect anything, even spectacular upheavals, in the field of world strategy and geopolitics.