Size matters, of course: economic, politics, military, culture, people, etc.. and smart diplomacy, too.
How did a small country such as England become as superpower for centuries, the British Empire?
Many things take into the making of a superpower. China should think about it!
There are many factor to consider one is a superpower, in my first post, i listed the ancient Greek (Macedonian Empire) as a superpower, although it's land and it physical influence is not as much as the latter Roman Empire or even comparable to the Mogol, but the fact to the matter is it's Alex (Too lazy to type the whole thing) who is popular enough and strong enough to claim victory to some fight they don't even actually fought. That alone is a general fear that whatever you do Mr Alex will come and kick your butt, it kinda like the current position American President, the problem is once Mr Alex is dead, Macedonian Empire is no more.
China yet to produce a fearsome Leader, which is a problem, by fearsome i mean the world dare talk about him and think he's all that. As i think theis is one very definite indication to any superpower in the world, when you talk about the King of the British Throne or When you talk about the president of the United States or When you talk about the leader Stalin of the Soviet Russia, it seems different to when you talk about the leader of the Communist party of China.
The definition of a superpower varies greatly.
What are the factors/characteristics of a superpower?
Is it Economic? Financial? Military? Political? Science & Technology? Natural Resources? Cultural? Media?
Maybe ALL of them.
And if a country is a current superpower when does it ever stop becoming a superpower?
As i mention in the Opening post. During the course of History, a Super Power stop becoming a Superpower when either they
-Expand too quick and got dissolve (Roman Empire)
-Meet and destroyed by another Superpower (Soviet Union)
-Incompetent Leader drove the Superpower to the Ground (Macedon)
One of the most famous strategies from Sun Tzu is said to be "attack the near and ally the distant". That's what we're trying to do now to prepare for the inevitable confrontation with the US' back to asia strategy.
I can hardly agree with your comment about the so called "soft tactics", what China did during the past several decades from the 1980s or even earlier showed exactly that the foreign policy of China was definitely not tough enough due to the lack of our core competitiveness, that's also why many countries around China dare to challenge the traditional authority of Chinese power in some disputable area and treat China as "Paper Tiger". China has long been kept restraint from direct confrontations, and propose to develop the disputable area altogether. However, this peaceful motion does not earn any respect from those who seems innocent as baby but vicious as snake.
I do admit the importance of the so called "soft tactics", however, it's not the most important mission for CHina currently. It's just like two legs of our human being, one can never step ahead with both of them moving together, there must be a priority! China has no problem with its current foreign policy, it's right to become tougher to the outside and looser to the inside, then here comes the major problem, the potential unstable factors inside the country itself. If China can keep on developing stably for another 20 years, you might have the chance to see the rise of another super power! And surely we will outport our soft power by then!
You misunderstood the concept of "Soft Tactics"
Expansion usually either done by Economic Concession (Soft) or Military Conquering (Hard) you need to play hardball but while at hand, you also need to play it soft, US does not get all the regonition by starting war all over the world, they do start war but by helping another, they gain allied. Or by supplying resource or sharing them, they got their allied
Soft tactics does not mean you go soft on your foreign policy. It just mean you use another way beside force to solve the problem.
OK, then can you explain me what does it mean: Sun Tzu´s "attack the near and ally the distance" and what do you mean with preparing for the inevitable confrontation with the US' back to asia strategy?
Do you mean China was too soft and now needs to adjust the stragegy? Do you mean confrontation is the answer for China to become a superpower?
He just misunderstood the whole concept of Soft Power......
