Has the mantle of global leadership passed from the US to China?

[Post Colonnial]

with US hellbent on sliding and China making slow but steady progress, the gap is decreasing - but is still very vast. Politically, economically, developmentally, militarily and scientifically US is still leagues ahead. Not knocking China but the US system, for all its faults does benefit due to better education, better management systems and better underlying technical quality. Of course a series of idiotic presidents and dysfunctional congress have and are trying their hardest to ruin the USA and let's hope they do not succeed!

However it is quite conceivable that a two level world order emerges with the US leading a set of top tier democratic countries and China leading a 2nd tier of dictatorial, militaristic and pseudo democratic nations. In fact this would be better since controlling / dealing with certain rogue nations is better done via China than the US.

 

[Nanga Tarzan]

China has to invade at least two Muslim countries before they can be conferred the title!

 

[jhungary]

When every one speaks against you, you should start to think that maybe there is some truth in what they believe.

So you are saying today United Kingdom is not the same British Empire before Ireland Independence?

I believe in intelligence, again, people can say anything, there may or MAY NOT have some truth behind it, it's what intelligence is for, I don't need to believe what everyone eles's say.

And no, not everyone Against me, only one, you look at this thread and see how many people are echoing my point, and how many are echoing his??

 

[Holmes]

With two American flags you really shouldnt be talking about 'stealing land'. . But then again, you maybe one of those 'Indian Americans' not 'American Indians.' LOL!

I'm an Indian American. Lol.

 

[Jacob Martin]

The problem with money is, you pay good money, people follow you, but one day someone comes up and throw them more money, then they will follow that guy instead of you.

That is, actually, the crux of the issue. This is a simple lesson from life which hides in plain sight.

When someone (person/organization/country) exercises hard power, they are only as good as the money they can throw around. The moment they stop throwing that money around, no one listens to them anymore. The only option left in that scenario is to exercise military power.

OTOH, with soft power comes a certain breathing space wherein one doesn't have to either bribe it threaten others for compliance on everything. Having to exercise hard power wears one down and is unsustainable in the long run.

Granted, the US may well lose its soft power and China may gain some in the future. As of now, however, that is not the case. Except for ONE country which I need not mention, there is nowhere else they can rely upon just on the basis of friendship and historical ties alone. That is not an insignificant fact.

 

[Nan Yang]

The term "Financially Dependent" does not actually exist.

Look at the real world, we all depending on the bank one way or another, you may have a mortgage, a repayment for your car, credit card debt, personal or commercial loan. If we don't pay back the bank, they screw us with taking our home, cars, business or whatever, but did the bank ever dictate how we live?

Financial assistance is tangible, you either loan to someone who have secure asset which can guarantee the repayment for the debt, or you go insecure, and lose it all if they failed to pay, as a bank, they cannot ask you to go here and there just because you owe them money, the same thing is with country-country relationship.

China investment may have allow the Chinese to dictate the term for their development, the problem is, what if that country cannot pay up? Nothing is actually going to happen, unless China invade those country that cannot repay their investment, you do not have anything tangible that would allow China to gain any form of advantage, because you loan me money for the some infrastructure and I owe you money, I won't actually cede my territories to you.

In reality, foreign investment is actually a bad idea if your goal is to dominate a country, you may operate on a moral system where people have some say about the money or resource I lend to other, but in reality, you invest or lend me something, I may be grateful to you, but then I will just take your asset and go do whatever the heck I want with it. Will I listen to you if you lend me money? Nope.

Take a recent news as an example. China loan the money to Sri Lanka for Port Operation, the port failed and China simply loses the money, they can't get anything in return. Nor can they dictate the term with Sri Lanka government.

Did China have influence on Russia and Arab counties? Russia does not work the way the Chinese does, or wanted. They are group together because of a common enemy, which is the US, and time and again, China and Russia themselves have dynamic relationship, not one was under the influence of the other. There may be cooperation, but no influence.

And which Arab country actually under Chinese Influence? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Syria? UAE? Qatar? Oman? Libya? Lebanon?

I can see almost all of them have either US bases or Us troop on those country, but no Chinese bases or Chinese Troop on those country, Chinese does not dictate the term with these country, US, on the other hand, successfully influence at lease some (Namely Jordan, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia)

China just hosted an international summit attended by almost 30 head of state!
When was the last time US hosted an international summit and how many head of state actually show up?

 

[Stuttgart001]

China is far from the globe leader and has no interest in the mantle of leading world too.
China could not even lead North Korea ,who else nations could be led by China.
All China want is cooperation with others based on mutual interests.
If one state find it is beneficial to work with China together, he would come to China. If not, it is ok .
Seeing what happened in Siri Lanka, it is a norm , cause you could gain or lose in a business.
China would not use money to buy the leader ship,cause it is impossible to make it.
Pls everyone do not anticipate the future of China in a traditional hegemonic way.
Most of Chinese now only care about their own lives in reality.
Those Chinese nationalists on PDF are very rare in China , most of which are even not living in China.
China would continue to develop good relationship with other states based on national interest that is not including leading others.

If anyone is unsatisfied with the leadership of US , I suggest you to look up to India whose leaders always talk about super power, surpassing US in 20xx and leading others. Indian have the ambition and anti-US nations should rely on India a real super power.

 

[jhungary]

That is, actually, the crux of the issue. This is a simple lesson from life which hides in plain sight.

When someone (person/organization/country) exercises hard power, they are only as good as the money they can throw around. The moment they stop throwing that money around, no one listens to them anymore. The only option left in that scenario is to exercise military power.

OTOH, with soft power comes a certain breathing space wherein one doesn't have to either bribe it threaten others for compliance on everything. Having to exercise hard power wears one down and is unsustainable in the long run.

Granted, the US may well lose its soft power and China may gain some in the future. As of now, however, that is not the case. Except for ONE country which I need not mention, there is nowhere else they can rely upon just on the basis of friendship and historical ties alone. That is not an insignificant fact.

The question on international politics is never really this simple and one dimensional, no country can control another country simply by controlling one aspect, many people think a country is calling the shot just because it. The reality is, if money are throwing at people, then people would expect to take the money and leave, no one is actually going to stay behind.

The soft power have to be able to back up with Hard Power, power projection is the key to rein control from soft power, there is a Chinese key phase which is very suitable to describe the situation, 山高皇帝遠 - which mean Hill is high and the king is far away, which used to mean the tribunal state is far from the dynasty and the dynasty cannot control them all, when you are 10,000 miles away from the source of money, you cannot expect to be able to control what that country do.

Also, soft power can actually be shared. In the case of Politics and Foreign Relation, there are always 3 choices, Hostile, Friendly and Neutral. Take India as an example. India is hostile to Pakistan, but Friendly to Russia, which is hostile to the US, however, India also cordial with Russia enemy - the US, and amicable to China. Which is Friendly to Pakistan. Even India and Pakistan have turbulent relationship, India is still the destination of investment from China and US.

Soft power alone does not control anything, it's a "leeway" or a breathing room, as you said, but never hard control of a situation.

China just hosted an international summit attended by almost 30 head of state!
When was the last time US hosted an international summit and how many head of state actually show up?

lol, EU meets every year in Belgium and 28 of EU leader and Head of States + 3 EEA member attends, which mean 31 nations head of states, what does that mean?

On the other hand, the last time US Start a war called Operation Enduring Freedom 16 years ago, 28 NATO States and 23 Non-NATO state contribute troop to the war, that's 51 nation follow the American into War, when did the last time China have that amount of Allies to fight in a war they started??

 

[LeGenD]

China really interested in the mantle of world leadership? Chinese philosophy of win-win is not suitable for this mantle because states will seek Chinese intervention in regional conflicts and harbor high expectations from it. Can China afford to stay neutral in such cases? Not an ideal situation to find yourself in.

OBOR is undoubtedly an impressive economic venture and has propelled China to global spotlight in economic matters but it may not be sufficient to dislodge US from the position of 'global leadership' because this position is much bigger than OBOR. Conversely, US holds its own in the matters of contribution to global economy and power projection (soft and hard). Unless, US implodes from within or something like that, China will not be able to capitalize and offer a substitute to the world at large.

However, nothing is certain in these matters. US appears to be solid like a steel from the outside but sinking into the realm of idiocracy beneath its hardened exterior; Americans appear to be split over various social and economic matters and political entities such as Democrats and Republicans are not able to find much common ground. Look at the intensity of character assassination of Donald Trump on American media; even Vladimir Putin felt sorry for POTUS recently. This is not the way for a state to move forward.

If I were an American, I would worry about priorities of Democrats in particular. They are working to reduce American values to level of stoneage paganism, cannot let go of politics of division, transformed political movements like Feminism into a permanent status-quo and least concerned about American debt crises.

US really needs to sort out its inner mess and establish a socio-economic framework that works for most in the country. Otherwise...