Recently I participated in a BBC/Carnegie Endowment debate on the U.S. presidential campaign and policy toward China with the eminent and estimable former U.S. Ambassadors Chas W. Freeman, Jr. and J. Stapleton Roy, and Tsinghua University scholar Yan Xuetong. The full debate is available here.
The discussion was wide-ranging but what struck me most was an assertion by one of the panelists that the next U.S. president will have to deal with the fact that China has surpassed the United States as the number one power (based on the size of its economy). As a result, in his opinion, China will no longer feel the need to defer to the United States and the current arrangement of international institutions.
On the face of it, it is not an unreasonable assertion. After all, there has long been a view espoused in and outside Beijing that China has somehow suffered under the yoke of institutions that it did not help create. On closer examination, however, it’s not clear when China ever has deferred to the United States and the current global system. True, China has joined a number of multilateral institutions and treaties, but it did so not out of deference to the United States but because it believed it would benefit from participating. When China has determined that its interests are not served by following Washington’s lead—witness the two sides lagging, flagging, or non-existent cooperation on Libya, Iran, North Korea, climate change, cyber-security, etc.—it goes its own way.
The larger issue of what it would mean for China to be both the world’s biggest economic power and its most significant political power is also unclear. What would be the foreign policy principles that China’s leaders would espouse? “Not mixing business with politics” doesn’t seem a commanding value for a global leader, and preaching sovereignty and non-intervention in the face of human atrocity will likely not earn points for leadership. That is not to say that the United States gets it right when it acts first and thinks later; but China’s predilection for inaction appears equally, if not more, problematic.
In addition, the events of the past few weeks suggest that at this moment China is not yet ready to be a leader in its own neighborhood. In response to an undeniably provocative move by the Japanese government to purchase several of the contested Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, Beijing acted not with measured words and deeds but rashly by: allowing Chinese citizens to trash Japanese stores and factories and attack people who own Japanese products; condemning Japan at the UN General Assembly; sending marine surveillance ships to continue patrolling in the waters off of the islands; cancelling diplomatic functions with Japanese counterparts; and barring Chinese banks and other officials from participating in the annual World Bank IMF conference, which is being held in Tokyo this month. In the face of such actions, it is hard to see how, as eminent Chinese scholar Wang Jisi has argued: “China deserves a larger say in the IMF and World Bank,” and “Because China is so successful, it deserves more respect.”
China Reform editor Zhang Jianjing offers a slightly different perspective. In a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece in Caixin, he asserts that in the face of Japanese provocation, “It’s time for China to reciprocate in a calm manner, and to maintain the balance of power within the region. …taking this position means the eventual support of the international community… China’s greatest challenge is a growing group of people that are stalling domestic reforms. By comparison, managing the geostrategic realm is a low stakes game.” I don’t have the answer to the question of whether and how China will lead, but I hope at least part of the answer may rest with Chinese thinkers and leaders like Zhang.
Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, 'The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future.' She blogs at Asia Unbound, where this piece originally appeared.

Manatee
China as a world leader? No, please. I don't want my children enslaved by them.
I'd rather have the US lead because they are more reasonable.
venze
Your concept of world leadership is the standard version of western global policing, enforcing rules on others irrespective of whether they like or not. China's non-intervention policy would result in a world with less unnnecessary conflicts and futile wars. Beijing aims to promote a more harmonious global economic growth.
So, can China not be a World Leader? (vzc1943, btt1943)
venze
Your concept of world leadership is the standard version of western global policing, enforcing rules on others irrespective of whether they like or not. China's non-intervention policy would result in a world with less unnnecessary conflicts and futile wars. Beijing aims to promote a more harmonious global economic growth.
So, can China not be a World Leader? (vzc1943, btt1943)
vninsider
In a quiet and clean bathroom, one probbaly must honestly asks oneself: WHY DOES THE WORLD NEED A WORLD LEADER? Is it so because eventually "you will be either with us or against us"? or because we can keep annoucing QE1, QE2, QE3,…, QE-petrodollar-collapsing at as much low cost as possible?
With its population size and Chinese charateristics, China will eventually be the most powerful world economic leader in this century.
With its basic philosophy that multiple systems can exists under the heaven, China does not need to claim the world leadership like the British or American Empire using their gunboat diplomacy. The cost of doing so has been proven to be unsustainable.
After all, mutual benefits based on commercial relationships will bring China several followers and partners. Cultural and political benefits will follow. No country would be able to beat China economically and China's great patience well-known for thousand years.
One could not agree more with Jacques Martin's asssessment about U.S.A. vis-a-vis: China : "China is a far more formidable adversary whose ultimate strength is not its military hardware but its economic prowess, and whose diplomatic weapon is not saber rattling but great patience."
WELCOME TO THE FUTURE!
asdffdsa
I have a couple questions about your post.
1) China will not have the largest population in the future because of it's national one child policy (ignored by the rich, but adhered to by the billion in poverty). Therefore, you argue that "Chinese Characteristics", whatever those are, will be enough to make China the global economic leader in the 21st century. China will be a large market, but India will have the demography on its side.
2) Arguing with smaller neighbours over territory, and threatening war, is not how peaceful people behave. This is an utter disrepect for sovereignty, and an attempt for a big, powerful nation to humilate others. This is not acceptable, and given the Chinese peoples' shared DNA that helps them ALL internally feel 150 years of shame, I do have to scratch my head. This is imperialism. Many regional neighbours are fearful of Chinese hegemony. Why are they all wrong?
3) China's great patience? People sell poisoned milk here to get a few extra dollars today with zero regard for tomorrow's customers. How do the modern Chinese people practice patience, exactly?
Matthew Hall
How preposterous. China can't lead China, much less the world. Much as an angry 12 year old they can do some real damage though. That is the challenge for the U.S.
cate
Fullspec= the largest manufacturers of nuclear weapons are China and Russia – not the US. The US has made many wrong moves – but let's notlame the US for everything -
The question of nuclear weapons is an area where the Chinese can gain admiration and trust from the world. Right now only the US and Russia participate in nuclear disarnament talks – China has been invited but refuses to participate. The US and Russia are down to 2,000 warheads – still too many but an great reduction from the cold war levels of 50,000 (Russia) and 35,000 (USA). But because the Chinese are building and increasing their nuclear stockpiles the US and Russia will not reduce any further for fear China will have more weapons than they have. If China were to agree to stop increasing its stockiles then the US and Russia could continue to reduce the number of warheads they have. No one can seriously talk of peace while the threat of nuclear war hangs over all the people of the world. So the next move is China's – are they really a country with no plans of world or regional domination that wishes to live peacefully with its neighbors? If so – stop building nuclear weapons.
Bankotsu
All world hegemons like the U.S and Britain had naval dominance. That is a key to their power. China is still a long way off from that.
sun da pao
China, not yet. China is not ready to lead the world…yet. Time and time again, friends who do business in China came back reporting you have to lose a bit of “being a normal, decent human” and forget about the “rule of law” as we are so familiar with growing up in an environment from the British administration as generally law abiding citizens of a country and of the world. These reports are by no mean isolated cases. We are actually more fearful of China than any other feelings, considering that our forebears were immigrant from China.
America, with the worst serial murderers (faults) and the best neurosurgeons (a gift to the world), MUST still lead.