When China Rules the World
By Martin Jacques
It is clear that the rise of China marks the end of western global hegemony, but just what the comin
Reviewed by John Gray Published 18 June 2009
On his first visit to China as US treasury secretary, at the start of this month, Timothy Geithner attempted to reassure an audience at Peking University that there is no need to worry about the enormous holdings China has built up in US government bonds. “Chinese assets are very safe,” he declared. Geithner’s statement produced loud laughter from the largely student audience.
Unlike most western commentators, who still give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, China’s emerging elite know there is no prospect that the United States will pay back its debts at anything like their current value. The only way the US can repay its vast borrowings is by debasing the dollar – a process in which China will inevitably be short-changed. Significantly, the students’ response was not anger, but derision – a clear sign of how the US is now perceived. Resentment at US power is being replaced by contempt, as the impotence and self-deception of the American political class in the face of the country’s problems become increasingly evident.
In a characteristically incisive formulation, Martin Jacques writes that the “rise of China and the decline of the United States are central to the present global depression”. Although China remains a fast-emerging, rather than a developed, economy and even though it is nowhere near acquiring America’s worldwide military reach, the crisis has speeded up a shift in the balance of power between the two countries that has been taking place for decades. The importance of China’s advance goes far beyond the incontrovertible fact of America’s relative decline, however. If Jacques is right, the rise of China will bring the end of the western world as we have known it over the past several hundred years.
Western commentators on China fall into two main camps. The first, which we may called the China sceptics, rejects out of hand the notion that China can ever become the world’s dominant power. The second – which is increasingly vocal and influential, especially in the US – sees the rise of China as a major threat to the existing, western-dominated global system. Though the two views are not finally compatible, they can quite often be found in the same person. The awkward fact with which both of them struggle is that China’s industrialisation – the largest in history – has been achieved indigenously. China’s success is widely praised by western governments, but it has been based on a rejection of western advice.
Like climate-change sceptics, China sceptics tend simply to ignore evidence that does not fit their world-view. Even if they accept that China’s success over the past 30 years has been achieved by following a distinctive path, they can only insist that China will be compelled to westernise at some point in the future – overlooking how it is western neoliberalism, and not Chinese capitalism, that has collapsed. Or else, they must admit that China can go on developing, and even overtake the west, while remaining as different from the west as it has ever been. This last is a terrifying scenario, as it implies that if a country westernises, that does not ensure its economic success – if anything, it may be an impediment. In other words, China may be so successful because it is so different from the west. At this point, the first view of China morphs into the second and we start to hear hysterical warnings of the threat posed by China’s inexorable rise. Inside every China sceptic is a prophet of the New Yellow Peril waiting to be let out.
The common conviction of nearly all these commentators is that no country can modernise without following a western path. The message of When China Rules the World – by far the best book on China to have been published in many years, and one of the most important inquiries into the nature of modernisation – is that this assumption blinds us to the way the world is being reshaped before our eyes. Jacques’s comprehensive and richly detailed analysis will be an indispensable resource for anyone who wants to understand contemporary China; but its primary value is in overturning the assumption – almost universal in the west, and held by some in China – that, as a country develops, it is bound to evolve into something like a western state. As Jacques points out, China “may seem like a nation state, but its geological formation is that of a civilisation state”. When China was weak it had little alternative but to accept western terms of reference. As it grows richer and stronger, China is more and more affirming the inherent value, if not the actual superiority, of its ancient civilisation. Far from turning its back on its history, the country is returning to the past in order to forge a new version of modernity.
“The emergence of China as a global power,” Jacques writes, “in effect relativises everything.” The author is not endorsing any kind of fashionable postmodernism here. He is clear that there are universal human values. His argument is rather that there are many ways of recognising universal values in a modern society. All the same, the version of modernity which appears to be emerging in China does come with some rather dark spots. The deep sense of China as a unitary civilisation, together with a pervasive belief in Han superiority, leaves little tolerance for the claims of other cultural groups.
Some way may be found, the author suggests, whereby the Tibetans can coexist with the Chinese state. But, as he admits, the dominant sense of Chinese identity is essentially racial, and most Chinese look down on Tibetans with loathing. In line with this, and also for strategic reasons, “China has encouraged large-scale Han migration in an effort to alter the ethnic balance of the population and thereby weaken the position of the Tibetans who for the most part live in the rural areas and in segregated urban ghettos.” It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in building the Chinese civilisation state, Beijing is systematically destroying a unique civilisation.
A resurgent China will be problematical in a number of ways. It remains very unclear how China’s rulers view the international system. Will they try to reshape it in their own image, and if so what will the world then look like? Jacques argues that something like the tributary system that existed in the past can be re-created, but that system applied mainly to China’s nearer and smaller neighbours. It is impossible to envisage such an unequal relationship being acceptable to India or Russia or, for that matter, Japan. Again, can China extend its control of world markets while retaining its grip on its own economy? Control of capital flows has been one of China’s strengths in the current crisis. Will it be ready to compromise this advantage in order to supplant the failing dollar as the world’s reserve currency?
There are no clear answers, if only because China’s ruling elite have almost certainly not begun to answer these questions themselves. What is undeniable is that China’s ascendancy is bringing with it an international environment potentially more volatile than any in the recent past. So far, says Jacques, “The changes wrought by China’s rise have done little to disturb the calm of global waters, yet their speed and enormity suggest that we have entered an era of profound instability; by way of contrast, the Cold War was characterised by relative predictability combined with exceptional stability.”
The witless, end-of-history triumphalism that shaped western attitudes in the post-Cold War era is nowhere more misplaced than in regard to China. History is on the move again – and it is not the delusional, teleological, self-congratulating history dreamt up by liberal rationalists, which somehow always ends with themselves as the winners. The rise of China is the real thing, a world-changing event that marks the end of western hegemony.
John Gray’s latest book is “Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings” (Allen Lane)
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


24 comments
123Andrea,
If you think that the rise of China is going to in anyway promote Left Wing values you should probably take another look at China, It's people, and their history. The Left Wing may be pleased with their economic model, but just about everything else about China, including it's military policies, would send most self declared 'Liberals' running for their drum circles.
The United States is in long-term decline. This is essentially because its rate of investment is considerably lower than that of India and China. The present crisis was caused by its inability to compete on world markets. Blasphemy to the priests of neo-liberalism, but true nonetheless.
The US's ideology is also under attack, as neo-liberalism has been a failure. Nationalisations saved the US economy while the deregulators and free marketeers looked on helplessly.
China invests over 40% of its GDP. It does not depend on foreign investment, as it has plenty of money of its own. True, China is starting from a low base. One commenter above rather stupidly blames that on Mao, whereas China has been backward for centuries. Imperialist interference, including from Britain, did not help.
But China will overtake the US as the world's largest economy in a couple of decades. Cue page after page of abuse in the bourgeois media, attacking China from every conceivable angle. Certainly it would be better to have democracy there, but progressive people should recognise the rise of China as a very good thing. It makes for a multi-polar world in which US imperialism does not automatically call the shots. It provides a new economic model by showing that a predominantly state-owned economy is more efficient and generates more growth than a capitalist one. And it provides a boost for left-wing ideas across the globe.
No wonder the right-wing is so freaked out!
It is a great book about China which are rare to find these days.
However, I believe China will NOT rule the world, because it's not their nature to conquer others. They didn't do that even when they were much powerful than any other nations 2000 years ago.
But the western global hegemony WILL end because of the following:
The biggest problem for the westerners now is that we are blinded by our own biased media and biased thinking. It's funny when we see so many comments here are against China, but few of the commenters had ever been to China themselves. China is progressing, and its flexibility is far beyond the so-called "professional analysis" you can get from FT or WSJ. Even the government is flexible. They can do anything as long as the economy growth is sustained. You will only know this if you spend years in China and get involved in the actual business there.
We are often proud of our freedom of speech and our independent media system. But remember, an independent meida only means our government has no direct control over them, it doesn't necessary mean the media will always tell us the truth. In fact their views are always biased when talking about issues related to China. No wonder the Chinese don't like us. They knew our medias are lying.
Because we are mostly blinded by our own "independent" media, and I can't see any change in their way of reporting in any near future, I believe we won't be able to construct the right strategy to compete with the Chinese. And as a result, the western global hegemony WILL eventually end.
Would those praising the horrendous, entirely capitalist, worker exploitative system in China admit its
fascist nature?
China's economy has hardly been state grown; the initial special economic zones (essentially business
havens more relaxed than New Free Iraq) were around the areas with links with Taiwan or Hong Kong.
Manufacturing moved from those areas, where it had initially moved because it was cheaper, then further
inland, then inland... now a lot of it is moving to Vietnam, but China still has a lot more cheap labour to exploit. China became part of our economy, and therefore rich.
The state has had almost nothing to do with it apart from massive asset transfers to where it would prefer was rich; Shanghai and Beijing. Western companies also choose to base their headquarters there. It was Guangdong and Fujian that started the ball rolling.
Anyhow, my guess is that the fascist, nationalist, state capitalist state being created by the CCCP is going to fill the void left by 1950's America and Russia to be the friend of the tin pot third world. Leave us fuming at "human rights abuses" ho ho ho. No wars with us because our friend the H-Bomb and Japan, India, Vietnam, Korea, Russia and the Philippines all distrust China even more.
It doesn't matter whether the Western way of doing things is morally superior to the Chinese way. What matters is that the Chinese system of unlimited state power concentrated in the hands of nine men of whom eight are engineers enjoys an evolutionary superiority over Western political systems which are run by bean-counters. A regime of engineers will do what is practical and effective to conduct economic development. Bean-counters rule these things out as financially unaffordable.
This is wrong on a number of counts:
1. Western liberalism has not collapsed, however much flailing Marxists like Jacques would like to see it. True there is a financial crisis, but we'll get over it.
2. China's industrialisation has not been achieved entirely indigenously. There have been large transfers of Western technology, extensive pirating, and China's boom is largely based on exports. Indeed, its huge surpluses are a result of China exporting too much and consuming too little. China's purchasing of dollars has led to the excessive availability of cheap credit which is one of the sources of our present crisis. This current imbalance cannot continue. Where will China sell its excess production then?
3. China's rise has been impressive, but only from the low base caused by Mao's economic foolishness.
4. Jacques seems to be ambivalent as to whether China's absolutism or Western liberal democracy is preferable. Try living in China and not being able to complain.
However I agree with him about one thing, that the Chinese will do it their way whatever we say. They have no tradition of democracy, and were ruled by a divine emperor in living memory (just). However, China tends not to be stable for very long.
Leave it to a philosopher to drink so deeply of the Kool Aid as to romanticize China as being not cut of the Western cloth, but destined not merely to end Western hegemony but become the hegemon itself. It is amazing how this line of thought assumes a dynamic and ever-rising China for which there is no conceivable (much less likely) difficulty, and a United States for which there is no conceivable future but foundering and decline. One would think Mr. Gray would have been keener than to fall into the trap that snares so many aging academics who see the trends of the current day as signaling an absolute future.
Christmas has never lasted for ever for any civilisation, and west is no exception. The western civilisation like the Persian, Greek, Roman and Islamic civilisations of the past is getting old and tired; this time the world will renew itself with new Chinese civilisation. Sadly it is a very bitter pill for the west to swallow; ebb and flow of history of civilisations will continue as long as there are human beings on earth. Fukayama and his end of history was the ultimate expression of shot sighted arrogance, an ill conceived myth that died in its infancy
A foolish analysis by Gray. Economic might and industry does not by itself signify a great civilization.
Ideas, innovation, technology, science- does China lead in any of these? When it has strong judiciary, a good healthcare system and free media climate, then we can consider China close to a developed nation. Until then, China`s strength and progress will only be `skin-deep.`
The nation comes with much force, of course good enough to spur its global position. China has been in existence for a long time, longer than most of the nations of the world, it has a deep history and is depicted as the mother of most of the wonders we see in the world today...so China is just rising to perfect things it introduced long before they were 'grabbed' by the western nations...Sure enough, China will lead and rule