Evaluate the view that the United States can no longer claim global hegemonic status (30)

For 1: China Economic Power > USA Economic Power

• China = world’s second largest economy ($19 billion GDP in 2024)

• Predicted largest economy by 2035

• Since joining WTO in 2001 has become global manufacturing hub

• Accounts for 30% of global manufacturing output

• Very competitive in key areas: 5G technology, AI, Biotech, Electric Vehicles

• Immense structural power over global markets and leverage over West

• Hungary supports China within the EU helping weaken Western Unity

Major companies include:

• Huawei, Tencent, BYD (prompting US sanctions)

• DeepSeek AI (major progress in early 2025) shocked US firms like Nvidia, causing a drop in their stock prices

• Econo power in high-tech sectors = geopolitical power

• “Made in China 2025” – state led industrial strategy launched 2015 to transform China into global leader in high tech industries. Goals include increase Chinese domestic content of core materials to 70% by 2025.

Against 1: USA Economic Power > China Economic Power

• Growth is still heavily reliant on exports and investment, making it less sustainable in the long term

• Debt crisis: Corporate + local government debt exceeds 280% of GDP

• Demographic crisis: rapidly ageing population + shrinking workforce

• Slowing growth: fell below 5% in 2023, far from the double-digit growth of the 1990s and 2000s

• The US dollar = dominant, makes up 60% of global foreign exchange reserves

• US soft power = 7 of the top 10 and 61 of the top 100 global brands are American (Amazon, Apple, Google, Tesla)

• The US has the worlds’ most prestigious universities, with global reputations built over decades

• Although China has growing global brands and universities, they do not yet match the global influence, trust of prestige of US institutions

• China’s economy lacks the structural foundations – global currency, dominance, trusted brands, leading universities – that underpin US economic hegemony

For 2: China Economic Power > US Economic Power

• Increasingly multipolar world - US no longer willing nor able to dominate

• Russia has challenged US military power to provide funding in Europe by invading Ukraine

• Rise of China becoming increasingly assertive in South China Sea by militarising existing island & creating artificial islands for military bases

• Increasing assertiveness of growing powers including Iran, Saudi Arabi and Turkey in both North Africa and the Middle East

• US’ military hegemony has been further undermined by its unwillingness to commit manpower and funding to all of these regions at the same time

• Trump has pressured allies e.g. NATO to increase military spending & has suggested spending be diverted to tackling domestic problems reflecting his ‘America First’ approach

Against 2: US Economic Power > China Economic Power

• Although China’s military is growing, falls far short of US military dominance so cannot yet be considered full global superpower

• US defence budget (2024): $997 billion – over four times China’s $230 bil

• US maintains 700+ military bases worldwide – China has fewer than 5

• China lacks the global military infrastructure needed for superpower states

• US leads in: military tech, training, intelligence capabilities & battlefield experience

• China has no experience of large-scale overseas operations

• In contrast, US has conducted decades of global interventions (e.g. Middle East) giving it unmatched operational experience

• China strong in South China Sea & surrounding region, but lacks the expeditionary capability to deploy, sustain and fight across world

• US can project power anywhere globally due to its logistics networks, aircraft carriers and air mobility

• Global power projection is a core requirement of superpower status

• US global military dominance continues to ensure that no country – including China – meets the superpower criteria to the same extent

The US’s military hegemony supported by:

• The Quad – in the Indo Pacific region, strategic alliance between US, Japan, India and Australia to counterbalance China’s growing influence

• NATO – Europe’s NATO principle of collective defence deters Russian aggression and gives US strong framework through which to practice and carry out collective military action

For 3: Emerging Powers’ Geopolitics > US Geopolitics

China has developed close geopolitical and economic relationships with Russia, Iran (exports 90% of its oil to China), North Korea

• President Xi’s long-term strategy is the “rejuvenation” of China as a global superpower

• Over the last decade, China has expanded its influence in the Global South through major economic and diplomatic initiatives

 

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): A Tool of Global Power

• Launched 2013; by 2024 over 140 countries had joined

• Aims to build new global trade routes & infrastructure link China with Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America

BRI increases China’s power by:

• Deepening economic dependence of partner countries on China

• Extending China’s strategic reach through large infrastructure projects funded by Chinese loans

 

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)

• Major BRI project involving highways, energy infrastructure, and trade routes connecting China to Pakistan

• Reduces China’s reliance on the South China Sea for oil imports

• Gives China political leverage over Pakistani gov by tying its economy to Chinese investment

• China now commands vast network of econo alliances that boosts global influence

• BRI establishes long-term geopolitical influence across over 140 countries

• Growing bloc of supportive states challenges US-led global dominance

Against 3: US Geopolitics > Emerging Powers’ Geopolitics

• US leads NATO (30 members), the world’s most powerful military alliance

• US maintains key bilateral alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia in the Indo-Pacific

• US has strong long-term alliances with UK, France, Germany & Japan = network of great-power partners with far more econo weight than China’s allies (e.g. Russia, Iran)

• Unlike US, China lacks a global alliance structure and has fewer than 5 formal military allies

• Many BRI projects have led to accusations of “debt-trap diplomacy”

  • Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port which China gained control over after Sri Lanka struggled to repay loans

  • This harmed China’s global reputation and led to concerns it exploits poorer states for strategic power

• China’s assertive behaviour in South China Sea + human rights concerns (treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang) damaged global image & alienated West – decline of soft power

• India once saw potential in closer cooperation with China but relations have deteriorated due to border clashes in the Himalayas, leaving India increasingly wary of China’s intentions