User:Sartaj.jahan/sandbox

Will The Rise of China Lead to Global Hegemonic Leadership?

A hot topic of discussion over the last few decades is being increasingly debated by think-tanks, media, scholars, journalists, governments, businesses, political analysts and even ordinary individuals across the globe with anticipation that China will soon succeed the United States of America as the world’s “Superpower”. The rapid economic growth, military expansion, international investments in China and international diplomatic influence of China signal that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is preparing to undertake the next world policing job. On the other hand, single party ruled Chinese Communist government holds tight the military and political grip of power to dismantle immense internal problems and separatist groups. This overlaps with the assumptions of Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) and structure of the international system which hold that the international system reshapes and hegemony is in transition. On the other hand, relative decline and loss of US prestige have caused worries that US is losing and China is rising.

Although US is the world’s mightiest country in terms economy and military, it is concerned about the relative growth of China. But the question is whether the rise of China will lead to global hegemonic leadership surpassing the United States of America. This paper will examine whether China is going to be the next world hegemon. The central thesis of this paper is that China lacks comparative viability to lead global hegemonic leadership like the United States. While the United States is in decline since the Great Depression of 2008 perhaps earlier, China’s economic performance is conditional on the US market stability. In context of US hegemonic decline, China lacks hegemonic theoretical examinations. To examine, the paper will first look at the China-US economic interdependence, rise of China and hegemonic decline of the United States. Furthermore, the pre-requisites of hegemonic stability theory and other theoretical examinations, and facts will be discussed in respect to China. Subsequently, the paper will also discuss China’s internal and regional problems and eventually draw a conclusion that the rise of China will not lead to global hegemonic leadership due to lack of comparative viability.

Economic Interdependence of China and US: President Richard Nixon made headlines to open dialogue with the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 1971 considering it detrimental to the economic performance of the US. Opening such a dialogue with China for President Nixon was like going to the moon (NY Time, 1971). On August, 15, 1971, in attempt to restore the economic downturn of the US, Nixon administration devalued US Dollar by eight percent to bring about positive wage and economic stability in the US. However, such Nixon economic policy did not bring any shift to the Chinese stock markets (Wang, 2010). Today after four decades, things have changed a lot. The scale of economic and commercial relationship between the US and China has been so massive and deeply interconnected. As of 2009, US is China’s second largest export market while China is the United States’ third largest consumer of American goods and services. As of 2006 US statistics indicated that the trade volume between China and the US had risen to $283.5 billion of which US was running 201.7 billion USD deficits which means that the volume of trade between the two nations had increased 60,702 times more compared with that of 1971 (Wang, 2010).

According to Kimberly (2013), the US trade deficit with China has been gradually growing. US had $315 billion USD trade deficit with China in 2012 higher than that of 2011 (295.4 billion USD). US export to China in goods in 2012 was $110.6 billion, $103.9 billion in 2011 and import from China was $399.3 billion in 2011 and $ 425.6 billion in 2012. Despite growing export to China, US trade deficit is increasing. This is due to the lower standard of living and labour wage encouraging companies. Also due to the fact that Yuan exchange rate is set to be priced below the dollar. Hence it makes it difficult for American companies to compete with China’s low cost product. Often US legislators try to impose tariffs on Made in China products to bring back jobs to US market, but it makes US consumers to pay more prices for Made in America goods. As a result, US trade deficit will be difficult to change (Kimberly, 2013).

Based on the USeconomy.com (2013), China with the largest world population of 1.35 billion people, its economy produced $12.38 trillion in 2013 based on purchasing power parity (PPP) making it the third largest in the world. The GDP per capita in China is $9,100 per person compared with that of the US $49,800 per person. Yet China is relatively poor in terms of standard of living and labour wage. The Chinese economy is directly dependent on the US market stability demands for goods and exports. 17% of Chinese exports were shipped to the US in 2012 creating $315 billion trade deficit for the US economy making China the world’s largest exporter. This Sino-American economic interdependence is expanding (USeconomy.com, 2014).

As of 2014, Chinese investment in the US doubled to $14 billion USD (Roberts, 2014). Today almost all electronics, clothing and other equipments are imported from China to the US market. The extent of market supply and demand between the US and China is further interwoven by the businesses, and companies in both countries. A lot of American companies operate in China to get their final finished products giving them higher returns due to lower labour cost. For example, Apple a Californian based electronic company gets its products assembled in China before getting them to the US markets (Revenhil, 2011 p. 296-297).

People’s Republic of China (PRC) established 60 years ago, had no official relations with the US for 30 years. Today, it is an important creditor of the US. US dependence on China is growing. Washington’s interest in China is for economic reasons. China also holds more than a quarter of US treasury securities. Its foreign currency reserve has increased to almost $2 trillion. On the other hand, China is also dependent on US market for its exports accounting for total of 17% as aforementioned (Gabor and Weiland, 2013).

Hegemonic Decline of the United States and Rise of China: The hegemonic stability theory within the international system assumes that in order for the international system to flourish, a single dominant state is required to enforce and articulate rules of interaction between the most important members of the system. Historically, many countries had led hegemonic leadership to some extends. For example, Great Britain before WWII dominated the world and led as the only hegemon. However, post WWII, the cyclical transition of hegemony slipped over from the Great Britain due to inadequacies and incapacities to do so. Post WWII, United States of America emerged to undertake the world hegemonic leadership (Karl and Armand, 2002).

Recently, it is being argued that the United States no longer dominates the world economy as it did post WWII. Although US has been in decline for a while now, yet it remains as the world’s dominant economic and military power (Fran, 2013) when compared with its closest rivals in absolute terms. However it is said that China despite its enormous internal and regional problems has made significant economic improvement. In fact, IMF has said that China will be the largest economy by 2016. The debate whether US hegemony is in decline or not was not questionable back in 1980s and even 2000s. However the bubble bust of 2008 changed the mentality of the public and politicians. Now people begin to think if the US is in decline (Emmanuel, 2013). When China is compared with the US, economically China falls $5 trillion short. In absolute terms, US still has the leading economy and military might in the world (Fran, 2013). According to the Forbes factsheet written by Jonathan Adelman, 2013 “ Why the US remains as the world’s unchallenged superpower?’’, US has the greatest soft power, receives more immigrants than any state in the world, leads world’s high tech as Silicon Valley, finance and business as Wall Street, cinema as Hollywood. As per higher education is concerned, 17 out of 20 top universities in the world are in the US according to the Jaotong University survey in Shanghai, China. Additionally, US is the world’s leader in foreign direct investment (FDI) twice than that of China ($180 billion). US spending exceeds $560 billion per year. It has the highly advanced and powerful military might in the world. US GDP is $16 trillion Dollars more than two times than that of China. U.S is the oldest operational democracy. US high stock market reflects global leadership of economy. No country or entity can ever challenge the hegemonic leadership of the US. Although China is making rapid economic leap recently, it has several decades to go before catching up with the U.S. China’s nearly half population (650 million) population is living in poverty with GDP per capita of $6,100 per person making it 87th in the world. Additionally, it would at least require four decades to become a fully modern country (Jonathan, 2013).

While US has seen a relative decline, China is said to be the world factory (Eric in Ravenhil, 2011 p.283-297). The rise of China as global economic giant corresponds with the globalization of manufacturing. China made smooth transition from central to market economy in the last three decades. Rise of economic China in economic perspectives is said to have significant impact on global market prices not only for its exports worldwide but for it is also a market for other world economies. In 2011, US had $295.5 billion trade deficit with China. In multinational perspectives, however, China is different. Much of the world factories operate in China. China has been a hub for attracting massive foreign direct investment (FDI). In 2011, it received $124 billion from the US alone. Over half of all Chinese exports are from foreign direct investment factories. This benefits both China and foreign companies operating within (John, 2011).

Chinese military expansion and US bases: As the world is witnessing, China is rapidly rising to become an economic and a military giant, but many scholars and politicians wonder whether such a transformation that reshapes the international system will be violent. The answer is dependent on how it is interpreted. In this case, when offensive realism is applied to contemporary rise of China, it assumes that as it grows economically stronger, it seeks expansion—for power is the only source of security guarantor (M. Taylor, 2010). Hence China has been accumulating material capabilities and economic expansion. On the other hand, another interpretation of rise of China via the lens of power transition theory is pessimistic. The power transition theory predicts a not conflict free transition in reshaping the regional or international system (Goldstein & Taylor, 2007). When liberal theory is applied to China, it is understood not to have pessimistically conflictual outcome—rather for liberalists, rise of China is more economic and institutional ties. As China expands economically, its institutions will be influenced by the capitalist market hence reduction in prospect for conflict. Such trend of market and institution interconnectedness is already being noted. (Fareed, 1997). Although China a single communist party ruled government, it is moving towards liberal market. The possibility of eruption of war in respect to rise of China is unlikely for several reasons. The webs of economic relations that exit between China and other powers make war unlikely to happen. The cost of war is much higher than its benefits. As any other nation, China tries to strengthen its security and safeguard its interests (Lucia, 2012).

When military capability of China is compared with that of the US, China is far behind. China cannot be compared with the US. China practices a no-interference global policy. It has taken few diplomatic initiatives in global affairs so far such as financing international media channel in English language to present its perspective, used its veto power to protect the Assad regime in Syria against the US and has opposed the US sanctions against Iran (James, 2012). Even US has been patrolling China’s nearby ports in South China Sea. Chinese are more concerned about their security threat from outside and domestic threats far from claiming to lead the international system. They have demanded 19% increase in their military spending for the next five years. Still China’s military spending is one fifth of the US spending. US has 750 military installations and bases worldwide in every continent. Chinese intelligence services are minimal and ineffective (James, 2012).

Although China is becoming richer, U.S is on a wide margin. Many economists question when China will overtake US in terms of GDP. According to the article from the Economist, reviewed by the Standard Chartered, it is suggested that China could overtake US in terms of GDP as early as 2020 while Goldman Sachs, (2013) predicts U.S. succession by China by 2027. These two foreign policy economic review articles explore that potentiality of China becoming a massive military might and economic force eventually leading to hegemonic leadership is not correct argues Tufts University foreign policy professor Daneil W. Drezner. It is correct that China has become one of the world’s greatest powers. But it does not mean US hegemonic decline. He says:

“Exaggerating Chinese power has consequences. Inside the Beltway, attitudes about American hegemony have shifted from complacency to panic. Fearful politicians representing scared voters have an incentive to scapegoat or lash out against a rising power- to the detriment of all.’’

A recent poll by the Pew Research Centre indicates that 44% Americans believe in China as the already established world economic giant compared with 27% believing that the US is the strongest economic power. This claim was refused by the Washington Post. Joseph S. Nye from the Harvard University argues that even if China overtakes the US, it has still massive poverty and infrastructure challenges to face. “Even if China’s GDP passes the US. GDP around 2027 (as Goldman Sachs now projects), the two economies would be equivalent in size, not equal in composition. China would still face massive rural poverty and enormous inequality, and it will begin to encounter demographic problems from the delayed effects of its one-child policy. Moreover, as countries develop, there is a natural tendency for growth rates to slow”.

He concludes that it is better to stop worrying that China overtakes the US. China and the US need each others to work together (Sharp, 2011).

Diplomatic influence of China: To understand the decline and rise of hegemonic power, one needs to assess the soft power of a country. Relevant to burgeoning economy and political statute of China and military hard power that China has gained over the last few decades, it has also made leap achievements in influencing regional, international, cultural, political and commercial ties (Thomas, 2012). He further adds that despite all these Chinese 21st century development, US remains global leader in soft power. The United States surpasses (PRC) People’s Republic of China in terms of global trade and foreign direct investment. It has maintained its position as the leading military actor in Middle East. U.S has influenced and has sustained imminent economic, political, military, hard and soft ties across the globe in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. Despite all these, some scholars argue that the U.S has seen some relative decline in soft power. For example, the new Chinese strategy as “win-win” approach has proved to be efficient in many ways. While the U.S along with its Western allies intervenes in domestic affairs of countries, China seems to turn a blind eye. (Rousseau, 2014) writes, as such, China has been able to stretch its soft ties from Asia to Africa and Latin America. For instance, China has been deeply involved in building bridgeheads and expansion efforts linking trade routes of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe such as commercial ports in India what is known as the ‘ String of Pearls’, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Gawadar in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mynamar, Maldives, Nicaragua and many other giant projects in Sudan and Kenya (Rousseau, 2014).

US-EU Transatlantic Free Trade Partnership: As Chinese soft and hard power grow globally, it makes one think of as if China is to soon replace the world’s wealthiest and strongest state—the US. The West has been distracted by the war in Afghanistan, Tehran and Baghdad. The world history is not written there. It will be written in Shanghai (Gabor, 2011). The current on going dialogues between the US and the EU Free Trade Transatlantic Investment & Partnership has raised concerns leading China to worry that it could be some kinds of protectionist advancement across the Atlantic (Michael, 2013). Transatlantic Trade Deal could add 0.5 and 0.4 percent to US and EU GDP. In an article written by Gabor Steingart in 2012, he argued that TTIP could hinder burgeoning Chinese economy. However, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton gave Chinese assurance that an EU-US Free Trade will not only benefit the economies across the Atlantic but it will also benefit other economies in the world. While this is the argument for now, many analysts view EU-US Free Trade as countering the Chinese economic extension and US manufacturing revival (Gabor, 2012).

Hegemonic Stability Theory & China: The surprising rise of China has become a hot debate among the IR community. Whether China is going to succeed the US at the hegemon or not is interpreted differently. However based on the translation of hegemon and hegemony and the pre-requisites of hegemony, it is essential to elaborate if China can fit into it. Essentially, hegemony is a Greek word meaning leadership. The hegemonic stability theory was developed back in 1970s in the realm of international political economy. Hegemonic stability theory requires the primacy of military and economic leader capable of articulating and enforcing rules of law among the important members within the international system (Maxi, 2012). A hegmon must have the supremacy of economic and military might to govern international system and enforce rule or force other states to play accordingly. Vinnie (2012) states that in order to be a hegemon, a state must have three attributes: the ability to enforce rules of the system, the will, and commitment to the system beneficial to the major states. Also it must have large and burgeoning economy, dominance in a leading technological or economic sector and strong military power. As such, it is essential to examine whether or not China falls under such definition.

In a short time China has become a major global factory. China’s annual economic growth is 9.5% and has widespread investment in the world. Historically, when a hegmon rises, it is followed by conflict as argued by Martin Jacques and Niall Fergus IR scholars. China cannot dominate the world and it will not become a hegemon. China’s history has proved that it is a regional superpower. Whether China will grow further or not is also a question. Currently it has internal problems as Uyghur separatist thrive for nationalism and independence within China. Fareeed Zakaria points that China harbours deep mistrust with its neighbouring powerhouses such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and Vietnam. Sooner or later these backyarders of China could join force and stand opposed to China (Massoud, 2013).

Richard N. Haas (2011) director of Council on Foreign relations writes that the threat of China is not from out side, it is internal. He argues that the West and U.S. are debating the threat they are facing from China while the Chinese have been debating the threat within China. For the last three decades, despite the promise of Chinese government, millions are unemployed; over 650 million people nearly half of the Chinese population live in poverty. There were over 100,000 political protests in China due to unemployment and environmental degradation. China is the second largest economy in the world, but the GDP per capita output is one fifth. China is expanding its military but its military spending is a quarter than that of the U.S. China is not heading towards hegemonic leadership but it is expanding its military hype to be more powerful China (Richard, 2011).

According to an article “Rise of China” written by Luke (2011), China does not have the will to lead the international system for three reasons. Firstly, according to the poll, Chinese doubt that China is a superpower. A Chinese newspaper run by the state called Global Times in 2010 indicated that only 12% of participants believed that China was a superpower. The paper also indicated that only 57% of participants believed that China was the most promising member of BRICS. Secondly, China has verbally said it several times on separate occasions that it will not be a hegemon nor does it have any interests. Since days Chinese soldiers were in places like Korea, Mao said that he would restore the Middle Kingdom but would never seek hegemony. Thirdly, when the geography of China is taken into account, China does not have the ability to be hegemon. Geography and reliable neighbours are the pre-requisites of hegemony. In order to become a hegemon, a state must have favourable geography and at least a dominant navy. As compared with the US, U.S. has two massive seaboards, reliable neighbours, dominant military, strong navy, leading economy, regime openness, democratic statehood, and reliable neighbours. Taking all these pre-requisites of hegemonic theory into account, it is apparent that China lacks the comparative ability to lead the international order (Luke, 2011).

Barbra translates from Zheng that neither China will follow the path of Germany leading to World War I or path of Germany and Japan leading to World War II nor will it aim to dominate the world in pursuit of hegemony. Hu Jinato the then president of the People’s Republic (PRC), during the 60th anniversary of UN Summit reiterated that China will not seek hegemony. China will pursue its goals peacefully under the United Nations framework (Barbara, 2013). Barbara states that China’s reiteration of not seeking global hegemonic leadership has become a sort of Chinese “mantra” repeating in almost on all occasions that China does not have the will to seek hegemony.

Additionally, apart from the Chinese “mantra” of hegemonic unwillingness, when the pre-requisites of hegemony are taken into account, it appears that China will not be a superpower for several reasons. For instance, China has the world’s largest income disparity. While some are rich, majorities of the population are peasants and poor. A large number of its population is unemployed which is fuel for fire. It is a trading nation. It relies on trade and US is its biggest market. In terms of agriculture, U.S. is far ahead of China although it is a growing agricultural country. 80 percent of its water comes from Yellow and Yahtzee which is expected to dry up by 2025. Militarily, China has basic infantry of which only 65 percent is properly equipped. It is landlocked by neighbours, has never seen combat. Any neighbouring country could easily impose naval blockade to destabilize the unstable internal China (Mike, 2014).

Juris (2014) argues that China will be a big power but it will not be the next superpower though because of its economic growth, it is a strong country. However the growth of China is not stable to overtake the US. On the other hand, China has already territorial and regional and economic disputes with neighbouring countries such as South China Sea and India. Majority of those Chinese neighbouring states have strong ties with the US than China. A country with internal single party ruled corruption infected could be destabilized by internal fuel and outside intervention. Any aggressive behaviour by China over its neighbouring countries could divert the ambition of China becoming the next U.S. Ragha writes that a non-democratic government cannot become a superpower. So far 8% or 10% economic growth of China, size and capacity of its military are all on white paper. Such data could have been exaggerated. The Chinese government has never allowed foreign observers. Thus such data is not reliable (Ragha, 2014).

As discussed earlier, innovation in high tech and type of government are other prerequisites of hegemony. When innovation and government regime are considered, China lacks both. Pisar (2014), for instances argues that the US has the Silicon Valley, creates and invents new technology we have ever seen, thus, creating value from nowhere and fuelling its economy. In contrast, China has become a world factory but does not have any innovation. Also China is a communist country. Almost all industry is owned by the state. A communist state cannot be fully integrated into competitive market. In contrast, U.S. has an open competitive market. Industries thrive to compete and innovate or will go bankrupt while in China government artificially imposes low value currency, poor labour standards and state owned financial institutions leading to enhance poor competition.

In Conclusion, the relative decline of the US, rise of China and the question whether China is going to lead the global hegemonic leadership is not new. It was predicted before. However recently, post 2008 financial crisis that hit the U.S, it has become an even hotter topic of discussion among the IR scholars, journalists, media and policymakers. The rapid economic growth, military expansion, international investments in China and international diplomatic influence of China signal that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is preparing to undertake the next world policing job is a rumour that is hedging the headlines. Given, the extensive reviews of literatures, scholarly written research papers and theoretical examinations, it appears that China although a world manufacturing warehouse and a rising economy is not going to lead the global hegemony for several reasons at least. Notably, it lacks comparative viability in all dimensions to do so when contested with the United States of America. China is a trading economy. Thus, its economic performance is conditional on the US market stability. In context of US hegemonic decline, China lacks hegemonic theoretical examinations and its pre-requisites. Although wide literatures predict that China could succeed the US by 2030 economically, the poor Chinese GDP per capita per person, diverse income inequality, demography, government regime, geography, internal problems as Uyghur, regional problems as South China Sea, military expansion unemployment, living standard, infrastructure, environmental degradation and Chinese un-willingness in hegemony are clear indicators that China has not made it and would yet require at least several decades before catching up with the U.S. Finally, it will not be a hegemon, it is not able to lead nor does it have intent in global hegemonic domination.

Bibliography & References: 1.	Ravenhill. J (2011), ‘Global Political Economy’. Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, UK pp.295-298

2.	 Thun, Eric (2011)’ Global Political Economy: Globalization of Production’. 4th Edition, Oxford University Press, UK p.283-297

3.	Itzkowitz Shifrinson, Joshua R (2011) ‘Debating China’s Rise and U.S. Decline’. International Security. Vol. 37 Issue 3, p172-177 retrieved on: 16/06/2014 available on: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=84357143&site=ehost-live

4.	Atesoglu, H. Sonmez (2013) ‘Economic Growth and Military Spending in China’. International Journal of Political Economy. Summer 2013, Vol.42 Issue 2, p.88-100                 Retrieved on: 12/06/2014 available on:    http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=93254742&site=ehost-live

5.	Taylor M. Fravel (2010) ‘International Relations Theory and China’s Rise: Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial Expansion’. International Studies Review Vol 12 Issue 4, p.29 retrieved on: 13/06/2014 available on: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55594849&site=ehost-live

6.	Onnis, Barbara (2013) ‘Has China Plans for World Domination?’ Comparative Civilizations Review; Spring 2013 Issue 68, p55 retrieved on: 16/06/2014 available on: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=87591211&site=ehost-live

7.	Wang, Dong (2010) ‘China’s Trade Relations with the United States in Perspective’. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 39, 3, retrieved on: 17/06/2014 available on: http://journals.sub.unihamburg.de/giga/files/journals/3/articles/307/public/307-311-1-PB.pdf

8.	Gilpin, Robert (2002)’ The Rise of American Hegemony’. Retrieved on: 17/06/2014 Available on: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gilpin.htm

9.	Adelman, Jonathan (2013)’ why the US Remains the World’s Unchallenged Superpower?’ Retrieved on: 24/06/2014 Available on: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/24/why-the-u-s-remains-the-worlds-unchallenged-superpower/

10.	Shor, Fran (2012)’ Declining US Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?’ Retrieved on: 24/06/2014 Available on: http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541

11.	Wallerstein, Immanuel (2013)’ The Consequence of US Decline’ Retrieved on: 21/06/14 Available on: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/2/the- consequencesofusdecline.html

12.	Husenicova, Lucia (2012)’ The China Threat Theory Revisited: Chinese Changing Society and Future Development’ Retrieved on: 24/06/2014 Available on: http://cenaa.org/analysis/the-china-threat-theory-revisited-chinese-changing-society-and-future-development/

13.	Petras, James (2012)’ China: Rise, Fall and Re-Emergence as a Global Power: The Lessons of History’ Retrieved on: 25/06/2014 Available on: http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-rise-fall-and-re-emergence-as-a-global-power/29644

14.	The Economist 2012 ‘China’s Military rise: The dragon’s new teeth’. Retrieved on: 13/06/14 Available on: http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

15.	Sharp, Chris (2011)’ Does China’s Rise Mean U.S Decline?’ Retrieved on: 25/06/2014 Available on: http://www.globalenvision.org/2011/02/04/does-chinas-rise-mean-us-decline

16.	Lum, Thomas (2008)’ Comparing Global Influence: China’s and U.S Diplomacy, Foreign, Trade and Investment in the Developing World’. P.2 Retrieved on: 11/06/2014 Available on: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34620.pdf

17.	Rousseau, Richard (2014)’The New Geography of Chinese Influence’. Retrieved on: 15/06/2014 Available on: http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/brics/2212-the-new-geography-of-chinese-influence

18.	Steingar, Gabor (2010)’The War for Wealth’. Retrieved on: 18/06/2014 Available on: http://makewealthhistory.org/2008/09/05/the-war-for-wealth-by-gabor-steingart/

19.	Roddy, Michael from Reuters (2013)’China worries about the EU-US plans for free trade pact’. Retrieved on: 19/06/2014 Available on: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-eu-us-trade-idUSBRE9460QG20130507

20.	Schoeman, Maxi (2010)’China in Africa: the rise of hegemony?’ Retrieved on: 19/06/2014 Available on: http://subweb.diis.dk/graphics/_IO_indsatsomraader/Forsvars_og_sikkerhedspolitik/Maxi%20Schoeman.pdf

21.	Vinnie (2014)’The Theory of Hegemonic Stability’. Retrieved on: 20/06/2014 Available on: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/hegemony.htm

22.	Masoud, Fahim (2014)’The Coming Collapse of China’. Retrieved on: 21/06/2014 Available on: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/02/02/coming-collapse-china/

23.	Hass, Richard N (2011)’China’s Greatest Threat is Internal’. Retrieved on: 22/06/2014 Available on: http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-greatest-threat-internal/p26930

24.	Herrington, M. Luke (2011)’Why the Rise of China Will Not Lead to Global Hegemony’. Retrieved on: 12/06/2014 Available on: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/15/why-the-precarious-rise-of-china-will-not-lead-to-global-hegemony/

25.	Atlas (2011)’Will China become the next Superpower?’. Retrieved on 23/06/2014 Available on: http://www.debate.org/opinions/will-china-become-the-next-superpower

26.	Amado, K (2013)’ U.S Trade Deficit with China’. Retrieved on: 25/06/2014 Available on: http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/us-china-trade.htm