The biggest economic news of the year came almost without notice: China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest economy, according to the scorekeepers at the IMF. Furthermore, while China’s geopolitical status is rising rapidly — alongside its economic might — the US continues to squander its global leadership, owing to the unchecked greed of its political and economic elites and the self-made trap of perpetual war in the Middle East.
The IMF estimates that China’s GDP will be US$17.6 trillion this year, outstripping expected US output of US$17.4 trillion. Of course, because China’s population is more than four times larger, its per capita GDP of US$12,900 is still less than a quarter of the US$54,700 recorded in the US, which highlights the Western nation’s much higher living standards.
China’s rise is momentous, but it also signifies a return. After all, China has been the world’s most populous country since it became a unified state more than 2,000 years ago, so it makes sense that it would also be the world’s largest economy. The evidence suggests that China was larger (in terms of purchasing power parity) than any other economy in the world until about 1889, when the US eclipsed it. Now, 125 years later, the rankings have reversed again, following decades of rapid economic development in China.
With rising economic power has come growing geopolitical clout. Chinese leaders are welcomed around the world. Many European nations are looking to China as the key to stronger domestic growth. African leaders view China as their nations’ new indispensable growth partner, particularly in infrastructure and business development.
Similarly, economic strategists and business leaders in Latin America now look to China at least as much as they look to the US. China and Japan seem to be taking steps toward better relations, after a period of high tensions. Even Russia has recently “tilted” toward China, establishing stronger connections on many fronts, including energy and transport.
Like the US after World War II, China is putting real money on the table — a lot of it — to build strong economic and infrastructure links with nations around the world. This will enable other countries to boost their own growth, while cementing China’s global economic and geopolitical leadership.
The number of Chinese initiatives is staggering.
In just the past year, China has launched four major projects that promise to give it a greatly expanded role in global trade and finance. China joined Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa in establishing the New Development Bank, to be based in Shanghai. A new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to be based in Beijing, is aimed at helping fund infrastructure projects (roads, power and rail, among others) throughout the region. The New Silk Road land belt seeks to connect China with economies throughout the rest of Asia and in Europe through an expanded grid of rail, highways, power, fiber and other networks. The new, 21st-century Maritime Silk Road is aimed at boosting ocean-based trade in East Asia and the Indian Ocean.
All told, these various initiatives are likely to leverage hundreds of billions of US dollars in investment over the coming decade, speeding growth in the counterpart countries, while deepening their production, trade and financial ties with China.
There is no guarantee that all of this will succeed, or even proceed smoothly.
China faces huge internal challenges, including high and rising income inequality, massive air and water pollution, the need to move to a low-carbon economy and the same risks of financial-market instabilities that bedevil the US and Europe. If China were to become too aggressive toward its neighbors — for example, by demanding rights to offshore oil or territory in disputed waters — it would generate a serious diplomatic backlash. No one should assume smooth sailing for China (or for any other part of the world, for that matter) in the years ahead.
Still, it is striking that just as China is rising economically and geopolitically, the US seems to be doing everything possible to waste its own economic, technological and geopolitical advantages. The US political system has been captured by the greed of its wealthy elites, whose narrow goals are to cut corporate and personal tax rates, maximize their vast personal fortunes and curtail constructive US leadership in global economic development. They so scorn US foreign assistance that they have thrown open the doors to China’s new global leadership in development financing.
Even worse, as China flexes its geopolitical muscles, the only foreign policy that the US systematically pursues is unceasing and fruitless war in the Middle East. The US endlessly drains its resources and energy in Syria and Iraq in the same way that it once did in Vietnam. China, meanwhile, has avoided becoming enmeshed in overseas military debacles, emphasizing win-win economic initiatives instead.
China’s economic rise can contribute to global well-being if its leaders emphasize investment in infrastructure, clean energy, public health and other international priorities. Still, the world would be better off if the US also continued to lead constructively, alongside China.
The recent announcement by US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping (習近平) of bilateral agreements on climate change and clean energy show the best of what is possible. The US’ perpetual war-making in the Middle East shows the worst.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management, as well as director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS