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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of