China seems to have a dogged determination to emerge as a global leader but there are a number of factors preventing it from securing that position. For instance, most of the states in the global leadership position don’t have major territorial disputes, but in the case of China, it not only has territorial disputes with India but it is also facing a hostile environment over the issue of the South China Sea. In addition to that, Taiwan is an inveterate issue that would keep on haunting it. If Beijing tries to annex it by force, it would definitely push the world towards a conflagration besides greatly halting its own rise as a global economic power.
On military matters, China has only one nuclear ally Russia, which has been reeling under economic sanctions, while the US has three more declared nuclear powers as allies and one undeclared nuclear power. Washington also has large economic powers like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Canada and Australia in its sphere of influence. If Beijing starts pumping a large chunk of its resources into weapons and defence, then it would amount to repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union, that faltered because of its disproportionate military spending. But if it does not match its military might with that of the US, it faces the risk of being overwhelmed by the hostile environment in the South China Sea and South Asia.
A hegemon also has to make sacrifices to woo the support of other countries. For instance, one can criticise the US as much as one wants, but after all Washington did help Europe come out of the devastation that was inflicted upon the continent during the Second World War. Through the Marshall Plan, it helped Germany and other countries to rebuild themselves, besides showing to the world that the countries which are under the influence of the US can make tremendous strides within no time.
The rise of South Korea and Japan as economic powers could not have been possible without substantial assistance by the US. Washington guaranteed their security, which enabled these two states to direct their energies towards economic recovery and technological advancement. The Soviet Union, despite its limited resources, supported revolutions in Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and a number of other states besides supporting communists in East and Central Europe. Moscow sent 22,000 advisers to China soon after the 1949 revolution, helping Beijing prepare the first five-year economic plan. France and the United Kingdom extended help and succour to their former colonies by importing their manpower, which immensely bolstered the faltering economies of the newly emerged states.
The case of China is completely different. It is yet to demonstrate such generosity. Beijing is being accused of plundering the resources of developing countries, giving nothing in return. No country where China invested emerged as a modern South Korea or Japan. Developing states didn’t witness any transfer of industries or technology from China. On the contrary, its investment seems to be creating problems for the host states. Sri Lanka could be cited as one of the examples where much-vaunted Chinese investments did not demonstrate any miracles. The island state rather faced a slave master relationship which forced it to surrender its assets.
The much-vaunted China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) did not industrialise the Islamic Republic either; instead the Pakistani market has been flooded with Chinese goods and the balance of trade has been in favour of the communist country – not for months or years, but for over two decades now. Most of the Chinese investment was carried out in the power sector, adding to the financial woes of the country. The Chinese joined parasitic independent power producers, claiming huge profits with people of the country paying far more in power bills than they paid before this investment.
China secured a number of contracts that had nothing to do with CPEC. Neelam-Jhelum and other construction projects could be cited as examples. Even garbage lifting in cities like Karachi has been doled out to Chinese companies. Its investment in Balochistan did not mitigate the hardships of people there. It is believed that their problems have multiplied owing to the investment, which has also intensified the flames of insurgency.
Can Beijing say that it has created any new South Korea? Can it claim that it has rebuilt a shattered economy in any part of the global South?
Pakistani policymakers had expected that China would set up industries here or at least shift some of its assembling plants to the Islamic Republic. They followed the Chinese saying that underscores the need of building a nest to attract birds. A number of infrastructure and energy projects have already been completed under CPEC, but the country is yet to witness the growth of industrial development or rise of the manufacturing sector. Some critics believe that given the amount of security and the resources that we spend on the protection of the Chinese indicates that this investment has not been as beneficial as was being expected.
Some Pakistani policymakers had thought the labour cost in China would rise, prompting that country to shift some of its assembling plants to the Islamic Republic which would provide jobs to local people. It was also expected that China would train Pakistani youth so that they could be adjusted in these assembling plants or Chinese manufacturing units but now it is very clear that China is going to use robots on a massive scale that would address the rising cost of labour in the communist country. Therefore, it would not need cheap Pakistani manpower and it is not Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that would invite Pakistani labour to do low income jobs. On the contrary more than 60,000 Chinese worked in Pakistan over the years. So instead of providing jobs to Pakistanis, CPEC turned out to be a blessing for Chinese workers who got jobs here and investors who made tons of profit.
To be a global power, a hegemon needs a success story. Does China have a success story? It may indeed have a success story for its own people, where it has lifted more than 700 million people out of poverty, raising their living standards, wiping out illiteracy and making tremendous strides in science and technology.
But when it comes to its investment in third world countries, can Beijing say that it has created any new South Korea? Can it claim that it has rebuilt a shattered economy in any part of the global South?
Critics say it is becoming increasingly clear that China has surplus infrastructure and machinery, prompting the communist country to come up with infrastructure projects. Beijing is still reluctant to help developing countries industrialise themselves. Instead it is trying to flood markets of poor states with cheap Chinese goods. Even if Beijing tries to industrialise these countries, it is not possible for such states to manufacture industrial goods on a mass scale and at reasonable rates. Economic logic says that without mass production cheap goods cannot be manufactured.
If China really wants to be a global power, it will have to make sacrifices helping countries in the Global South industrialise, creating a vibrant working class that could also influence the way these countries conduct politics. If Beijing keeps on flooding the states in the Global South with its cheap goods, it will be difficult to buy the rhetoric of the communist country that claims Chinese investment is a win-win situation.
So far, it seems to be a one-way traffic with balance of trade everywhere seems to be in favour of China because it is capable of producing cheap goods and striking trade deals that overwhelmingly benefit itself.
It seems that so far China's economic compulsions have not allowed it to make such sacrifices, because that could affect growth of its own economy – which itself is facing challenges in real estate and other sectors.