Hegemonic Power Transition

The rise and fall of state’s position in international system is as old as the emergence of empires
and dynasties, some state develop into a leading power or may even become as hegemonic power of
their days while others lose their leadership position, national capabilities and drop out of the contest
for the world primacy or may even lose their statehood identity.

The conceptual framework of power transition theory explain the contest between the world’s
dominants to become the most powerful state, thus, it is concerned with state’s national power and
capabilities. It is for these reasons that the researchers and scholars have came up with some power
indicators and have tried to explain and predict power transition more accurately. However, the
transition between any two states has been different compare to those of the previous one depending
on the circumstances and the situation of the world affair at that particular time, thus some power
indicators have changed as the states have systematically structured their military, economy and
political strategies.

China’s Economical and Industrial ascend has raised the question of power transition from the
United States to China for some time now. Scholars have taken different route and have presented
different argument discussing this transition. Some have predict arm conflict and dissatisfaction of
status quo of pro-west affairs and a complete redefining of the world politics and its institutions by the
emerging power while others have presenting reasons for a peaceful power transition between the two
states ( M. Jacques, p29-30). At the same time there are scholars who believe that China has already
exceeded the U.S as the most powerful state at least a quarter of century ago; on the other hand their
counterpart suggests that the epical moment of power transition will happen in the second decade of
the 21st century (Zhu).

In this article I would discuss these different conceptual arguments, compare and contrast their claims
and power indicators against some facts that are now available; look into current Sino-U.S relationship
to how it effects United States’ world supremacy; and finally, I present my prediction of when and how
possibly the transition might happen.

In order for us to comprehend the notion of power transfer we must first define the process to
clarify misunderstandings. As the theory’s very name suggests, that it involves the movement of power
from one state to another. “That is a once-dominant state loses its leadership position to a faster-
growing late comer, so that the latter now assumes the mantel of a hegemonic. In order for a power
transition to take place, the latecomer must achieve more power assets than the erstwhile leader, or at
least match the declining leader’s national capabilities” (Asian Survey by Chan p. 688).

One of the power transition theories is the Correlates of War Project, which categorize,
conceivably the most thorough and systematic undertaking to measure and track the rise and fall of
states since the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (M. Small and M Singer). The proponent of this theory
collects historical data on six factors: Total Population, Urban Population, Armed Forces Personnel,
Military Expenditures, Iron and Steel production and Energy Consumption. Each state’s relative share of
national capability in international system have been determined by the supporter of COW and then the
average of these six factors has been taken as a combined measure called the Composite Index of
National Capability (CINC) (B. Russett)
Table 1.1 provides CINC of the all major powers as of 2001. It start from 1946 the scores provided are at
the five year interval until 1986 and it jumps to 2001 due to lack of space. No major shifts take place
between the year 1986 to 1995 other than the fact that USSR dismantles to Russia but the 2001 score of
Russia is the representation of the changes in 1990s.

Table 1.1 Composite Index of National Capability

 YEAR US CHN UKG RUS Germany India
1946 .364 .133 .116 .123 - -
1951 .320 .104 .059 .173 - .050
1956 .261 .098 .049 .170 .038 .045
1961 .211 .105 .040 .174 .041 .049
1966 .209 .110 .035 .167 .037 .052
1971 .171 .112 .028 .172 .034 .053
1976 .143 .116 .027 .176 .033 .054
1981 .139 .118 .025 .169 .029 .052
1986 .137 .111 .023 .174 .026 .057
2001 .150 .134 .023 .055 .028 .068
Source: Steve Chan page 12

According to this study, the United State historically has been the leader of the world in all the
categories since 1945, but China has been closing the gap. As of 2001 last time the date was collected
only 1.12 % CINC was separating the United State from China. According to this theory one can easily
argue that China has achieved the status as the second most powerful state of the world and that in
coming decade or so could surpasses United State if maintain its economical rise. Since 2001 not only
has China have maintain its economical gain but also its economy has improved at least by 5% each year,
while on the other hand due to economic recession the economy of the United States has been severely
damaged in last few years compare to the stable and booming economy of last half of the 1990s when
the date was collected. If one believes in this theory than currently we might be at the epical moment of
hegemonic power transition between the two countries and have been witnessing a historical record.
However some scholars seem to have problems with the CINC date based on Correlates of War Project.
they suggesting that the COW focus and emphasizes traditional measures of industrialization, such as
iron/steel or coal/oil production and consumption as oppose to information technology and human
capital, which are the hallmarks of the modern economy. The huge geography, total population and
military personal of the USSR and China tilt the CINC date inaccurately in their favor, while not focusing
on the ability and agility of military personal and the technology of their weapons.

There are also other problems with this theory. Table 1.1 suggests that USSR took over the U.S
as the world’s most powerful state in 1971 and by 1986 USSR was the sole super power of the world.
This clearly could not be true as the demise of USSR happened only few years later. The above data also
indicate that CINC was not very precise about the economic performance of many states. While it clearly
fails to show the collapse of USSR economy, it also overlooks the economic growth of Germany in 1960s
and 1970s. It designate that Germany CINC are at the lowest possible time even lower then after the
World War II period, which is very problematic.

The other theory tracking the hegemonic power transition is Charles Doran’s Power Cycle that
has chronicled and trailed the rise and decline of the world’s great powers national capabilities. The
theory also tries to explain and point out the turning points of the powerful states in respect to their
own power capabilities or in other words, when a state moves from a regional power to become
hegemonic power. In addition, it assesses each great powers’ capabilities against the other world
dominant power indicator plus to the framework, style of government and history of state’s past
performance in contrast to each state’s share of power in the entire international system which was
used in CINC. Doran’s theory of Power Cycle is also a collective measure of national power, however
unlike CINC, it intentionally exclude military expenditures and provide a score on five categories: Iron
and Steel Production, Size of Armed Forces, Total Population, Coal and Oil Production and Urbanization.
Each of these categories has been given equal weight as an important component in national power
building. States standing is assessed based on percentage share of all its national power combined
computed from all its counterparts at the time (C. Doran and W. Person, Asian Survey Chan p. 691).

Due to China’s enormous population size this theory shows that China has already overtaken both the
United State and Russian some three decades ago to be precise in 1975. According to this theory power
transition between United State and China took place in the 1975 and by the mid 1990s China
theoretically was about 43% more powerful than that United State, 55% and 63% from Russia and Japan
respectively. The significant flaw in Doran’s theory is the omission of military expenditure a major
component in aggregate measure of national power equation and one of the most important power
indicator should the two state engage in armed conflict as the theory suggests if the emerging state is
not happy and benefiting from current international status quo which is established by the declining
state. The U.S military Expenditure in 1971 was 74.8 billion while USSR and China was 82,4 21,5 billion in
current U.S dollars respectively and 2001 last the date was collected U.S had $ 322,0 billion dollars
military budget as appose to Russia 63,6 and China’s 46,0 billion (I bid).

Table 1.2 Relative Capability Scores, Great Powers based on Charles Doran’s Power Cycle
YEAR USA CHN JPN RUS GMY FRN UKG

1945 40.5 6.0 20.4 7.6 8.1 17.1

1950 27.9 19.4 5.8 19.2 7.4 6.6 13.4
1955 26.5 16.7 6.8 22.8 8.2 6.5 13.4
1960 22.3 22.9 8.3 20.4 8.9 6.7 10.1
1965 24.0 20.5 9.6 22.6 8.9 5.3 8.7
1970 22.7 21.1 11.8 23.7 8.6 5.1 6.7
1975 19.9 24.6 12.4 24.8 8.0 4.7 5.2
1980 18.7 28.1 12.8 23.2 8.0 4.6 4.3
1985 18.2 27.8 12.9 25.2 7.6 4.1 3.9
1990 19.4 28.9 12.9 22.8 7.7 4.2 3.8
1995 20.7 36.3 13.3 12.5 8.4 4.6 3.8

Source: Asian Survey Chan p. 693

Just like CINC date in table 1.1 the Power Cycle Theory date in table 1.2 doesn’t take in into account the
economic stagnation of China in the 1960s and 1970s while it undermines Japan and Germany’s
economic growth. What is most imperfect and inaccurate about this theory that Russia was about 3.4%
more powerful 1990 than the U.S, a very poor representation of major historical fact-the demise of
USSR-once again, it fails to accurately represent economic decline of USSR in that period.

The other aspect of hegemonic power is the “soft power” or the power of the people within a
country and its diplomacy. The soft power of a state is primarily measured in three different categories;
its culture-being attractive to other states and cultures-its political value-the value that is being
respected and honored at home and aboard by the state- and its foreign policy-where it is not only
respected by other nations, but also other states recognize and legitimize it as a moral authority (Nye JR,
1)

Traditionally, China always have had a vibrant and dynamic culture, however, recently it is increasing in
magnitude and has been emerging as the world’s admired cultures. The Chinese Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon, movies has earned the second highest grossing non-English film position after Hollywood
produced movies; just recently novelist Gao Xingjian won China’s first literature Nobel Prize; and Yao
Ming-China’s basketball super star playing for Huston Rockets National Basketball Association team as
one of the dominant centers of his era and is an idle for billions of basketball lovers around the globe;
most importantly, China hosted the2008 summer Olympic games solidifying its position as a noteworthy
developed nation in the world, because the Olympic games could only be held in states who have the
capacity to host World’s most important event and the ability to provide security for the thousands of
athletes and fans who traveled from around the world to watch their favored athletes compete in
Olympic games, not to mention that China hosted 2008 world Exposition (Nye, JR 2).

The number of foreign students in Chinese educational institution has increased from 36,000 in the 2000
to 110,000 in 2009 a threefold increase in just a decade while Chinese cultural attracted some 17 million
tourists in calendar year of 2008. Radio Voice of American reduced its Chinese broad casting from 19 to
14 hours a day at the same time China Radio international was increasing its English broad casting to 24
hours a day; and China has opened around 200 Confucius institutes around to world to inform educate
people about Chinese cultural and tradition.

In terms of political value, even though china remains an authoritarian regime, but it seems to be
gaining more political capital in international sphere. The so called “Beijing consensus” an undemocratic
government with open market economy and China’s famous policy of “noninterference in the internal
political affairs of other nations” (E Rumer, 5) has been welcomed by more governments in Asia, Africa
and Latin America and has becoming increasingly popular than the so called “Washington consensus”
free-trade market economy with a democratic government. The West induced economic crisis of 2008
and China’s growing financial influence has given a sense of superiority to the Chinese political values
and political system especially amongst those Asian and African authoritarian regimes (Nye JR, 2).

One of the most important feature of Chinese government is it is foreign policy and over the last decade
it has improved drastically. China’s previous foreign policy was more unilateral and China had border
dispute with many of its neighbors. Since the establishment of Shanghais Cooperation Organization
(SCO) 1996, not only China has peacefully solved their border disputes, but also it has gain a competitive
edge in the Central Asian energy market and has increased Beijing’s influence with the so called “good
governance”-cooperation without condition-over the U.S policy “cooperation with the condition” (E.
Rumer). China has been an active member of United Nation providing more than 3,000 troops for UN
peacekeeping operations; it has been the most important player in the six party talks with North Korea;
and has been playing a great diplomatic game with Washington over Iran’s nuclear issue, and has been a
member of several other Asian and world organizations (I bid).

Chinese notion of “cooperation without condition” has been welcomed by many authoritarian regime all
over the world, especially it has been embraced by the Muslim nations who seen U.S as an exploiter and
imposer of its policies and political agendas. One of the most important feature of U.S policy and a focal
point of U.S administration is the minimization of the religion role in the government or the so called the
promotion of secular regime, due to this fact more and more Islamic nation is tilting in favor of the
Chinese “cooperation without condition” particularly after the War in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan is a
great partner of China even though it has been working closely with U.S on the war on terror, Iran, Syria
and Sudan has a great relationship with China too (Zhiqun Zhu).

These were all some historical analogies and facts that put China amongst the greatest contenders of
the world primacy. All the previous power transitions have never followed the above theory and pattern
or in that matter any other theory and it never will do so. Like I have mentioned above each power
transition is different due to many variable that exist in today’s world politics, thus it makes every power
transition very unique. These analogies only provide a clear and simply and reliable theory to recognize
the contenders, it doesn’t suggest that every power transition theory will follow the exact same pattern
every single time. If this would have been true than not a lot of super powers would have lost their
supremacy as they would continue to stay as the leader of the world in these national capabilities
therefore, would maintain their hegemony, plus Anglo-American power transition would not have been
peaceful as all the previous transition took place via armed conflict. Moreover, history has shown us
again and again the uniqueness of each power transition, it tell us that each hegemonic power transition
is different and exclusive depending on the world affairs of the time, nevertheless these national
capabilities play a huge role in recognizing the competing factors, yet never does the national
capabilities grantees the supremacy of state based on these power indicators. If this would have been
the case then Japan and Germany would have been the number two and three contender behind U.S,
but clearly this is not the case as their policies and their dependence on other players contradict this
notion (Renee, P 310).

What make China special in this power transition theory is, its policies and ambitions that puts China
aside from the rest of contenders, while sometimes in some categories it doesn’t act as contender and
keep a low profile, but nevertheless it actions have alarmed many. Based on my research and my
understanding China is already in some areas taken over United State hegemony in many aspects. It is
important to know, however that it doesn’t mean that China and U.S would swap positions or U.S would
become another Burkina Faso. Even after China completely takeover U.S and become sole superpower
U.S still would be the second most important player; the different would be that the world would
become multipolar as appose to unipolar era of U.S supremacy. It means that the U.S would not be able
to take a major political and military action like it took against Iraq in 2003 all by itself; it means that
many great players would emerge in the international system and there would be more accommodation
and more debt about world issues.

I consider the Chinese power takeover a long three decade transition. In first decade Chinese economy
will exceed that of the U.S economy which could be the second decade of the twenty-first century. In
the third decade of the twenty-first century we would see a complete political and diplomatic take over
by China although we have been witnessing parts and pieces of right now but currently I consider this a
partial takeover. Finally, may be by 2035 or 2040, Chinese military will emerge as strongest military, thus
china would become to sole superpower of the world.
China’s economic growth provides us more than enough courage and reason to argue for the China’s
economic ascend in the expense of declining U.S dollar and economy especially after the 2008 global
financial crisis. Almost all the scholars and financial organizations would agree that in coming few
decades China’s economy will overhaul the U.S economy, for example in 2003 Goldman Sachs
predicated that Chinese economy would exceed U.S economy by the year 2043, but only six years later
after the west induced global economic crisis Goldman Sachs changed the year of overtaking from 2043
to 2027 (Ferguson p 3).

Thus, there are many unkind ramifications for US economy and foreign policy during the coming years.
First of all U.S dollars would lose it is prestige value as the “global reserve currency” and China’s call to
replace dollar with the new reserve currency justifies the decline of US power. Oil and natural gas would
no longer be bought and sold by U.S currency that currently provide U.S with more than $ 10 billion per
year on exchange rate from oil export and import. The dollar decline will force U.S into making hard
decision as Christopher Layne put it “between achieving ambitions foreign policy goals and the high
domestic costs of supporting those objectives” (Layne, p 5). Aside from dollar’s value and foreign policy
implication, Washington will face many internal crises as well. Enormous spending habit of U.S on its
military and other issues which is in large part financed by foreign state, will lead to higher portion of
the government earnings getting diverted into interest payments. Repaying debt interest that reached $
196 billion in 2010 fiscal year, and is projected to reach more than $700 billion by 2018 which exceeds
U.S defense spending and it might reach to a surprising 716 percent of U.S economy by 2080, add on top
of this, social security, Medicare, Medical and other social welfare program cost it will paint a very grim
picture for U.S economy (Fillingham p 5).

As pointed out the economic challenges faced by U.S doesn’t predict good long-term future either. The
increasing ratio of retirees to workers, the high indebtedness to China and Japan will push U.S fiscal
problems deeper into the red. As of 2009 China obtains $ 789 while Japan holds $ 757 billion in U.S
treasury securities. Most importantly all these challenges and growing dependence of U.S on foreign
capital, will severely effect U.S military and diplomatic freedom to maneuver in this competitive edge.

In twenty first century geo-politics is driven by geo-economics as David Lai quotes Clausewitzian logic
“Geoeconomic will dominate geopolitics. War is the continuation of politics, and more directly is the
continuation of economics” (Lai 3). In one area where China is directly challenging U.S hegemony and
limiting its power and influence is the political power or what political scientists call the “soft power”.
China’s soft power is designed to effectively limited U.S primacy and this power enumerate from
Chinese economy.

China’s future capabilities not only will dependent on its growing economy, evolving technology and
effective military policies, but also on its trade, accessibility to energy and other mineral rich regions
therefore, China’s future is vulnerable to a number of factors such terrorism, inter-political situation and
dependence on energy resource. Chinese soft power or diplomacy evolve around these vulnerability,
not only to make sure their economy is expanding, but also their trade routes are safe and secure and
they have access to oil and natural gas producing region of the world to maintain such thriving economy.

Much of Chinese successful diplomatic gains come at the expense of U.S diplomatic loose. As I have
mentioned above that the Beijing Consensus is becoming more popular every day. It is due the fact that
Beijing doesn’t want to interfere in internal affair of another state as appose to the U.S that seeks to
export democracy and better human rights, plus more and more authoritarian regimes are emerging
into the world politics as Kesselman put it “a new form of authoritarian regimes have emerged that my
display the trappings of democracy” (Kesselman and Krieger p62). The end of Cold War produced more
competitive authoritarian regime throughout the world especially in Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique,
Zambia, Zimbabwe) Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan,
Filipinas, South Korea, Singapore, all of the Arab world) and in Latin American, (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay,
Peru, Venezuela, Argentina and many more), not to mention that majority of these states were on U.S
side or at least favored U.S policies over the USSR one (I bid). But since China’s rise almost all of these
state tilted their policy more toward China than United States. Some of these states such as those of
Central Asian or Middle Eastern ones have very important geo-strategic and geo-economic value that is
slipping away from U.S influence (pabst).

As Zbigniew Brzezinsky an advisor to Carter administration on U.S National Security writes in his book;
Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework in 1986, that whoever control gas and natural resource rich
region of Central Asian and the oil rich states of Middle East will be the world super power in twenty
century, is clearly the case. United State on the losing side in Central Asian region due to activities and
polices of Shanghai Cooperation Organization , whilst in Middle East still it holds Sudia Arabia, Kuwait
and UAE, however it clearly have lost Iran, and Sudan in Africa -another oil rich state-and China is
improving its economic ties with Kuwait and especially with United Arab Emirate.

China has taken its diplomatic offense to another level throughout Asian and Africa especially that of
Middle East and Central Asia to gain access to lucrative natural resources for both domestic and foreign
market exports and especially to limit U.S influence in the region. Some of China’s recent initiatives are
as follows;

a. Sponsoring a free trade zone with ASEAN nation to ensure China’s access to growing market;
b. Continues its economic and military, especially arms development aid to Pakistan to limit India’s
role in the region especially that of Middle East;
c. As a co-founding member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization China has established a great
relationship with natural resource rich Central Asian states such Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia part of this relationship is economic ties, which has given
political weigh and admiration to China which was under U.S influence during the last decade;
d. Working closely with rival India on bidding and exploration of Central Asian resource;
e. Holding a pen-African conference in Beijing to reassure its African counters parts of China’s
economical and technical help while not interfering in their domestic affairs;
f. Securing and investing extensively in oil and gas in Sudan;
g. collaborating closely with Iran on energy policies may include nuclear proliferation;
h. China is about to complete an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to Xinjing province of China;
i. Starting work to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to China.
j. Working closely with Egypt to manufacture Chinese cars in former Daewoo plant (Lai p 9).

Much of Chinese trades take place via the sea. In order for China to maintain safe and secure sea routes
not only from terrorist activities, but also from other powers who could easily chock China by closing its
blood lanes, its economy specially oil, gas and steel supply routes, should an arm conflict take place
between them. It is for this reason that China has been busy for the past decade or so modernizing its
military in pace that has surprised many.

China’s ever expending economy has permitted Beijing to increase its military budget. China’s military
spending is proportional to its economic growth. Chinese economy tripled in the last half of 1990s while
its military expenditure raised by 20 percent from 1991 to 1995 and by 1998 its military expenditure was
54 percent more than that of 1991 (Khalilzad,Shuslky, Byman, Cliff Orletsky Shlpak and Tellis 37-8).
Although U. S military is far more superior to that of People’s Liberation Military (PLM) and United State
spends four times more on military expenditure then their Chinese counterpart, but nevertheless PLM
modernization has alarmed many in the United State. The PLM include regular ground army, navy and
air force branches with an annual expenditure of $ 140 billion as appose to U.S defense spending of
$540.9 billion for fiscal year 2011 according to CIA world facts book.

Table 1.3 present a simple comparison of United States and Chinese military capabilities, not only U.S is
for more superior in every single category, but also ship for ship U.S equipment and technology is greatly
superior than most of Chinese military capabilities. In order for China to catch up with U.S mighty
military it will take China more than at least three to four decades if the U.S military and capabilities
doesn’t evolve furthermore. However, that being said China is just not another regional power that its
military capability won’t pose any danger to U.S national interest for four reasons.

First and foremost China is armed with nuclear weapon that can reach most of the U.S territory which
greatly undermines U.S military capabilities as it would be clear that most of U.S commander would not
like to take military action against any adversary that could infect sever harm into U.S society. Second,
the total size of PLA which is about 2.4 million will be a great challenge should they face each other in
arm conflict. Third, PLA hold a greater verity of tactical surface to surface missiles with different ranges,
warheads, and reentry system which would be difficult for U.S ballistic missile defense (BMD) to defend.
Lastly, the huge geographic size of the country would be a challenge to U.S forces with many targets to
carry an operation specially if there is any anticipation of striking back (I bid p 47-8).

Table 1.3 present a basic comparison of U.S. and China Military Capabilities (2005)
Type of Weapon U.S. China
Nuclear Warheads Total 10,350 200 (approx.)
Operational 5,300 145 (approx.)
Intercontinental Ballistic Number 500 ~ 20
Missiles (ICBM) Warheads 1,050 20
Sea-Launched Ballistic Number 336 12
Missiles (SLBM) Warheads 2,016 12
Submarines (SSBN) 14 (Ohio-class) 1 (Xia-class)
~2 (Song-class)
~4 (KILO-class)
Strategic Bombers Number 115 N/A
Warheads ~1,955 N/A

Source: Managed Great Power Relation by Zhao. Some of the information is modified based on the
information from the book The United State and Rising China by Khalilzad,Shuslky, Byman, Cliff Orletsky
Shlpak and Tellis page 49 & 51.
China the world leader in oil export and leading buyer of oil, natural gas and other resource is no longer
welling to trust the American navy to provide security for its maritime trade lanes is heavily investing in
PLA navy. More than one third of Chinese military spending goes to navy reflecting Beijing’s priority and
the importance of navy in the twenty first century power capabilities. According to a 2009 Pentagon
report China currently holds more than 250 vessels, 60 submarines and about 75 “principle combatants”
(Wong p3).

China’s new strategy of “far sea defense” is the indicator of what the New York Times reporter Edward
Wong calls “sense of self confidence and willingness to assert its interests abroad” and this was made
very clear to their U.S friends when two senior U.S official visited China in March of 2010, Jeffery Bader
and James Steinberg, were told that China would no longer tolerate U.S navy activities in its Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) part of South China Sea as china’s “core interest” of sovereignty (I bid).

China is flexing it is naval muscle in other part of the world as well. Just in recent months for the first in
modern history Chinese warshipes docked in port of Abu-Dhabi in UAE while in mid April two Chinese
submarines and eight destroyers were hovering around between two Japanese islands en route to
pacific. China is also acquiring four air craft carriers from Russian builders with specific specification for
Beijing which has concerned U.S official as Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of United State Pacific
Command put it to the Congressional committee that “of particular concern is that elements of China’s
military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region” (I bid p2).

Control of space and its technologies is one of the most important factors of national capabilities in
twenty first century and China is not very far behind the U.S in this technology either. China successfully
has flown many satellites for communication, surveillance and meteorological system and currently five
Chinese spacecrafts orbit the space. The FSW-3 series is the newest generation of photoreconnaissance
satellite that could provide 1-meter resolution, plus China also has advantage of free rider on space
capabilities of other nations such as U.S LANDSAT, Israeli Eros, Russian GLONASS, U.S GPS, French SPOT
and Russian remote-sensing satellite via Chinese National Remote Sensing Center (Khalilzad,Shuslky,
Byman, Cliff Orletsky Shlpak and Tellis p 58)

When and how the U.S hegemonic days would end nobody is sure of not even the Americans who are in
charge of making plans and policies for future-they might have some indication, but still couldn’t be
sure- because the empires and super powers have the capabilities of functioning irregularly at the edge
of chaos for quite some time and would appear to be at the equilibrium, but in reality might be
continuously changing trying to adapt and become stable. As Niall Ferguson puts it “But there comes a
moment when complex system go critical. A very small trigger can set off phase transition from a benign
equilibrium to a crisis a single grain of sand causes a whole pile to collapse, or a butterfly flaps its wings
in the Amazon and brings about a hurricane in southeastern England” (Fergusan p 3).

All of the above is a conceptual framework and theoretical approach to the Chinese threat and how it
has gaining supremacy on American economical and political decline. And could be flawed as no one
knows what the future holds and how it unfolds the unexpected and un-anticipated circumstance which
will provide different scenarios and tallies. I have indicated in another place that we live in an age of
nuclear armed states, and some very week state could and have the ability to inflect sever wends on a
very strong player of international system. Thus, any prediction of future is dangerous and could be
unrealistic, nevertheless the American hegemony has shown the signs of infectious disease of over
stretching, enormous spending, in datedness to foreign state and most importantly economic meltdown
that has have caused all of the previous superpowers and hegemonic power their mighty capabilities.
Now for how long American hegemony can function at edge of destruction is doubtable amongst the
scholars, however, we might be waiting for just the butterfly to flap its wing and blow the destroying
wind of U.S hegemony either from within or from other side of the world or it may not happen at all.
 Bibliography

Readings in Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas by Mark Kesselman and
Joel Kriegera copyright of Houghton Mifflin Company 2006 published by Charles Hartford.

US-China Relation in the 21st Century; Power transitin and peace by Zhiqun Zhu 2006 published by
Routledge.

Steve Chan, China, The U.S, and the Power Transition Theory: A Critique; Routlege, Abingdom, UK 2008

The United States and a Rising China; project Air Force Rand Corporation by Zalmay Khalilzad, Abram
Shulsky, Daniel Byman, Roger Cliff, David Orletsky, David Shlpak and Asley Tellis.

A NEW SUNRISE IN THE EAST: China will emerge over the next half century as the world’s leading power.
But how will Chines hegemony will be expressed, and how will the west deal with its displacement and
sense of loss? By Martin Jacques (June 2009), pp. 29-30 accessed << April 9, 2010>>, via Academic
search primer.

Is there a Power Transition between the U.S and China? The different Faces of National Power by Steve
Chan. Asian Survey, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Sep. – Oct., 2005), published by University of California Press pp. 987
– 701, what I quoted is 689-691 accessed << April 6, 2010>>, via JStore.

The COW project has spawned huge literature, for one of the earlier descriptions about this project; see
Melvin Small and J. David Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816-1980 (Beverly Hills,
California: Sage, 1982). The information was taken from
The original analysis of national material capabilities can be found in J. David Singer, Stuart Bremer, and
John Stuckey, “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965,” in Peace, War
and Numbers, ed. Bruce M. Russett (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. 1972), pp. 19-45. A subsequent account
explaining the expansion which is available on line at http://cow2.la.psu.edu <<accessed April 10>> the
web site doesn’t allow the print the information.

China, Russia and the Balance of Power in Central Asia by Eugene B. Rumer; November 2006 <accessed
May 1, 2010 From Strategic Forum> the main focus of the article is how China is taking over the Central
Asian oil and gas resources while U.S and Russia could not come to consensus on who should provide
the security for this volatile region.

Hard Decisions on Soft Power; Opportunities and Difficulties for Chinese Soft Power by Joseph S. Nye JR.
published by Harvard International Review summer 2009 <accessed May 1, 2010 from Strategic Forum>
the author argues how U.S has to make hard decision that would it like to accept Chinese supremacy in
expense of being engage in two wars.

Complexity and Collapse; Empires on the Edge of Chaos by Niall Ferguson; Foreign Affairs; Mar/Apr2010,
Vol. 89 issue 2, 15p <accessed May Apr28, 2010>>

China Threat; Power transition theory, the successor state image and the dangers of historical analogies;
Australian journal of international affairs; the journal of the Australian institute of International affairs
by Jeffery Renee <<accessed via political Science Abstract>>
Central Eurasia in the Emerging Global Balance of Power a Publication of American Foreign Policy
Interest 2009; by Adrian Pabst <accessed May 8, 2010>

Chinese Military Seeks to Extent its Naval Power by Edward Wong; the New York Times; www.nytimes
.com/2010/04/24/world/asia/24navy.html

American Decline by Zachary Fillingham 2010; www.geopoiltical monitor.com/American-decline-1

accessed Apr 28, 2010

The Waning of U.S Hegemony –Myth or Reality? A Review Essay by Christopher Layne volume 34,
Number 1, Summer 2009 accessed from Political Science Abstract May 10, 2010.

China’s New Multi-Faceted Maritime by David Lei published by Science Direct <accessed Via Political
Science Abstract May 5, 2010>

American Foreign Policy Interests. Central Eurasia in the Emerging Global Balance of power by Adrian
Pabst published by American Foreign Policy Interests accessed Apr 28 via Political Science Abstract.

The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 30, No 4-5, 607-637, August-October 2007. Managed Great Power
Relations: Do we SEE “One-Up and One-Down? By Quansheng Zhao from American University accessed
via Jstore on May 5, 2010.

Source that are studied but not cited

China’s Strategic Culture: A Perspective for the United States by Colonel Kenneth D. Johnson June 2009
<accessed from Strategic Studies Institute/Army

The G-2 Mirage by Segal, Adam published by Foreign Affairs: May /Jun 2009, Vol. 88 Issue 3, p14-23
<accessed via Academic Search Premier April 28, 2010>>

China’s Role as America’s Creditor by Mike Whitney Apr 08, 10; www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/chinas-
role-as-americas-creditor-1 accessed Apr 23, 2010.

America and China Engage in a Currency War by Finian Cunninghm Apr 06, 10;
www.geopoilticalmonitor.com/america-and-china-engage-in-a-currency-war-1; accessed Apr 12, 2010