Speculation in the international relations "balance-of-power" literature has progressed to narrowly focus on China as America's most likely future military rival. This academic focus on China has recently been reinforced by the Pentagon's 2011 report on China's future military capabilities. The report stressed that China is on track to develop a modern military by the year 2020, a rapid buildup that is likely to destabilize the Asia-Pacific region, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. This assessment by Pentagon analysts triggered an immediate rebuke from the Chinese embassy in Washington which called the report "a reflection of a Cold War mentality." The Chinese embassy statement went on to add: "we hope the U.S. will take practical steps to work with China for stable and healthy military ties by following the spirit of mutual respect, mutual trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit." A call destined to fall on deaf ears.
Offensive Realism
Realists tend to hold a pessimistic view of international relations. They believe that the anarchy of the international system or the lack of a central governing authority forces the principal actors of the system, nation-states to engage in endless competition. Realists do not distinguish between "good" democratic states that respect human rights and "bad" non-liberal autocratic states. The domestic sources of foreign policy are not as relevant as the international environment. It is the distribution of power or the structure of the international system that shapes the policies of great powers and influences their behavior. Offensive realism is a realist theory of international politics developed by John Mearsheimer that emphasizes the tendency of "states to maximize power, with hegemony as their ultimate goal" (The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics 2003, p. 22). Mearsheimer believes that great powers seek to achieve regional hegemony in their neighborhood and seek to prevent other great powers from establishing a similar hegemony in their own region. In an article titled "China'sUnpeaceful Rise" published by the Journal of Current History (April 2006), Mearsheimer writes: "States that gain regional hegemony have a further aim; they seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Regional hegemons do not want peers" (p.161). Hence the United States which established regional hegemony over the Western Hemisphere beginning in the late 19th century is now actively engaged in preventing China from establishing regional hegemony in its own neighborhood, the Asia-Pacific region.
Mearsheimer believes that China will attempt to dominate "Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. An increasingly powerful China is also likely to try to push the United States out of Asia, much the way the United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere. We should expect China to come up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine" (Ibid., p.162). The realist tradition is a very rich tradition with great explanatory power, and Mearsheimer and other realists are correct in their assumption that China will attempt to rise to a position of preeminence. However, one can take issue with the widely held belief among realists that China's rise will be successful. China's rise to dominate Asia and countries such as Japan and Russia will be significantly more challenging, and is not comparable to the United States' regional hegemony over Mexico and Canada. One can also find fault with Mearsheimer's assertion that no nation-state can achieve global hegemony, and his labeling of the United States as a "regional" not a global hegemon. Mearsheimer is wrong. Not only is the United States a global hegemon, but it is arguably the strongest global power in history.
China Myth Versus China Reality
While the Unites States spends close to $700 billion annually on defense China spends less than $150 billion. Much had been made recently of China's launch of a Soviet-made refitted aircraft carrier, and its development of a stealth aircraft-- the Chengdu J-20 fighter. However, those developments are not likely to alter the pacific balance of power. In an article titled "China's Over-hyped Stealth Jet"written for The Diplomat, an international current affairs magazine, David Axe notes that most analysts predict a fleet of a few hundred Chinese J-20 fighters. "Against these, by 2030 the Pentagon will likely posses no fewer than 2,600 F-22s and F-35s in total, and with better pilots and more support aircraft, to boot. Meanwhile, the United States' closest allies in Asia will probably possess hundreds of advanced fighters of their own" (January 7, 2011). And when it comes to American-Chinese naval competition, the United States which operates eleven carriers and the larger number of nuclear powered submarines will continue to have the qualitative and quantitative advantages for decades to come. Furthermore, China's rise to dominate Asia will be frustrated by resistance from its neighbors who would move collectively to balance against it. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and India all fear China and view American power as being more benevolent. While China has territorial and maritime disputes with several Asian countries, the United States does not. This makes it more likely that the United States will remain the dominant strategic actor in the Asia Pacific region as it works with other regional actors to contain China's rise.
American Primacy Unchallenged
The status of the United States as the world's strongest power is almost without precedent. Not since Rome has a great power enjoyed such an overwhelming political and military dominant position as the United States enjoys today. The United States maintains army, air, and naval bases across continents, making it the only military power with a true global reach. Balance of power theory leads one to believe that such overwhelming power possessed by a hegemonic state would be viewed as a threat by other states that would move singularly or collectively to balance against it. However, since the demise of the Soviet Union over two decades ago no nation-state or group of states have been able to achieve an effective balance against the United States.
Unipolarity has persisted to the surprise of many, including the founder of neo or structural realism and the most influential scholar in international relations, Kenneth Waltz. In an article titled "Structural Realism After the Cold War"written for International Security Journal(Summer 2000) Waltz asserts: "Upon the demise of the Soviet Union, the international political system became unipolar. In the light of structural theory, unipolarity appears as the least durable of international configurations" (p. 27). Waltz's view has been echoed by other structural realists such as Christopher Layne. In two academic articles for International Security Journal titled "The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise" (Spring 1993), and "The Unipolar Illusion Revisited" (Fall 2006) Layne argues that the challenge to the United States can come from Russia and China or from Cold War allies such as Japan and Germany who already have an economic capacity and the ability to develop a military one as well. However, in reality the technological, economic, and military gap between the states mentioned by Layne and the United States continues to be wide. The ingredients for building a new balance against the United States are lacking—unipolarity will endure for decades to come.
