Will China Dominate the 21st Century? by Jonathan Fenby, and: Will This Be China’s Century? A Skeptic’s View by Mel Gurtov (review)

Introduction

After 2000, as China’s rapid economic growth continued into a third decade, several books projected growth forward to predict that China will dominate the twenty-first century as (notionally) America dominated the twentieth. The Gurtov and Fenby books under review both dispute that prediction, in the process exploring other issues as well. The first half of Gurtov surveys China’s international involvements, followed by a long chapter on domestic constraints, concluding with chapters involving both the PRC and the USA. The first three-quarters of Fenby survey domestic limits—political, economic, and social-environmental—on China’s foreign influence, followed by a conclusion about international limitations on China’s international roles. Both books are short and readable, grounded in the authors’ long careers and in others’ current research, providing a pointed summary of main ideas for the general reader. Gurtov provides more extensive and nuanced discussion of more works from relevant literatures; Fenby mostly advances his own argument. Both books sketch dynamics that will remain fundamental well into the twenty-first century. However, the center of gravity of the Gurtov book (published in 2013) remains the end of the relatively cautious Hu-Wen administration, while the Fenby book (published 2014) moves forward to the beginning of the surprisingly active Xi-Li administration. So the Fenby book felt more contemporary in late 2015.

Gurtov

Gurtov begins with two pages introducing the issue of “whose century?” He takes “a skeptic’s view” (the subtitle of the book), not only of the likelihood of Chinese dominance but also of the notion of American dominance and of the idea of dominance itself. His standpoint is “a human-interest approach to international affairs”: seeking what is best for everyone, particularly the impoverished and repressed. So, as he states in the last paragraph of the book, the main question underlying the book is not “whose century?” but instead how world leaders can establish cooperative human security.

A short chapter on “interpreting China’s rise” deftly sketches the range of views in both the PRC and USA. Since about 1980 the main PRC line has been to avoid geopolitical confrontation in order to pursue economic development. Nevertheless, as that development has proceeded, from about 2000 some Chinese gradually began advocating greater assertiveness. (Since the publication of Gurtov’s book, there has been some shift from caution toward activism.) American views of China have long been primarily either Critics or Engagers. China’s “rise” has added those who think America and China should constitute a “Duopoly” and those who think that China already Leads. Finally, “America Firsters” think the USA can and should continue to lead. Gurtov sides with the long-dominant Engagers. (Since publication, what many regard as the PRC’s increasing assertiveness has called into question the effectiveness of Engagement and provoked calls for the USA to reassert itself.)

A wise passage on what it would take for China actually to exercise any global leadership leads to a short chapter on “evaluating China’s place in the world.” China’s Dengist development contains too many disparate elements to constitute a coherent model that other countries can reproduce. China’s development is basically defensive, to maintain internal communist rule and achieve external national security. Unlike the USA’s claim to global leadership, the PRC’s pursuit of a “harmonious world” is vague and tempered by pluralistic decision making (perhaps less so more recently). For the PRC to exercise international leadership would be hard: it lacks not only the capacity but also countries to lead. Finally, the PRC still has a...