China has Regional Hegemony Now – US Asia Hegemony Declining

This report investigates the long-term implications of Chinese regional hegemony. In a world in which the two powers are peer competitors, the future is uncertain, and leaders are free to make decisions across a wide range of possibilities likely to fundamentally change facts on the ground. When, in a certain region, one nation has an overwhelming preponderance of power, we can be more confident it will dominate that area as long as it desires to do so. While we cannot predict much about what China will use its power for, at the very least we should expect it to seek to gain more influence in its region at the expense of the U.S. and become more likely to succeed in disputes between the two nations in which each side seeks out the cooperation of others. China will be able to assert economic and diplomatic dominance over its own region even if the U.S. maintains or increases its military presence in nations like Japan and South Korea.

Checking the rise of China through alliances is unlikely, as the countries of East Asia generally do not see it as a threat to the same extent the U.S. does; nor do they share concerns about the internal human rights situation of that country or other issues, like autonomy for Hong Kong, that American policymakers have prioritized. Moreover, contemporary military alliances in East Asia actually give the U.S. little in terms of diplomatic advantage, as disputes over Huawei and other issues reveal. Even if other countries become more willing to let the U.S. defend them militarily, American influence can still decline. Given these facts, and the greater ability of China to bring about economic and diplomatic pressure on the region due to geography, East Asian countries are more likely to accommodate it than the U.S. while avoiding decisively aligning with either power.

While American leaders talk about ways to “confront China”—which usually involves some combination of stressing human rights, economic decoupling, and expanding military commitments in the Indo-Pacific—none of their suggestions will fundamentally alter the power shift currently underway. Given this reality, the U.S. should pursue two goals in the coming decades: (1) increase its prosperity through trade and (2) avoid crises and war. On this last point, that can be done by reducing its military footprint; limiting provocative actions, like unnecessary freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea or declaring that U.S. forces will defend Taiwan; and halting even implicit calls for regime change. This would not only decrease tensions, but also potentially help the human rights situation in China by reducing perceptions of threat. Effectively pursuing long-term American interests in the region must begin with clarity about what the U.S. can realistically accomplish given its distance from East Asia and weakening position over time. Those hoping democracy will win out in the global marketplace of ideas should focus less of their energy on foreign confrontation and more on reforming domestic institutions.