There are many measures of a nation's power. Almost all are deeply flawed. The U.S. Commerce Department team that originally devised the concept of gross domestic product warned it should not be used as a measure of a nation's true economic health because it was too limited and left too many factors out. Defense spending only partially captures a nation's military capabilities because other factors -- like the political will to use force -- are so crucial to the equation. Resources are good to have but can be a curse if a nation grows too complacent about other aspects of their development because of them. Great populations are a potential source of fantastic power if the people are educated and well-employed and share the goals of the government but as we regularly see, that is often not the case.

But one unfailingly good indicator of a nation's real strength is the nature of the enemies or adversaries it fears. Truly great powers do not fear small threats or, if they come to, they diminish themselves and lift up the small. The United States has illustrated this phenomenon well as it reorganized its entire national security apparatus to respond to the threat of hundreds or perhaps a few thousands of largely disorganized terrorists of limited capabilities, extreme views, and little geopolitical traction.

But however egregious America's over-reaction to the terrorist threat was and however grotesquely it led to the perversion of our values and the undermining of our international standing, it seems positively rational and even ennobling compared to the degree to which China cowers in the presence of old men, artists, religious sects, and even words. In this, China joins the ranks of other seemingly "great" powers from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia that signaled their fundamental weakness even as they bulked up their armies and posed and postured on the world stage. Great states and great men do not fear the little guy so much that they demonize him, outlaw the expression of his views, or throw him in prison.

Yet that is just what is happening again in China as the whiff of jasmine from the Middle East wafts through its society. The Chinese were so afraid of words like "demonstration" and "protest" and even "jasmine" that they monitored and censored them on the web. They turned out police at the first signs of unrest. And they have rounded up dissidents.

Among those arrested now is avant-garde artist Ai Weiwei. Apparently the government of the world's most populous country, the world's second biggest economy, the country that spends more on defense than all others but one, is afraid of a man who perhaps best known for an installation at the Tate Gallery in London consisting of a million hand-painted porcelain sunflower seeds.  He is a prolific artist and communicator and has become a thorn in the side of the Chinese regime even after he was one of the designers behind the famous "bird's nest" stadium that became a symbol of the country during the Beijing Olympics. But he is also just one man, just an artist. Just as jailed Nobel laureate Liu Xiabao is just one man.

Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to China and likely Republican presidential contender Jon Huntsman saluted both men in an address in Beijing on Wednesday stating that they, "challenge the Chinese government to serve the public in all cases and at all times." That is the kind of challenge any government should relish. It is why governments exist. And for the leaders in Bejing to shrink and wince and draw back in the presence of these individuals and their ideas sends a clear message.

Beijing is afraid. They clearly recognize something that most observers in the world downplay. While Japan may be threatened by the fault lines on which the island is build, China is built on a volcano. Social unrest seethes just beneath the surface with hundreds of millions of unemployed, underemployed and otherwise disenfranchised people -- many very well educated and attuned to the opportunities they would have elsewhere in the world -- posing a constant threat to the current government, once revolutionary, now just another ancien regime clinging to power.

They are afraid of Ai because they know they are smaller than his ideas, smaller than all those sunflower seeds, all appearing small, all full of huge potential, straining at their shells and waiting for nature to take its course. China is big and home to a great culture. But through its fears and who it fears it reveals itself to still be a long way from being anything like a great power.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

11:09 PM ET

April 7, 2011

McCarthy

The US, for some time, pursued policies which weren't quite so totalitarian, but still reveal weakness and structural flaws. This was especially true during the 50s, and radical new voices which didn't get any power before, ie the left and minorities were gaining ground. This didn't so much mean that the US wasn't a great power, just that it was nervous about the sustainability of its power.

 

ALEXBC

12:19 AM ET

April 8, 2011

Not Exactly

McCarthy was one person, who, after only a few years of pursuing his fear-mongering tactics, was publicly shamed and disowned by the American political establishment. By contrast, the CCP's behavior does not seem to be the work of one outlying individual. It has been hardening its habits for decades, through five generations of party leadership, and would never contemplate the type of PR about-face that felled McCarthy.

Besides: the pervasive fear in the US during the 1950s was the USSR, which was a credible, robust threat to US security. McCarthy overreacted and poisoned the political culture for a few years, but his transgressions should not overshadow the reality of the USSR being a real menace. It was in an entirely different league than modern "threats," such as al-Qaeda for the US, or dissidents for China.

The McCarthy analogy only makes sense if you concede that China's government is made of thousands of McCarthies who, rather than fearing a nuclear-armed superpower, direct their anxiety toward "old men, religious sects, and even words."

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

4:53 PM ET

April 8, 2011

^^^^

WTF does this have to do with China arresting an artist?

 

DDSNAIK

11:26 PM ET

April 7, 2011

I don't mind piling on

Can't so far as to say that China's fragility or stability are actually challenged, but in addition to Rothkopf's other perfectly valid points, how about the rules by which the PRC has come to such exalted economic prominence ?

Any country which continually pegged it's currency to a more established and historically robust currency instead of having the confidence to float it, paid only lip service to quality control measures, reported whatever data is felt appropriate and beneficial without any issues of accountability or transparence, or and ignored environmental regulations and fallout entirely would be able to offer a rosy or strong portfolio. The real trick is to be able to do it on more of a level playing field.

 

MARTEILLE

1:34 AM ET

April 8, 2011

This "Article" is Opinion based on ideology

His opinion is based on an ideological narrative that does not include reasonable facts to back up his idea that one of the most important criterion that a Superpower has is a well educated populace and a democratic system of political engagement. If we were to follow and believe on what he has written to be true, then the United States wouldn't fair well when it comes to defining itself as a superpower as he is defining the difference between China and the United States only by the degree to which both nations have engaged in undemocratic expresion.
Also, with the United States engaging in foreign military expeditions that have little result and have little support and its extreme budget deficit are probably more harmful to its superpower status than a nations lack of commitment to democracy. If democracy was the key towards prosperity, Mexico, Colombia, etc would be weathier and well-runned nations.
I can also include on why this article is flawed is cultural differences that can make his argument and opinion on why China is not a superpower irrelevent as there are different norms of behavior and Eastern beliefs in China that can make one situation perceive as very undesirable than in the United States. In China, an example is a core concept called "Harmony". Different concepts that Westerners haven't grasped can make its views outdated..

 

CHOPSTIK

12:17 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Cultural differences?

Seriously? A core concept in China called "Harmony"? And Westerners don't grasp the concept of "Harmony"? What next, arguing that Chinese have never experienced democratic (or, in your vernacular, Western) processes and therefore are culturally unable to grasp them? Maybe they're culturally predisposed to being great academics and succeeding at their studies while the West is lazily dumbing itself down? Or perhaps they're culturally predisposed to being thin since so many mainlanders are thin?

You can disagree with the article and express rational arguments. But using flawed "cultural" arguments is simply pandering to the lowest denominator and reduces the the discussion level to a more troll-like level for those who will abuse it.

 

MARTEILLE

10:52 PM ET

April 10, 2011

Last Paragraph

Afther reading your comment I was wrong on my last paragraph that I wrote about cultural differnces, though I'm still sticking to the other two.

 

MARTEILLE

10:58 PM ET

April 10, 2011

Correction

My last paragraph was badly written, though I think the other two paragraphs I written were okay and can be improved appond. Opinions aren't permanent and can always change when new knowledge comes around. Good luck

 

NICOLAS19

12:21 PM ET

April 8, 2011

China will learn

China still has to learn to become more ruthless. They are still not adept enough at dictatorship: you have to take away the names first, the person second.

The US does much-much better. It won't allow the adversaries at Guantanamo or other political prisons have names. Even after release, it wants them cast out, scattered all over the world. How are those "little guys" menacing the biggest military of the world? How come the freedom-loving country of the US is free to demonize a whole religion and culture, burning its books, attacking its countries and stigmatizing their people? Yet all we read about is the abysmal "human rights record" of other countries...

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:12 PM ET

April 8, 2011

More a case of 'nip it in the bud'

China has seen what happens if a ‘sunflower seed’ in NOT nipped in the bud.

China wants to become a great power without being suckered into disintegration from divisions within or by showing even slightest of weakness from the top. China can see that India will NOT be great power precisely because it tolerates endless divisions. China has seen that weakness at the top in leadership (first by Gorbachev and then Yeltsin) led to the disintegration of Soviet Union. China has seen that United States survived as unified country precisely because Abraham Lincoln suppressed southern rebellion with iron fist and did NOT worry about death of hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the process.

China knows that first it has to survive as a united country to become a great power. Communist Party is probably China’s ‘manifest destiny’, so much so that even a democratic country like United States decided to embrace China in spite of its dictatorial party rulers.

That Nixon-Kissinger embrace in 1972 and subsequent U. S. actions have strengthened Communist Party’s hold on Chinese society by allowing it to adopt a capitalist model under party and state authority. All the Western and East Asian democracies stayed away from China following the U. S. lead until 1972 and rushed to embrace China after Nixon visit. Opening of Western and East Asian markets has afforded Chinese Communist dictatorship to employ millions of Chinese, thereby preventing any popular outburst due to economic hardships that is causing lot of current Middle East unrest.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s economic progress would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated foresight of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to the Reagan embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

2:39 PM ET

April 8, 2011

If China wants to become a

If China wants to become a great, trusted, and appreciated super power, and member of the international community, then they will change and reform. If China wants to become another USSR, a bogeyman, and a pariah, then they will continue down the path they are on. Either way however, they WILL become a major power (they already are). How long they last as one once the world is more exposed to their unjust way of rule is what remains to be seen. Once China has it's first military conflict, that will be the ultimate marker I think as to what kind of country they will become. how will the world react to such military action?

 

NICOLAS19

2:40 PM ET

April 11, 2011

not yet

The first Chinese military conflict will not be a milestone you picture it to be. Why? Because of the US. You can see that the only wars the US tolerates are of their own makings. So regardless of nature of the first Chinese war, the US (and its bogeys) will automatically picture China as aggressor, pariah, etc.

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

4:12 PM ET

April 10, 2011

Yes but....

Point taken that a country afraid of little things indicates some kind of problem but....

Rothkopf argues that "truly great powers do not fear small threats" and gores on to list a couple of countries that fit this bill: The USSR and Nazi Germany. I am sorry, but if these countries do not count as great powers what does? Each fundamentally shaped the international system and were able to cause great suffering and turmoil that requires herculean efforts to defeat. Whether there is irony in the fact they feared small things is really irrelevant. Call them great powers or not, they are consequential.

I am wondering what Rothkopf wants us to do with his insight. Doe this mean do not fear China? If so this seems as illogical as not fearing the USSR. If it is to suggest there is a weakness within China we may be able to exploit then this article may be on to something.

 

VMITCHELL

6:48 PM ET

April 10, 2011

Liberals and China

Too bad so many on the far left are seduced by the nearly unquestioned power of a one-party authoritarian state like China; they may occasionally claim to have concerns, but deep down centralized power is intoxicating to the left, you can see it in each and every one of their actions and words - centralized power as they see it, allows the 'good' people to do, well, 'good,' while keeping all the 'bad' people in check.

While taking the prosperity, security, opportunities, and stability of the US for granted, they spend an inordinate amount of time hypocritically and shamelessly criticizing and damning the US, all while the US defends their right to do so.

They are blind to or dismissive of the literally tens of millions killed at the hands of sick leftist policies, whether its China's cultural revolution and great leap forward, Lenin and Stalin, Cambodia's Maoist Khmer Rouge, countless leftist communist guerillas in Latin America, India, and elsewhere or what have you.

Their minds are truly, deeply, unapologetically ideological, with an unmatched hatred for those who disagree with them, capitalism, and god forbid, those who make more than they 'approve' of.

Its sickening to see some taking pride in criticizing the US and capitalism, the former has promoted the latter with the effect being the greatest reduction in worldwide poverty in human history, but don't tell this to the left, they live off of hatred of the US, are committed to centralized control and eternal damnation of private enterprise and capitalism, and could care less what others think.

The anti-capitalism, anti-growth left lives to criticize the US as seen by some posts here. Class warfare (with significant doses of laziness and whining) is the ultimate clarion call for the left, the most important pillar of their ideology, and the fire that drives them towards socialism/liberalism/progressivism/marxism/maoism/communism or whatever 'euphemism' du jour they choose to use for totalitarianism. The left is shocked that people wish to live as free as possible with as little interference from the state - they are aghast that most do not want to submit all their rights and free will to the 'beneficent, all-knowing, wise, well-intentioned' left. So silly of us. They can't help but get enough of a place like China where those dumb enough to question the Communist Party are crushed. The dreams of the left...

 

VMITCHELL

6:55 PM ET

April 10, 2011

China will never have what it truly craves

China will never have what it truly craves which is the unequivical respect and admiration of the world - China, which oddly carries a huge inferiority complex while at the same time being arrogant, cocky, haughty, contemptous, and disdainful of others, can gain some respect and fear due to intimidation, military growth and the like, but being the nation which brands the Dalai Lama a terrorist, has amazingly made every neighbor wary of China forming a de facto anti-China alliance with the US in the lead, the nation which censors, manipulates, jails, suppresses, denies, contrives etc etc is never ever going to have true respect.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More