The twenty-first century has been hailed as The Death of the west and the Rise of the Rest. India and China already make up over a third of the world’s population and by 2050 their combined GDPs are predicted to exceed the rest of the top ten economies combined. Military strategists in Europe and the United States fear that such super-states will be impossible to keep in check. The profound economic and demographic transformations underway in Asia threaten to upset not only the balance of power, but China’s rise presents a danger to present understandings of state conduct developed during the Cold War and promulgated to the level of global norms since. The shift in material power from west to east does not necessarily mean the return of great power conflict though. Through careful reform of international institutions, affirmations of international liberal norms in both word and treaty and an avoidance of hypocritical conduct, damaging conflict may be avoided.

The recent financial crisis has shown that there is little that the west are able to do faced with the ascendancy of the Asian Giants. There are only two options for the west beyond ‘do nothing’, and both are unfathomable. The first would be to go to war. One surefire way to send these economies back to the Stone Age is to destroy their factories, salt their fields, and dismantle their universities while they are still militarily disadvantaged. This plan should sound immediately ridiculous — ‘We just don’t go to war to prevent a nation’s economy from growing!’ — it goes against the very ideals that constitute western nations. Just war theory has become entrenched around the world, and means that there must be some evil perpetrated or threatened on a country before it can initiate an adequate response. Military action is not a valid response to economic growth.

The second option for countering the tides of economic development is imposing sanctions or a blockade. As service oriented economies, the United Kingdom and United States wouldn’t be harmed as much as the export oriented economies of India and China, but it would still be economic suicide. Additionally, sanctions too violate western sensibilities and are thus out of the question. The Bretton Woods institutions and various international treaties help to regulate trade, settle disputes, and provide the basis for international economic law. Arbitrary discrimination against a country because its economy is doing well would violate the spirit of free trade and provoke a backlash from otherwise neutral nations.

With sanctions and military action out of the picture, it seems inevitable that China will continue its exponential growth. However, the rosy economic forecasts do not mean that their material power will grow at an indomitable rate. China is facing a population bubble, reaching a maximum population of just over 1.5 billion around 2030. Fewer workers are going to have to care for more elderly, placing a heavy burden on growth. As it stands, for every retiree there are ten workers — by 2050 this ratio will quadruple to four retirees for every ten workers as the median age climbs by 12 years. This contributes to predictions that China’s per capita income will plateau well before the middle of the century and at a rate substantially below the west — about half the income of the average Briton. In addition, China’s military lags far behind western standards. This deficiency will take decades to correct, although, China’s first aircraft carrier (to be launched this year) will best the Royal Navy’s present total of zero. Of the other major emerging economies, China borders Russia to the north and India to the south. While not expected to reach the size of China, they will certainly provide a formidable political barrier in the region. This is all to say that China will not have absolute hegemony. Just as Britain was not omnipotent during the heyday of the Empire, China will face limitations even while dictating the direction of world politics. However, it is this direction that will determine whether the world descends into Hobbesian conflict or remains bound by norms of peaceful coexistence.

The two norms that have done the most to avoid major conflict are free trade and just war. It is not certain that China will encourage or abide by either. In the first eleven years of this century, China has repeatedly shown its antipathy towards the operation of free trade while benefiting immensely from it. The British Empire provided for the freedom of the seas from which it and other nations benefited. The Chinese on the other hand, have threatened the property rights upon which free trade is based by claiming ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over the entirety of the South China Sea. They have artificially inflated their currency and violated World Trade Organization laws. In 2010, a Chinese fishing vessel rammed a Japanese coast guard boat off of a disputed uninhabited island prompting its detention by Japanese officials. In retaliation China cut off all shipments of rare earth metals to Japan, an economy based in large part on the processing and manufacturing of products from these metals. Evidently China has not internalized the norms of free trade, and is willing to play politics with its economy in order to settle disputes in its favour.

China’s record on following just war is even worse, denouncing humanitarian intervention as ‘ominous’ threats to national sovereignty. From supporting Robert Mugabe to stalling action on North Korea, Burma, and Iran, China has made clear that it has a different view on when the use of force is just. Forget about installing democracies in the Middle east — even interventions to prevent genocide are looked down upon. In an era of rising power, you can be sure that China will insist that its views be respected. The west ignores the Chinese view at its own peril.

Having incongruent understandings about trade and the use of violence increases opportunities for conflicts in which both sides feel legitimized. If there are two players at a board and one believes that they are playing chess and the other draughts, claims of illegal moves and sparks of anger are sure to follow. Each is blinded by its own version of the truth, and, if the stakes are high enough, violence will follow. If so easily angered over a fishing boat, imagine what a China with a modern military and the largest economy would do in a showdown over Taiwan.

This outcome is not inevitable. China can be brought towards liberal norms. In order to do this China must not perceive the bastions of these rules as hostile. It must be convinced through soft power ties and formal treaties, and the west must not destroy these norms first. This entails reforms in the World Bank, IMF, and other international institutions. Changes to these institutions will weaken the material power of the west, but will convince China to stay within their walls. Were the legitimacy of one of these organizations rejected, a coherent system of international trade would cease to exist. Trade would be governed by bilateral treaty only –- an arena in which China could use its new-found might to gain favourable deals. International institutions need to adapt to new power dynamics to retain legitimacy in the eyes of China and other developing nations.

Whenever a western head of state visits China there is the obligatory line in the prepared speech criticizing China’s record on human rights. This is not enough. The Communist Party’s legitimacy must be brought into question. China has been given a pass when it comes to its system of governance. Where the Soviet Union was ostracized from the western ‘club’, China has been, at best, ignored. By taking a harder line the west can force China to seek approval and legitimization in the international arena. Reforms to the World Bank can be tied to a language respecting world trade rules. Others can be connected with recognizing the responsibility to protect human rights. China, more concerned with power and money, will accept these deals, unaware of the reforms they encourage.

It is also vital not to sabotage the norms that one is trying to encourage. The invasion of Iraq did more to set back liberal interventionism than anything China could have hoped to do. Norms need positive reinforcement and going against them is simply counterproductive. This means that the west must consciously follow World Trade Organization laws and adhere to the guidelines for just war.

The rise of China is inevitable, but it will not be an unchallengeable hegemon and there does not have to be violence. By reinforcing norms of free trade and just war, the west may ensure that there remains a single vision for the future, despite changing power relationships.