Rise of China: Hegemony or Harmony?

Abstract

This research delves into the examination of China's potential hegemony in the regional sphere, juxtaposing its substantial military capacities, strategic ambitions, and ideological underpinnings. By leveraging a methodical triangulation of quantitative data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), theoretical implications from China's policy documents, and critical analysis of China's robust infrastructure, considerable resources, and impressive capabilities, this study explores China's strategic landscape in comparison with other regional and international contenders. It establishes that, despite the formidable potential for hegemonic pursuits, China's political ideologies-Harmonious World, Peaceful Development, Chinese Dream, and the vision of a Human Community with a Shared Future, intertwined with strategic imperatives 2 and nuclear deterrence, indicate a proclivity towards preservation of the existing global order and a commitment to peaceful evolution. The research concludes that, in the foreseeable context, China will likely persist in its endeavor to foster peaceful bilateral and multilateral relationships with neighboring states, demonstrating a strategic preference for peaceful development over aggressive hegemonic dominance.

Full text

1
Rise of China: Hegemony or Harmony?
Brice Tseen Fu Lee
Fudan University, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai, China
Universidad del Desarrollo, Faculty of Government, Santiago, Chile
Oxford Global Society, Oxford, United Kingdom
ORCID number: 0000-0001-9763-0700
briceleetseenfu@gmail.com
Salman Ali Bettani
Fudan University, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai, China
19110170050@fudan.edu.cn
Juan Pablo Sims
Universidad del Desarrollo, Faculty of Government, Santiago, Chile
Fudan University, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai, China
ORCID number: 0000-0002-9772-5563
jsims@udd.cl
Abstract:
This research delves into the examination of China's potential hegemony in the regional sphere,
juxtaposing its substantial military capacities, strategic ambitions, and ideological underpinnings.
By leveraging a methodical triangulation of quantitative data from the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), theoretical implications from China's policy documents, and
critical analysis of China's robust infrastructure, considerable resources, and impressive
capabilities, this study explores China's strategic landscape in comparison with other regional and
international contenders. It establishes that, despite the formidable potential for hegemonic
pursuits, China's political ideologies - Harmonious World, Peaceful Development, Chinese Dream,
and the vision of a Human Community with a Shared Future, intertwined with strategic imperatives
and nuclear deterrence, indicate a proclivity towards preservation of the existing global order and
a commitment to peaceful evolution. The research concludes that, in the foreseeable context, China
will likely persist in its endeavor to foster peaceful bilateral and multilateral relationships with
neighboring states, demonstrating a strategic preference for peaceful development over aggressive
hegemonic dominance.
Keywords: China, Hegemony, Harmonious World, Peaceful Development, Chinese Dream,
Global Community with a Shared Future, Ideology

2
1. Introduction
In recent years, the global ascension of China has captured widespread attention. As China evolves
into a significant global entity, nations worldwide are evaluating its role and intentions. Although
China positions itself as a developing country, with Deng Xiaoping articulating a unique stance on
China's potential superpower status, the categorization of China as 'developing' is increasingly
scrutinized. Deng's 1974 discourse delineates 'superpower' not merely as a nation of substantial
influence but as one engaged in imperialism, characterized by aggression, interference, and
exploitation. He stated, “If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if
she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying,
aggression, and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism,
expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it'” (Deng 1974). This
statement implies a call to action against China if it ever adopts imperialist tendencies, not just if
it attains significant power. Considering China's current status as the world's second-largest
economy, with substantial military prowess and advancing human development indices, the debate
over its 'developing' classification persists.
This paper delves into the multifaceted aspects influencing the perception of China as a developing
nation and a potential hegemon, emphasizing the military dimensions of China's ascent. It aims to
scrutinize China's military growth, focusing on its armaments, military vehicles, and other
equipment, to understand the international community's apprehensions regarding China's
burgeoning stature. Acknowledging China's military prowess does not currently match that of
established superpowers, this study will explore the pace and extent to which China could ascend
to such a status, if it strategically leverages its resources and infrastructure towards military
enhancement.
Central to this analysis is the juxtaposition of China's military trajectory against its professed
ideological commitments to peaceful development and a harmonious global community,
encapsulated in visions like the Chinese Dream and the notion of a "Human Community with a
Shared Future." The examination seeks to determine if China's military strategy and expenditures
reflect a genuine alignment with these peaceful ideals or signal a covert pursuit of regional
dominance in East Asia. The significance of this inquiry is amplified by China's rapid economic
and military rise, posing pivotal implications for regional and international stability.
By exploring these dimensions, the paper intends to elucidate why, despite possessing the
capabilities, China might choose not to aggressively maximize its military potential. The
discussion will also consider the global implications of China's military strategies and how they
resonate with or diverge from its articulated peaceful development goals, thereby shaping
international perceptions and responses to its rise.

3
This study delves into a nuanced exploration of China's military strategy, examining how it aligns
with the country's ideological commitments and its role in the global community. The focus is on
discerning China's strategic intentions in East Asia, which is critical for understanding the region's
evolving security landscape.
The hypothesis driving this analysis suggests that China's military activities—encompassing
capabilities, expenditures, and arms trade behaviors—reflect its dedication to peaceful
development, the Chinese Dream, and the vision of creating a "Human Community with a Shared
Future," rather than an ambition for regional hegemony. This proposition will be scrutinized by
analyzing China's military infrastructure, alongside its patterns of arms production, importation,
and exportation, juxtaposed with its financial allocations to defense. The underlying premise is
that, despite having the resources and capabilities to assert dominance in East Asia, China opts for
a path that emphasizes restraint and alignment with its proclaimed peaceful ideologies. By testing
this hypothesis, we aim to examine China's military behavior from the lens of its ideological
commitments, offering a nuanced perspective to the conventional realist interpretations and
contributing to the broader discourse on East Asian security.
2. Theoretical Exploration
The ascent of China as a global power has generated varying expectations and analyses from
scholars and policymakers alike. Among the prominent realist authors examining China's rise is
Mearsheimer (2001), whose five foundational assumptions provide a framework for understanding
international relations. These assumptions are: 1) anarchy characterizes the international system,
2) all great powers possess military capabilities that could potentially be used against other states,
3) states can never be fully certain about the intentions and capabilities of other states, 4) states
prioritize their survival above all other objectives, and 5) states act rationally, strategically
evaluating the potential consequences of their actions to ensure survival. Mearsheimer (2001)
contends that hegemony provides the greatest security for states, as the more power a state
possesses, the less likely it is that others will challenge it. From this realist perspective, it is
understandable why states might be apprehensive about China's growing influence.
However, an intriguing counterargument to this realist view is offered by Kirshner (2012), who
critiques the realist school of thought as dangerous and counterproductive. Kirshner (2012) argues
that the United States lacks the capacity to impede China's rise due to factors such as foreign
exchange reserves, debt, and China's integration into the global value chain. According to Kirshner
(2012), the rise of China is not only inevitable but attempting to oppose it could be
counterproductive. Furthermore, he suggests that if China were to achieve great power status, a
hegemonic war would be unlikely as it would be self-defeating. This notion implies that China's
rise may follow a trajectory that is unique to its own circumstances.

4
To expand upon these perspectives, it is essential to consider the implications of China's rise for
regional security and global stability. For instance, realist theories suggest that the potential for
conflict may increase as China's power grows and it seeks to reshape the regional order in its favor
(Mearsheimer 2014; Waltz 1979, 103–13). However, other scholars argue that the nature of
China's rise could foster cooperation and the development of new norms and institutions, which
might mitigate potential tensions (Ikenberry 2008). This perspective underscores the importance
of understanding not only the trajectory of China's rise but also the evolving international context
in which it is taking place.
Therefore, both Mearsheimer (2001) and Kirshner (2012) acknowledge the inevitability of China's
rise, though their perspectives on the implications of this ascent differ significantly. The
uncertainty surrounding China's trajectory and its impact on the international order underscores
the wariness of competing states as they grapple with China's growing influence.
2.1.Prospects of hegemony
Various scholars suggest that China may have hegemonic pretensions, prompting states to closely
examine China's intentions and role in the international system. In that sense, Gilpin (1988) delves
into the core dynamics of international reality, drawing upon Thucydides' observations that state
behavior is primarily driven by the variance of power disparity. According to Gilpin, the causes of
war and peace are rooted in this unstable balance of power, which constantly shifts by economic
and technological fluctuations that undermine the dominant state. As China's rise potentially
disrupts the existing international order, experts increasingly focus on understanding China's
objectives within the international structure.
Contrarily, Allan, Vucetic, and Hopf (2018) provide an intriguing constructivist perspective,
arguing that it is unlikely for China strive for hegemony, due to ideological inconsistencies
between the current international order and China's own system. While their argument may hold
weight, a case could be made for China’s regional hegemonic intentions in East Asia, given the
political affinities and the substantial Chinese diaspora (H. Liu 2016). In this context, China might
have a greater chance of triggering a regional hegemonic transition in terms of ideology and
identity.
However, Beeson (2009) contests the idea of a potential regional hegemonic transition in China’s
proximity. He examines the security, political economy, soft power, and diplomacy of the US and
China in the region, concluding that, although China has made diplomatic and soft power inroads,
hegemony is primarily determined by military power and economic strength. In these respects,
China lags behind the United States. Therefore, despite some Chinese advantages in the ideological
and identity spectrum, pointed out by H. Liu (2016), hegemonic transition is primarily about power,
understood in the traditional sense. It should be noted that Beeson's analysis dates back to 2009,

5
and certain aspects have changed since then, but his central argument remains relevant: China is
still behind the United States in terms of raw economic and military capabilities.
Therefore, regarding East Asian hegemony, China does possess potential advantages in terms of
ideology, diaspora, economic strength, and regional military power. However, based on the
existing literature, it seems unlikely that China would actively pursue hegemony due to these
factors. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that China possesses the means to do so which
might potentially contribute to the wariness of states on a global level. As such, understanding the
nuances of China's rise and its implications for regional and international order remains a critical
area of inquiry for scholars and policymakers alike. Future research could explore how evolving
dynamics within East Asia and beyond may affect China's pursuit of regional influence and the
potential for hegemonic transitions.
In that regard, given the general consensus that hegemonic transitions are about power, understood
in its traditional realist perspective, this paper utilizes a realist framework. As defined by
Mearsheimer's, hegemony is a central structure for analyzing state behavior within the
international system. Mearsheimer asserts that the ultimate aim of any state is to maximize its
relative power to the extent that it achieves a hegemonic status, where a hegemon is "a state that
is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system" (Mearsheimer 1990; 2001, 40).
In this context, relative power is not an absolute measure but is assessed in comparison to the
capabilities of other states, encompassing military, economic, technological, and diplomatic
dimensions.
Mearsheimer's distinction between global and regional hegemony emphasizes the strategic focus
on regional dominance due to the formidable challenges of achieving global hegemony, primarily
because of the difficulties in projecting vast power across the world's oceans. He argues that
regional hegemony, where a state becomes the dominant force within a specific geographical area,
is a more feasible and strategic aim for states (Mearsheimer 1990; 2001, 146).
Within his framework, Mearsheimer highlights war as the primary means through which states can
augment their relative power. He posits that states might engage in warfare, accepting its inherent
risks and costs if the perceived benefits can substantially increase their relative power in the
international system (Mearsheimer 2001, 147–52). This paper leverages Mearsheimer's insights to
delve into the strategic motivations that drive states, especially focusing on their pursuit of
hegemony through the acquisition of relative power and the pivotal role of war in this dynamic.
Understanding the concept of relative power is pivotal in the realm of international relations and
military strategy. Relative power essentially gauges a state's military capabilities in comparison to
others, offering insights into its potential for dominance or hegemony. This concept is intertwined
with various facets of military strength, including capabilities, resources, and the capacity to

6
mobilize forces, all of which are crucial in determining the outcomes of interstate conflicts and
shaping national agendas (Ward and Davis 1992; Fleurant 2017; Johannesson 2017; Bennett and
Stam 1996).
The nexus between economic power and military capability is particularly instructive. A nation's
economic strength underpins its military power, enabling it to maintain and expand its military
capabilities, which in turn can influence political dynamics and strategic calculations at both the
regional and global levels (Izadi 2022). Moreover, military power, with its potential for coercion
and deterrence, is central to a state's ability to assert itself on the international stage, influencing
the balance of power in times of crises and conflicts (Izadi 2022).
The indicators of military spending, arms production, arms imports, and exports serve as crucial
but approximate measures to assess China's hegemonic ambitions within a realist framework.
Historically, the presence of a robust domestic military industry has been a necessary condition
for states with hegemonic aspirations, as seen in the cases of Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine
Germany, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the United States. Historically, these nations have shown
that a strong domestic military industry is crucial for maintaining hegemonic ambitions. To support
an arms industry, a country must not only produce military goods but also find markets for them,
as the industry would be prohibitively expensive to maintain through domestic consumption alone
(Levine and Smith 1995; 2003, 55–77). Consequently, the ability to sell arms internationally acts
as a key indicator, or an excellent proxy, of a country's military industrial strength and its
hegemonic potential.
In today's global context, the sustainability of such an industry hinge on a country's ability to not
only produce but also sell military arms, making arms production and sales pertinent indicators of
a nation's military capability and, by extension, its potential for hegemony. For China, its growing
trajectory in military spending, detailed in the tables below, and its role in the global arms trade as
both an importer and exporter, underscore its expanding military capabilities and its ability to exert
influence on a global scale.
This comprehensive view, which includes China's economic resources, military expenditure, and
arms trade dynamics, provides a nuanced understanding of its relative power. By evaluating these
elements, we gain insights into China's potential to assert regional hegemony. Such an assessment
aligns with Mearsheimer's concept of relative power, where a state's military capabilities and
economic investment in defense play pivotal roles in its pursuit of hegemony. These factors,
including arms imports and exports, not only reflect China's military engagement and influence
but also its strategic positioning in the international military network, offering a lens through which
to gauge its hegemonic potential in East Asia and beyond.
2.2.China’s ideology

7
Over the years, China has developed various theses and ideologies that have drawn the attention
of scholars in the field of international relations. Notable among these are peaceful rise or peaceful
development, harmonious world, Human Community with a Shared Future and the more recent
Chinese Dream. The peaceful rise thesis, in particular, has been the subject of significant debate,
with some arguing its feasibility while others maintain it is virtually impossible.
Yaqing (2010) contends that China's peaceful rise is not only possible but highly likely, and Buzan
and Cox (2013) agrees that such a rise is possible under certain conditions. Yaqing (2010) further
complements the argument that rather than challenging existing institutions and rules as a
revisionist, China has accepted the identity shift, institutional selection, and addressed various
challenges that have arisen. By adopting a non-revisionist approach, China has carefully and
logically navigated the international system with its unique characteristics, allowing other nations
to gradually understand its perspective. This has facilitated peaceful interactions with neighboring
Asian countries, which may share similar cultural or historical contexts.
Furthermore, the peaceful rise concept posits that China does not seek hegemony or predominance
in world affairs. Instead, it advocates for incremental reforms and democratization of international
relations, which are dependent on world peace that China seeks to continuously reinforce (Bijian
2005; Mastro 2022). Despite this ideology, other states remain wary of China's ascent. China's
"Harmonious World" concept is a cornerstone of its foreign policy, acting as a guidepost towards
a vision of global peace and stability predicated on mutual respect, shared benefits, and win-win
cooperation. As elucidated by Hao (2008), this concept is structured around three strategic
viewpoints, each offering insights into the ideological compass guiding China's international
relations.
The first, non-enemy diplomacy, is based on the premise of forging relationships devoid of
hostility. China places immense emphasis on cultivating partnerships and establishing friendly ties
with all nations, irrespective of their political ideologies, sizes, or developmental stages. This
viewpoint, rooted in the ethos of peaceful coexistence, underscores the significance of dialogue
and negotiation over coercion and confrontation, thereby contributing to a more inclusive and
cooperative global environment.
Secondly, the strategic viewpoint of open regionalism advocates for the formation of inclusive
regional groupings, as opposed to closed, exclusive blocs. This perspective promotes regional
integration, balancing it with openness towards inter-regional cooperation. China's pursuit of this
approach reflects its desire to harmonize the advantages of regional collaboration with the
necessity of fostering openness to other geographical regions, thereby promoting a more
interconnected global community.

8
Lastly, the third strategic viewpoint, the global inter-regional cooperation network, recognizes the
globalized interconnectivity of today's world, where opportunities and challenges often transcend
geographical boundaries. This approach encourages nations to develop collaborative ties beyond
their immediate surroundings, advocating participation in global cooperative endeavors. This
perspective aligns with China's commitment to multilateralism and portrays its intent to act
responsibly on the global stage.
To summarize, the "Harmonious World" concept embodies China's aspirations for a peaceful,
inclusive, and cooperative world order. By fostering positive relationships with other nations,
advocating open regionalism, and encouraging active participation in global inter-regional
cooperative networks, this policy serves as an integral framework to understand China's approach
towards its military capabilities, spending, and arms trade patterns.
The "Chinese Dream", an ideology introduced by China's current leader, Xi Jinping. Although the
concept resonates on a domestic level, its implications on the international stage are less clear. As
Z. Wang (2014) points out, the Chinese Dream is not a new idea, but rather one that has been
promoted by previous leaders. Consequently, it may incorporate elements of the "Harmonious
World" and "Peaceful Development" concepts. However, Pu (2017) argues that China is currently
facing an identity crisis, uncertain about its role in the international arena. This ambiguity could
lead to confusion among other states, as they attempt to anticipate and prepare for China's possible
future actions. Despite past policies and ideologies aimed at integrating China into the global
system, the "Chinese Dream" concept introduces an element of uncertainty that may fuel concerns
among other nations that China might adopt a more revisionist-oriented agenda in the near future.
The vision of a "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" is a central tenet of China's foreign
policy, depicting China as an emerging global leader dedicated to building a world that is more
just, secure, and prosperous (Xiaochun 2018). This concept marks a significant transformation in
China's diplomatic posture from a previously reserved stance to becoming an active global catalyst,
leading international initiatives to refine global governance and pioneer new cooperation models
for world development. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2023) illuminates this vision as a
driving force for global development, highlighting the country's deep-seated economic integration
with the global economy. China, serving as the main trading partner for over 140 nations, has been
instrumental in driving global growth, contributing over 30 percent of the world's economic growth
for a decade consistently. Further demonstrating China's commitment to global integration, the
World Openness Report (2022) shows that China has ascended from the 62nd to the 39th spot in
the World Openness Index amongst 129 major world economies.
However, the vision of a "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" intertwines egalitarian
and hierarchical perspectives, positioning China as an equal partner among developing nations
while simultaneously acknowledging its influential leadership role within the international system

9
(Nathan and Zhang 2022). This dualism underscores China's nuanced approach to international
relations: advocating equality while navigating the global hierarchy.
While China's foreign policy narrative promotes discourses on ethno-cultural identity, Marxism,
and human rights, these discourses are custom-tailored to resonate with specific audiences. Yet, it
is important to note that China's official rhetoric often conveys a more optimistic view of its role
within the global system, envisioning the nation at the apex of international hierarchies. Despite
facing some criticism and skepticism abroad, China's robust commitment to cooperation and
mutual development is clear. Critics may perceive China's rhetoric of collaboration as a guise for
strategic self-interests, but this view fails to recognize China's genuine efforts towards global peace
and development.
Thus, the concept of a "Human Community with a Shared Future" encapsulates China's dedication
to lead and contribute peacefully to the global order. An examination of China's military strategies
within this ideological framework can offer a richer understanding of its peaceful regional
intentions, regardless of its potential for regional hegemony.
To enhance our understanding of China's evolving ideologies and their implications for
international relations, future research could explore the potential consequences of China's identity
crisis and how it may affect its interactions with other states. Moreover, examining the extent to
which China's current ideology incorporates elements of previous concepts such as "Harmonious
World" and "Peaceful Development" may provide valuable insights into China's objectives and
aspirations in the global landscape.
2.3.China’s current military capabilities
According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, China's armed forces comprise an
estimated 2,035,000 active personnel, making the People's Liberation Army the largest in the
world. However, questions remain about the quality and reliability of China's military capabilities,
despite ongoing modernization and restructuring efforts (IISS 2022).
Gilli and Gilli (2019) propose that it is increasingly challenging for states to free ride on military
technology and armaments in the 21st century, despite the benefits of globalization and cyber
espionage. They argue that China has encountered significant obstacles in closing the
technological gap with the United States in terms of military capabilities, as duplicating modern
military technology has become more difficult.
Taking into account these factors, China's edge in military personnel may not necessarily offset
the effects of superior military technology. Furthermore, it is important to consider the limitations
of military power, particularly when comparing the land power of China with the sea power of the

10
United States (Grygiel 2021). These limitations may pose challenges for a sea power like the US
when attempting to assert regional hegemony in a different continent.
Consequently, China's reluctance to pursue regional hegemony in East Asia may be attributed to
several factors, including a desire to integrate into the existing international system, adherence to
its prevailing ideologies, or the existing military technology gap with other more advanced military
powers. It is also worth considering that China's military buildup may be aimed at modernizing its
assets and enhancing its defensive capabilities due to its proximity to other powers like India,
Japan, Korea, and Russia. However, this military buildup could potentially trigger a security spiral
in response (Waldron 2005).
2.4.Nuclear peace theory vs democratic peace theory
The democratic peace theory, proposed by Kant (1970), postulates that democratic states are less
likely to engage in armed conflict with other democracies. This notion suggests that the rise of
China, a non-democratic state, might be perceived as unfavorable by democratic societies due to
the uncertainty it brings. Doyle (1983) defines democracy as a system characterized by a market
or private economy, sovereign policies, juridical rights for citizens, and representative government
with voting rights. According to this theory, democratically elected leaders are more inclined to
seek diplomatic resolutions rather than resorting to conflict. The institutional and structural checks
and balances, as well as accountability systems in democratic states, reduce the likelihood of war
between them, particularly because of the ease with which they can signal their intentions (Doyle
1983). This may explain why predominantly democratic states are apprehensive about China's rise,
as it represents a potential revisionist socialist state.
On the other hand, an argument for China's peaceful rise can be linked to the nuclear peace theory
popularized by Waltz (1979, 183–93). According to Waltz, the possession of nuclear weapons
deters aggression between states, creating a condition of mutually assured destruction that
effectively uses civilians as hostages to prevent hostilities. This perspective contends that China's
nuclear arsenal could facilitate its peaceful rise or development due to the deterrence factor
provided by these weapons.
However, it is essential to consider the potential risks associated with nuclear proliferation. Scott
Sagan offers a counterargument, positing that the spread of nuclear weapons could inadvertently
or deliberately lead to their use, potentially resulting in catastrophic consequences (Sagan and
Waltz 2002). Therefore, while democratic peace theory suggests that democratic states might be
wary of China's rise due to the uncertainty it brings, the nuclear peace theory offers a perspective
that China's nuclear arsenal could contribute to its peaceful rise. This analysis underscores the
importance of understanding the complex interplay between these theories in the context of
international relations and China's evolving role in the global arena.

11
2.5.Significance of literature
The primary objective of reviewing the literature is to comprehend the various theories that may
contribute to China's peaceful rise or development and to understand the reasons behind other
states' wariness towards China. Realism allows us to grasp the nature of an anarchical system, in
which states are perpetually uncertain of each other's intentions, leading to mutual suspicion and
fear. By analyzing China's prospects for hegemony and linking them to realist theories, we can
develop a foundational understanding of the likelihood of China becoming a regional hegemon if
it were to pursue such a path.
Through the examination of China's ideological stances, we recognize that, despite its capabilities,
China does not seek hegemony, at least from an ideological standpoint. By comparing China's
military capabilities to those of the United States, we can assess the material factors that make the
pursuit of hegemony more or less likely to occur. Finally, the democratic peace theory and nuclear
peace theory provide additional insights into why China's rise may be viewed unfavorably from
an ideological and political perspective, while still appearing feasible in the nuclear age.
It is essential to acknowledge that this paper recognizes China's ideological position against
pursuing regional hegemony and understands the complexity of the factors at play. Instead, the
paper aims to analyze China's potential for regional hegemony (East Asia) if it were to prioritize
this goal. This will be accomplished by examining various metrics, such as GDP, weapons exports,
and more, comparing China to other East Asian powers, and using these measurements as a
benchmark against the United States. The paper will conclude with a discussion and evaluation of
these findings.
3. Methodology
This research aims to analyze China's potential as a regional hegemon by examining its military
capabilities, strategic objectives, and political ideologies. To achieve this objective, a multi-faceted
methodology has been employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
3.1.Data Collection and Analysis:
We collected and analyzed various secondary datasets from reputable sources such as the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which provide valuable insights into
China's military capabilities and expenditure. The datasets examined in this study include:
a. Arms imports and exports
b. Military expenditure by country (in USD millions and as a percentage of GDP)
c. Arms transfers
These datasets enabled us to assess China's infrastructure, resources, and capabilities in
comparison to other nations in the region and globally. This quantitative analysis provided a solid

12
foundation for understanding China's military strengths and its position within the international
landscape.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's (SIPRI) data serve as a cornerstone for
studies in international relations and defense, particularly due to the standardization and
comparability it offers. The uniformity of data allows for precise comparisons across countries and
timelines, critical for understanding global trends and patterns in military expenditure. Moreover,
SIPRI's comprehensive view of defense spending, encompassing aspects like procurement,
personnel costs, operations and maintenance, and research and development, paints a holistic
picture of a nation's defense posture, far surpassing the simple analysis of military hardware. This
nuanced understanding of military spending is crucial in dissecting a country's strategic decisions.
SIPRI's rigorous methodology reinforces the reliability and validity of its data, with robust cross-
verification protocols and adjustments for inflation and exchange rate changes, bolstering its
credibility among scholars and policymakers. Another vital aspect is the percentage of GDP
dedicated to military expenditure, which provides an insight into a country's strategic orientation
and perceived threat level. High military spending relative to GDP could indicate an increased
perception of external threats or aspirations of power projection.
Furthermore, data on arms imports and exports illuminate a country's defense industrial
capabilities and reliance on foreign military technology, shedding light on international
relationships and its role in global arms trade. With its provision of historical data, SIPRI allows
the analysis of long-term trends, opening a window into a country's strategic choices and priorities
over time.
In summary, SIPRI's indicators and data provide an invaluable foundation for understanding a
country's defense strategy and its position in the global arena. In the context of China, these
measures enable an in-depth analysis of its military expenditure, involvement in the global arms
trade, and the proportion of its GDP dedicated to defense, offering a comprehensive view of its
defense strategy and its adherence to the ideologies of "Harmonious World," "Peaceful
Development," "Chinese Dream" and “A human community with a shared future”.
3.2.Ideological and Strategic Analysis:
In addition to the quantitative data, we also conducted a qualitative analysis of China's political
ideologies and strategic objectives, as reflected in its official documents and statements, as well as
scholarly works on the subject. This analysis focused on the key themes and principles guiding
China's approach to international relations, including the "Harmonious World," "Peaceful
Development," "Chinese Dream" and “A human community with a shared future” theses. By
examining these ideologies, we aimed to better understand the motivations behind China's military
and economic growth, as well as its potential aspirations for regional hegemony.

13
3.3.Case Study Approach:
To further support our analysis, we conducted a case study of China's recent actions and policies
in the region, focusing on its use of economic tools for influence and coercion rather than military
force. This case study allowed us to assess the practical implications of China's strategic choices
and the likelihood of it pursuing hegemony in the foreseeable future.
3.4.Synthesis and Interpretation:
Finally, we synthesized the findings from our quantitative and qualitative analyses to draw
conclusions about China's potential as a regional hegemon. This integrative approach allowed us
to consider the complex interplay between China's military capabilities, strategic objectives, and
political ideologies, and to assess the extent to which these factors may influence its future
trajectory and potential implications for regional and global security.
By employing this comprehensive methodology, our research provides an in-depth understanding
of China's potential as a regional hegemon and the factors that may shape its strategic choices in
the coming years.
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1.Implications of Defense Industry Dynamics: Theoretical Insights
The theoretical implications concerning China's increasing presence in the global arms industry,
while maintaining a relatively lower proportion of arms sales to total sales, offer rich opportunities
to delve into the complex interplay of power, economy, and ideology within the frameworks of
international relations theories. China's strategy suggests a novel approach to navigating the
geopolitical landscape, fostering peaceful development while maintaining national defense
capabilities.
Constructivism offers a particularly useful lens for understanding China's approach. In contrast to
realism and liberal internationalism, which tend to emphasize states' material interests and
capabilities, constructivism underscores the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state
behavior. According to the Chinese government's official documents and public pronouncements,
China's foreign policy is guided by the principles of "peaceful development" and a "community
with a shared future for mankind." This suggests an ideational commitment to international
harmony and cooperation. Even as Chinese firms have expanded their presence in the global arms
industry, the proportion of arms sales to total sales remains comparatively low, potentially
signaling a preference for balancing military preparedness with peaceful engagement in other
economic sectors.
Through the lens of constructivism, this behavior could be seen as a manifestation of China's
identity as a peaceful power. This constructivist interpretation can be bolstered by drawing on

14
Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) norm life cycle model where the Chinese government might be
seen as a 'norm entrepreneur,' attempting to promote its vision of peaceful development and shared
future on the international stage. This normative commitment could shape China's approach to the
arms industry, striking a balance between maintaining necessary defense capabilities and
participating in broader economic activities.
Liberal Internationalism, meanwhile, provides a platform to assess China's strategic economic
integration (Paris 1997). While the theory acknowledges states' security concerns, it places a higher
emphasis on the benefits of economic growth, economic interdependence and cooperation. The
significant total sales of Chinese arms firms, going beyond mere arms sales, suggest a diversified
economic strategy that enhances global economic integration. This reflects the tenets of liberal
internationalism and further substantiates China's ideological stand for peaceful development.
Lastly, while Realism emphasizes power and security, it does not completely negate China's
peaceful development strategy. The arms industry, by its nature, is tied to national security interests
(Dalby 1995). Hence, China's growth in this sector indicates its effort to secure itself in an anarchic
international system. However, the relatively low percentage of arms sales to total sales can be
interpreted as a nuanced approach that doesn't solely rely on military buildup to assert its status as
a great power.
China's increase in the production and sales of arms could indeed be seen through the lens of
deterrence theory. While a major player in the global arms industry, China's relative restraint in
the percentage of arms sales to total sales could be a manifestation of a 'minimum deterrence
strategy'. Such a strategy entails maintaining only those military capabilities that are necessary to
deter adversaries from aggression, but not beyond to the extent that would appear provocative or
threatening.
This idea is in alignment with China's 'No First Use' policy regarding nuclear weapons, a classic
form of deterrence (Pan 2018). It is plausible that China is applying a similar principle to its
conventional military capabilities. Through this lens, China's growth in the arms industry can be
seen as a careful balance - seeking to create a strong enough deterrent to secure its national interests,
without reaching a level of military buildup that might alarm other nations and trigger an arms
race. Further reinforcing this point, China's 2019 Defense White Paper states, "China will never
follow the beaten track of big powers in seeking hegemony. [...] China's defense expenditure is
reasonable and appropriate" (Liangyu 2019; Song and Chen 2024; Meng 2023). This statement
underlines China's intentions of maintaining a defensive, deterrent stance rather than pursuing
offensive militaristic objectives.
By maintaining a robust, yet not overly aggressive arms industry, China sends a clear message to
potential adversaries: It has the capabilities to retaliate if attacked, but is not seeking to threaten

15
others or assert dominance through military might. This potentially contributes to regional and
global stability, as it deters aggression without provoking the kind of fear or suspicion that could
lead to conflict. Thus, the deterrence theory complements our earlier analyses, further illustrating
the multi-faceted and nuanced nature of China's approach to its growth in the global arms industry.
This strategic stance embodies its pursuit of a peaceful development path in the international
system, even as it navigates the complexities of global security dynamics.
Therefore, by synthesizing the insights from different theoretical paradigms, we can better
understand China's peaceful development strategy in the global arms industry. Its conduct, as
reflected in the arms production data, embodies a complex mix of normative commitment
(constructivism), economic pragmatism (liberal internationalism), minimal deterrence strategy and
security considerations (realism), which aligns with its overarching ideology of peaceful
development and shared future.
Rank
2019
Import
2020
Import
2021
Import
2022
Import
1
Saudi
Arabia
3484
India
2847
India
4167
Qatar
3342
2
India
3470
Saudi
Arabia
2491
Qatar
2075
India
2846
3
Qatar
2048
Australia
1655
Saudi
Arabia
1739
Ukraine
2644
4
China
1503
Egypt
1403
Egypt
1287
Saudi
Arabia
2272
5
South
Korea
1495
South
Korea
1276
Australia
1260
Kuwait
2249
6
Australia
1186
Japan
923
Pakistan
1180
Pakistan
1565
7
Egypt
1157
China
884
China
981
Japan
1291
8
Japan
972
Qatar
838
Japan
947
Norway
848
9
United
States
890
United
States
801
Kuwait
904
United
States
837
10
UAE
810
Pakistan
688
United
Kingdom
878
Israel
829
Table 1: Top 10 Arms Importers of 2019-2022 in USD expressed in millions by SIPRI
(Wezeman et al. 2024)
The analysis of SIPRI arms import data from 2019 to 2022 provides a focused lens through which
we can gauge China's military strategy, particularly its emphasis on self-reliance and peaceful
development. China's relatively low arms import volume, compared to other major powers,
suggests a strategic choice that diverges from aggressive military expansion, highlighting a
preference for indigenous development and technological advancement (Bitzinger and Char 2020).

16
This strategic choice might reflect China's broader objectives to enhance its military capabilities
while maintaining a posture of non-aggression, aligning with its stated goals of peaceful
development. China's significant role as an arms exporter underscores its advanced military and
technological capabilities, further emphasizing its strategy to project power without reliance on
foreign arms imports (Gilli and Gilli 2019).
While the data on arms imports offers valuable insights into China's military strategy, it is crucial
to acknowledge that this metric alone does not provide a comprehensive view of China's or any
country's hegemonic ambitions or overall military capabilities. The example of Russia's military
activities illustrates that low arms imports do not necessarily correlate with non-aggressive
behavior. Thus, while China's arms import data suggest a certain strategic restraint, this should be
interpreted within the broader context of its military exports, indigenous production capabilities,
and overall strategic posture. However, in the case of India and Pakistan, the arms import dynamics
play a significant role in their enduring rivalry, where both nations have historically leveraged
arms imports to bolster their military capabilities, directly impacting the security calculus and
balance of power in South Asia which means imports are a good indicator as well of the
intensifying military competition and preparedness each country aims to achieve in the context of
their regional rivalry (Pattanaik 2018, 173–83; Ali and Lee 2022; Bibi and Lee 2023).
In the context of East Asia, understanding China's military capabilities and strategic intentions is
crucial given the region's complex security dynamics. China's approach to arms imports, coupled
with its focus on indigenous military development, can be seen as a method to enhance its relative
power in the region while avoiding the perception of pursuing outright hegemony. Therefore, the
SIPRI data on China's arms imports is a valuable piece of the puzzle in understanding its military
strategy and regional power dynamics. However, it is just one part of a larger narrative that requires
a comprehensive analysis of China's military exports, domestic production capabilities, and
strategic doctrines to fully understand its approach to power and influence in East Asia and beyond.
This is especially important as arms import is a method to increase capabilities to increase relative
power because it directly influences a nation's military strength and its ability to assert itself on the
international stage, thereby impacting its strategic position and potential for regional or global
influence.
Rank
2019
Export
2020
Export
2021
Export
2022
Export
1
United
States
10888
United States
9426
United
States
10994
United
States
14515
2
Russia
5627
Russia
3904
France
3853
France
3021
3
France
3612
France
2378
Russia
2857
Russia
2820
4
China
1585
Germany
1172
Italy
1673
China
2017
5
Germany
1020
Spain
971
China
1462
Italy
1825

17
6
United
Kingdom
910
Italy
848
Germany
938
Germany
1510
7
South
Korea
682
South Korea
772
United
Kingdom
656
United
Kingdom
1504
8
Italy
384
China
704
Spain
594
Spain
950
9
Israel
348
United
Kingdom
625
South
Korea
544
Israel
831
10
Spain
308
Netherlands
462
Israel
543
Poland
452
Table 2: Top 10 Arms Exporters of 2019-2022 in USD expressed in millions by SIPRI
(Wezeman et al. 2024)
In light of the data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the
trends indicate that from 2019 to 2022, China consistently positioned itself among the top five
global arms exporters. This ranking is a clear demonstration of China's robust industrial and
manufacturing capacities. Notably, by 2022, China ascended to the fourth position, marking a
significant leap forward in its position within the global arms market. However, these
developments must be examined within the broader context of China's political ideologies and
strategic objectives.
Analyzing the literature and official Chinese documents and statements, the country's foreign
policy principles have been articulated as mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,
mutual non-aggression, non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, and the peaceful
coexistence of nations. This commitment to peaceful development, as echoed in the 2011 white
paper "China's Peaceful Development", is an essential foundation in understanding China's
approach to arms exports (China’s peaceful development 2011).
However, this theoretical framework contrasts with China's robust growth in arms exports. It
appears that the act of exporting military hardware aligns with its foreign policy principles,
strengthening ties with partner nations that might be overlooked by Western arms manufacturers
due to geopolitical or human rights considerations. This is in line with the analysis of Buzan and
Cox (2013), who argued that China adopts a more selective approach towards military
interventionism and the application of hard power, as a part of a broader strategy of establishing
its peaceful rise.
Despite the growth of China's arms exports, it is worth highlighting that the United States, the
leading arms exporter, consistently exports five to seven times more in value than China. The
United States' dominant position could be attributed to the perceived superiority and wider variety
of American military hardware, a point supported by Gilli and Gilli (2019) work, emphasizing the
difficulty in duplicating modern military technology.

18
Additionally, analyzing China's arms export data in conjunction with its arms import data provides
an interesting perspective. China, despite being a major arms exporter, is also a net importer of
arms, demonstrating a nuanced strategy to its military development. This reflects the nation's
attempt to strike a balance between leveraging foreign technologies and enhancing its domestic
arms production, reinforcing its commitment to a calculated approach to military development.
The potential regional and global security implications of China's arms export strategy warrant
careful consideration. China's growth as a major arms exporter may impact regional power
dynamics and security policies. In regions with substantial strategic interest for China, like
Southeast Asia and Africa, this could create a power imbalance, exacerbating security concerns, a
point which resonates with the arguments made by Glaser and Medeiros (2007) about China's
potential as a disruptive force in the international system.
Therefore, China's position as a growing arms exporter provides valuable insights into its
manufacturing capabilities, strategic objectives, and ideological tenets. These developments,
however, require careful monitoring and further research due to their potential impacts on global
security dynamics. From the perspective of the "peaceful rise" or "peaceful development," the
consistent position of China among the top global arms exporters doesn't necessarily contradict
this principle. Yaqing (2010) notes that China has utilized its unique characteristics to gradually
integrate and gain acceptance within the international community, pointing to its incremental
growth as an arms exporter as a part of this process. Furthermore, China's careful navigation of the
global arms market, rather than overtly challenging existing structures, aligns with its non-
revisionist approach.
Applying the "Harmonious World" concept to China's arms exports activity, China appears to
foster relationships based on strategic economic and security considerations rather than ideological
alignment, echoing the principle of non-enemy diplomacy. The increase in its arms exports could
be seen as an extension of this policy, fostering stronger ties and dependencies with its customers,
especially those in regions with strategic interest for China. This analysis supports Hao (2008)
views on China's approach to diplomacy and regional integration.
The "Chinese Dream," as per Wang (2014), continues to embody previous ideals like the
"Harmonious World" and "Peaceful Development." Therefore, the growth in China's arms exports
could be seen as an attempt to consolidate its influence and ensure its security, reflecting the
dream's aspect of a powerful and prosperous China. However, as Pu (2017) suggests, this increased
activity and its implications might generate confusion and concern among global observers due to
China's ongoing identity crisis.
Viewing through the lens of a "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," China's increase
in arms exports may appear contradictory, given the principle's emphasis on peace and security.

19
However, it could be argued that China sees these exports as a means to maintain balance in the
global order, or as a tool to assist other nations in safeguarding their own security, aligning with
its vision of mutual benefit and shared development.
However, the literature suggests that there is an inherent tension between the rhetoric of China's
ideological constructs and the reality of its arms export growth. The increasing arms exports may
be seen by some observers as a manifestation of a more assertive and potentially disruptive China,
contradicting its own discourses of peaceful development and a harmonious world. On the other
hand, China could argue that these exports are an extension of its non-enemy diplomacy and open
regionalism, meant to foster closer ties with nations across the world.
Therefore, understanding the implications of China's rise in arms exports requires a comprehensive
analysis that encapsulates the nuances of its ideological stances. This analysis also underscores the
complexity of China's foreign policy, highlighting the delicate balancing act it plays between
upholding its ideological principles and asserting its growing influence on the world stage. Further
research could explore the dichotomy between China's peaceful rise ideology and its growing
military exports, as well as how China reconciles its role as a leading global arms exporter with its
vision of a "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind."
Country
2019
2020
2021
2022
Americas
United States of America
734344.1
778397.2
806230.2
876943.2
East Asia
China
240332.6
257973.4
285930.5
291958.4
Japan
50778.0
51396.5
50957.5
45992.1
South Korea
44102.2
46117.1
50873.8
46365.4
South Asia
India
71468.9
72937.1
76348.5
81363.2
Table 3: Military expenditure by country in USD expressed in millions 2019-2022 (SIPRI
2023)
The military expenditure patterns of nations provide significant insights into their strategic
orientations, national security priorities, and perceptions of potential threats. In particular, the
contrasting military expenditures of the United States and China underscore the divergent
trajectories of these major powers within the international system. The United States' military
expenditure, significantly larger than China's, suggests a broader set of security commitments
(Sweidan 2023). Its global network of alliances, its commitments to global peacekeeping, and its
extensive overseas military installations, all necessitate a defense budget that is considerably larger
than any other nation. This expenditure pattern reflects America's position as a superpower and its
intent to maintain its primacy in global security affairs.

20
On the other hand, China's military expenditure—while being a fraction of the United States'—is
noticeably larger than that of its regional peers in East Asia, including Japan and South Korea.
This can be interpreted as a strategic attempt by China to assert its position within the region (Nye
2023). The increase in China's military expenditure over the years aligns with its economic growth,
signifying its transition to becoming a major player on the world stage. Its growing expenditure
can also be seen as a reflection of its rising global ambitions and its determination to safeguard its
strategic interests both domestically and internationally.
China's defense expenditure, however, remains below that of the United States, which is indicative
of a strategic choice to avoid direct military competition with the U.S. and potentially to avert an
intensifying security dilemma. This pattern mirrors China's adherence to a peaceful rise strategy,
which posits that China seeks to rise as a global power without disrupting the existing international
order (Yaqing 2010; Qimao 2003; Zhang, Cui, and Campbell-Verduyn 2023; Y. Kim and Rho
2024). China's military expenditure thereby also reflects its aim of achieving a balance between
asserting its interests, maintaining regional stability, and avoiding a costly arms race.
Japan and South Korea's military expenditures remain modest compared to China's. These patterns
reflect the particular security dynamics within East Asia, notably the complex relationships each
country maintains with China. Furthermore, it emphasizes the role that the United States plays as
a security guarantor for both Japan and South Korea (M. Kim 2022). The case of India's increasing
military expenditure underscores its focus on modernizing its armed forces and addressing security
challenges both along its borders and within the broader South Asian region (Ali and Sidhu 2023;
Ali and Lee 2022; Bibi and Lee 2023). This trend signals India's intent to bolster its defense
capabilities in response to perceived threats, adding a layer of complexity to the regional security
dynamics.
Therefore, the examination of military expenditure provides a useful lens to understand the
strategic choices of states and the underlying dynamics shaping the regional and global security
environment. It highlights the subtle balance that states strive to achieve between maintaining
national security, asserting strategic interests, and mitigating the risk of regional instability.
Therefore, a nuanced understanding of these expenditure patterns is crucial for comprehending the
evolving contours of global power relations.
Country
2019
2020
2021
2022
Americas
United States of
America
3.43%
3.70%
3.46%
3.45%
East Asia
China
1.68%
1.76%
1.61%
1.60%

21
Japan
0.99%
1.02%
1.02%
1.08%
South Korea
2.67%
2.80%
2.81%
2.72%
South Asia
India
2.55%
2.81%
2.47%
2.43%
Table 4: Military expenditure by country by % of GDP for 2019-2022 (SIPRI 2023)
The analysis of SIPRI's data on military expenditure provides an insightful understanding of
international relations dynamics through the lens of defense spending. A comparative perspective
of the military expenditure of the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, and India – expressed
in both USD millions and as a percentage of GDP – illuminates the interplay of geopolitical
considerations, strategic objectives, and economic constraints.
The United States, often referred to as the 'global policeman,' maintained high military spending
in absolute terms, escalating to $876,943.2 million in 2022, while its expenditure as a percentage
of GDP stabilized around 3.45% in 2022 (Loftus 2023). This commitment suggests the persistence
of the United States' interventionist policy and its need to sustain an extensive network of global
alliances, while also reflecting the economic and logistical capacity of the US to maintain such
high military spending.
Meanwhile, China's military expenditure has consistently been lowered as a proportion of GDP,
falling slightly to 1.60% in 2022, but its absolute spending increased to $291,958.4 million in the
same year. This demonstrates China's restrained approach to military expenditure, potentially
resulting from its focus on economic development and internal security over external military
adventurism. The high absolute figure, however, suggests China's recognition of the need for
strong defense capabilities to safeguard its strategic interests, reflecting China's 'hide your strength,
bide your time' strategy.
In East Asia, the difference in military spending between China, Japan, and South Korea brings to
light the region's nuanced power dynamics. While Japan's nominal military budget decreased to
$45,992.1 million in 2022, its defense spending as a percentage of GDP grew to 1.08%, indicating
a strategic recalibration in the face of regional security challenges (Diamond and Ellis 2023). South
Korea's military spending trend shows a similar pattern, with an expenditure of $46,365.4 million
and 2.72% of its GDP in 2022. This can be attributed to the unique geopolitical context of the
Korean Peninsula, demonstrating the nation's strategic objective to balance between its alliance
commitments and its security needs.
South Asia, represented by India in the data, illustrates a different pattern. With an expenditure of
$81,363.2 million and 2.43% of its GDP in 2022, India's military spending trajectory seems driven
by its unique geopolitical challenges and defense needs (S. Ali and Lee 2022; Bibi and Lee 2023).
It signifies India's focus on modernizing its defense capabilities, while also highlighting the
economic constraints it faces in balancing defense spending with other development needs.

22
In essence, the deep analysis of SIPRI's data on military expenditure underscores the intricate
linkage between a state's military spending, its geopolitical imperatives, and economic capabilities.
Understanding this complex relationship provides key insights into the strategic calculus of states,
allowing for a more nuanced perspective on international relations and global security dynamics.
4.2.Theoretical Insights into GDP and Defense Spending
The analysis of military expenditure, arms trade, and corresponding political ideologies
necessitates an integration of various international relations theories and real-world data, rooted in
a broad range of academic discourses. Aligning with Mearsheimer (2001) realist perspective, the
United States' position as the leading spender on military expenditures and a primary arms exporter
demonstrates its continual efforts to maintain its hegemonic status. The drive to secure its global
position is embedded in a traditional realist understanding of power politics, where states prioritize
their security and engage in power-maximizing behavior in an anarchic international system.
Conversely, China's approach reflects its unique blend of realism and idealism, embedded in its
political ideologies. Its increasing military expenditure, both in absolute terms, reflects the realism
aspect, where it acknowledges the anarchic nature of the international system and the necessity for
self-help. However, China's controlled allocation of military expenditure as a relatively low
percentage of its GDP, adheres to its "Peaceful Development" and "Harmonious World" doctrines
(Yaqing 2010; Hao 2008). This restrained behavior presents a softer form of realism, geared more
towards survival rather than aggressive power maximization.
Moreover, China's significant role in the global arms trade aligns with the theory of complex
interdependence (Rana 2015). As one of the top arms importers and exporters, China
acknowledges its interconnectedness with other nations, underscoring its belief in the "A human
community with a shared future" ideology (Xiaochun 2018). This stance on interdependence aligns
with China's political trajectory that emphasizes a harmonious global system rather than rivalry.
China's increasing military expenditure and its significant role in the global arms trade are seen as
measures to ensure its national security, a prerequisite for contributing to the concept of "A Human
Community with a Shared Future". The comparatively moderate proportion of GDP China devotes
to its military mirrors its commitment to the "Peaceful Development" principle, indicating a
priority for socioeconomic development. This restraint aligns with the A Human Community with
a Shared Future vision. Also, China's growing role in the arms trade, far from contradicting the A
Human Community with a Shared Future doctrine, can be perceived as respect for the sovereignty
of other nations and their rights to secure their defense. In essence, China's military spending and
arms trade participation are parts of its broader strategy to ensure national security, promote
peaceful international relations, and contribute to a global community characterized by shared
prosperity and mutual respect.

23
Finally, the "Chinese Dream" concept, aimed at national rejuvenation and the prosperity of its
people (Wang, 2013), is reflected in China's strategic allocation of resources. By maintaining a
substantial but not overwhelming military expenditure, China ensures resources are evenly
distributed towards societal development, emphasizing prosperity over military dominance, a
perspective deeply rooted in this ideology.
4.3.Nuclear Equilibrium and International Stability: Insights from Nuclear Peace
Theory
The Nuclear Peace Theory, which posits that the presence of nuclear weapons dissuades nations
from engaging in full-scale war due to the threat of mutually assured destruction, may be relevant
in understanding China's international behavior. The potential cost and the destructive
consequences of a nuclear confrontation act as a deterrent, creating an incentive for peaceful
coexistence and pursuit of cooperative strategies over aggressive or expansionist ones (Betts 1988;
Rauchhaus 2009).
In the case of China, the possession of nuclear weapons can indeed serve as a safeguard that allows
it to pursue the visions of a "Harmonious World," "Peaceful Development," "Chinese Dream," and
"A Human Community with a Shared Future." The nuclear deterrent can assure China's security,
reducing its vulnerability to external threats, and allowing it to focus on its domestic objectives
and international cooperation. With a military expenditure of USD 876,943.2 million in 2022 and
a consistent military expenditure as a percentage of GDP, roughly averaging at 1.66% from 2019
to 2022, China can balance between maintaining a robust defense, including its nuclear capabilities,
and investing in other sectors that contribute to its peaceful development agenda.
Comparatively, the Cold War era was marked by a bipolar world order, with the US and the Soviet
Union engaging in a relentless arms race and ideological struggle for global hegemony. The threat
of nuclear warfare loomed large, but the logic of deterrence did not prevent conflicts in various
parts of the world, as the two superpowers sought to expand their spheres of influence (Wohlforth
1994; Mehan, Nathanson, and Skelly 1990). However, the end of the Cold War ushered in a
multipolar world order, with an increased emphasis on diplomacy, economic power, and soft
power as instruments of influence (Smith 2013; Zhao 1992). The rise of globalization and
interdependence also created conditions for more cooperative international relations, which is
conducive to China's ideologies.
The Nuclear Peace Theory, which posits that the presence of nuclear weapons dissuades nations
from engaging in full-scale war due to the threat of mutually assured destruction, may be relevant
in understanding China's international behavior (Betts 1988). The potential cost and the destructive
consequences of a nuclear confrontation act as a deterrent, creating an incentive for peaceful

24
coexistence and pursuit of cooperative strategies over aggressive or expansionist ones (Rauchhaus
2009).
4.4.Harmony or Hegemony? Dissecting China's Ambitions on the Global Stage
In addressing the linkage between military expenditure and hegemonic pursuits, it is essential to
recognize the enduring significance of military might as a primary indicator of a country's
hegemonic status, deeply rooted in historical context (Yildirim†, Sezgin, and Öcal 2005). The rise
and fall of empires, such as the Roman Empire and the British Empire, has been closely linked to
their military capabilities. This historical perspective provides a foundational understanding of
why, even in the contemporary era where global competition has diversified, military power
remains a critical element in ensuring a nation's security and projecting its influence. The advent
of nuclear weapons and the consequent balance of threat has undoubtedly altered the landscape of
direct military confrontations. However, this development has not diminished the importance of
conventional military capabilities (Yang et al. 2015).
Conventional forces continue to play a crucial role in power projection, regional conflicts, and
achieving political objectives. Moreover, advancements in military technology not only enhance a
nation's defense capabilities but also contribute significantly to its overall technological and
industrial development, often spurring innovations with wide-ranging civilian applications.
Furthermore, military power complements economic and normative influence. A strong military
can protect trade routes, ensure access to global markets, and reinforce a country's position in
international negotiations. It can also serve as a means to enforce international norms and decisions.
Contemporary examples, such as peacekeeping missions and anti-piracy operations, underscore
the necessity of military means to achieve strategic objectives that economic or normative power
alone cannot accomplish.
The perception of a nation's military strength significantly influences its global perception and
diplomatic weight. Nations with strong militaries are often perceived as more influential and are
taken more seriously in international affairs. This perception plays a critical role in a country's
ability to shape global norms and participate effectively in international diplomacy. Therefore, the
study of military expenditure and expansion remains a vital aspect of understanding a nation's
hegemonic pursuits, providing insights into its strategic priorities and potential for global influence.
An analysis of the data from SIPRI paints an intriguing picture of China's potential to ramp up its
military power, should it choose to pursue a path towards military hegemony. China's massive
manufacturing sector, coupled with its robust economic growth, could theoretically enable it to
drastically increase its military expenditure. However, data suggests a restrained approach.
According to the SIPRI data, China's military expenditure in USD increased from $240,332.6
million in 2019 to $291,958.4 million in 2022. Despite this increase, military expenditure as a
percentage of GDP remained relatively stable around 1.6% to 1.7% over these years. This indicates

25
that while China has increased its absolute military spending, it has done so in parallel with its
economic growth, not at a pace that would suggest an aggressive militarization.
Conversely, the United States, a country often considered as maintaining global hegemony, has
consistently allocated a higher percentage of its GDP to military expenditure, with rates ranging
from 3.43% to 3.70% in the same timeframe. If China chose to match the United States in terms
of military expenditure as a percentage of GDP, given the size of its economy, the implications
would be profound. However, China has opted for a path of moderation, reflecting its focus on
"Peaceful Development."
Also, considering the top 10 arms importers and exporters data, it's clear that China, despite having
the capabilities and resources, is not aggressively pursuing arms trading. This mirrors its restrained
approach in military spending, suggesting adherence to its various ideologies that has been
mentioned where these ideologies underpin a strategic emphasis on cooperative globalization,
sustainable development, and shared prosperity over aggressive power projection.
4.5.Counterfactual and Counterarguments
In our counterfactual analysis, we delve into a scenario where China leverages its substantial
economic base to potentially shift its stance towards regional hegemony, significantly increasing
its military expenditure and arms trade activities. Drawing from the data in Table 3, we observed
China's military spending rise from $240.3 billion in 2019 to $291.9 billion in 2022. Despite this
upward trend, the proportion of GDP allocated to military expenditure has seen a slight decline, as
noted in Table 4, from 1.68% in 2019 to 1.60% in 2022.
Imagine, in this counterfactual scenario, if China decided to elevate its military spending to 2.43%
of its GDP, aligning with India's 2022 expenditure ratio. Given China's GDP, this adjustment
would elevate the military budget to approximately $424.63 billion, a stark increase that would
significantly boost its military modernization efforts and expand its capabilities.
Turning to arms imports, China's relatively modest import figure of $981 million in 2021, as listed
in Table 1, leaves substantial room for growth. Should China opt to enhance its military capabilities
more swiftly, an increase in arms imports would be a plausible strategy. This action could quickly
bridge technological gaps and bolster its military strength, offering a rapid means to augment
relative power in the region.
Moreover, China's strong presence in the global arms export market, as shown in Table 2, where
it ranks as the fourth-largest arms exporter in 2022, underscores its robust domestic defense
industry. This capacity not only serves its military self-sufficiency but also demonstrates China's
ability to produce and supply advanced military technology, a key aspect of exerting influence and
building relative power.

26
In this counterfactual exploration, if China channels its economic growth into a concerted increase
in military spending and arms trade, it could reshape the regional power dynamics significantly.
Such a strategic shift would not only enhance China's relative military power but also potentially
alter the security calculus for neighboring East Asian states, which might find it challenging to
match China's escalated military posture given their own economic and industrial scales.
This scenario underscores the intricate interplay between economic strength, military expenditure,
and arms trade in shaping a nation's strategic posture and its quest for regional dominance. By
increasing its military spending and leveraging its arms import and export capabilities, China has
the potential to assert a more dominant role in East Asia, reflecting a strategic pivot that could
have far-reaching implications for regional stability and international relations.
In our counterfactual scenario, the data from the tables provide a comprehensive picture of China's
military spending and arms trade patterns, underpinning the analysis of its potential for pursuing
regional hegemony. Table 3 showcases a consistent increase in China's military expenditure from
$240.3 billion in 2019 to $291.9 billion in 2022. This upward trajectory in spending, despite a
slight decrease in percentage terms relative to GDP as depicted in Table 4, indicates China's
growing investment in its military capabilities. The counterfactual scenario posits that if China
were to elevate its military spending to 2.43% of its GDP, akin to India's 2022 spending ratio, its
military budget would surge, amplifying its capacity for regional power projection.
Table 1, detailing arms imports, shows China's relatively moderate import figures, especially when
contrasted with other regional players. An increase in this area could signify a rapid enhancement
of China's military technology and firepower, a critical factor if China aims to assert hegemony in
East Asia. While China's import figures are not at the top, the potential for growth in this domain
underscores a strategic lever China could pull to bolster its military strength swiftly.
Conversely, Table 2 highlights China's position as a significant arms exporter, ranking fourth in
2022. This not only reflects China's strong domestic defense industry but also its capacity to
influence other states through military trade. The ability to produce and export arms at such a scale
is indicative of China's comprehensive military capabilities, contributing to its relative power in
the region.
Collectively, these tables illustrate a nuanced narrative of China's military-economic landscape.
The country's substantial GDP provides a sturdy foundation for increasing military expenditure,
while its arms trade patterns reflect a balanced approach to enhancing and exporting military
capabilities. If China opts to aggressively increase its military spending and leverage its arms
import and export dynamics, it could significantly shift the regional balance of power,
underscoring its ability to pursue, if it chooses, a path toward regional hegemony. This potential

27
shift, rooted in economic strength and military strategy, highlights the intricate relationship
between economic policy and military power, framing China's strategic choices within the broader
context of East Asian security dynamics.
However, in a hegemonic pursuit scenario, initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),
which aims to promote economic development and cooperation with neighboring countries, would
likely be deprioritized or abandoned. The BRI, in its current form, is a tool for fostering economic
interdependence and regional development, which is counterproductive to a hegemonic strategy
focused on military dominance (Dourado 2023; Sims, Lee, and Lee 2023; Beeson and Crawford
2023; Menegazzi 2020). Similarly, China's diplomatic efforts to assist countries around the world
would be inconsistent with a hegemonic approach. These efforts, which often involve providing
aid, infrastructure development, and fostering bilateral relations, are more aligned with a strategy
of peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit rather than aggressive expansionism (Wong 2021;
Yuan and Lee 2023a; 2023b; Ghiselli 2018). Furthermore, in a hegemonic pursuit, local
development within China would potentially be deprioritized in favor of military expansion.
Resources that could be allocated to domestic infrastructure, social welfare, and economic
diversification might instead be redirected towards bolstering military capabilities. This was also
reflected during the pandemic where economic development and social stability was the main focal
point of China (Y. Liu and Saltman 2020; Demeure and Lee 2023a; Lee et al. 2023; Papageorgiou
and de Melo 2022). This shift in focus could be counterproductive to maintaining social stability
and sustaining long-term economic growth, which are essential for a nation's comprehensive
strength and global influence (Allen, Qian, and Qian 2003; Lee and Sims 2023; Ouyang et al. 2022;
Cai 2023; Kirton and Wang 2023).
In contextualizing China's strategic orientation, it is instructive to draw a comparison with the
United States, particularly regarding the linkage between economic growth and military
engagement. Historically, the United States and its allies has experienced significant economic
growth that, at times, has been closely linked to its involvement in wars and military interventions
(Carter, Ondercin, and Palmer 2021; Heo and Ye 2019; Ward and Davis 1992; Demeure and Lee
2023b). The post-World War II economic boom, the military-industrial complex's expansion
during the Cold War, and the economic impacts of recent conflicts in the Middle East are examples
where military engagement has had direct and indirect effects on the American economy.
In contrast, China's path of development presents a different paradigm. Rather than relying on
military expansion and conflict, China has focused on economic growth through trade,
infrastructure development, and international cooperation. This approach is exemplified by
initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, which seeks to foster economic development through
collaborative infrastructure projects, and China's emphasis on diplomatic efforts to resolve
conflicts. These strategies reflect a development model that prioritizes economic cooperation and
stability over military dominance.

28
This divergence in development paths is crucial in understanding the counterfactual scenario
where China might have chosen a more traditionally hegemonic approach, akin to historical
examples from the West. Such a path would have likely involved a greater focus on military
expansion at the expense of the economic and diplomatic strategies that have characterized China's
rise. The comparison with the United States thus highlights the uniqueness of China's approach,
underscoring its commitment to a development strategy that seeks harmony and cooperative
engagement over hegemonic dominance.
By examining these contrasting development models, the counterfactual analysis gains further
clarity. It becomes evident that China's current strategy, marked by restrained military expansion
and a focus on economic partnerships, represents a deliberate choice that diverges from the more
militaristic paths taken by other global powers in their pursuit of hegemony. This strategic choice
not only aligns with China's ideological commitments to peaceful development but also reflects a
nuanced understanding of the complexities of modern global interdependence.
This is further solidified with the 18th, 19th and 20th party congress of China. The 18th Party
Congress document (2012) of China delineates a strategic vision that emphasizes the
modernization of national defense and the armed forces, aligning with China's international
standing and developmental needs. This vision is encapsulated in the statement: "Building strong
national defense and powerful armed forces that are commensurate with China's international
standing and meet the needs of its security and development interests is a strategic task of China's
modernization drive." This approach indicates a commitment to a balanced development strategy,
where military modernization is pursued in tandem with economic growth and technological
advancement, rather than through aggressive expansion or hegemonic pursuits.
A key aspect of China's strategy, as outlined in the document, is the focus on "active defense" and
enhancing "military strategic guidance as the times so require." This approach is defensive in
nature, prioritizing the safeguarding of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The emphasis on
maritime, space, and cyberspace security, and the goal to "win local war in an information age,"
reflects an understanding of contemporary security challenges and the need for a technologically
advanced military. However, this modernization is framed within the context of China's broader
goals of peaceful development and international cooperation.
The document's commitment to a defensive national defense policy is crucial in understanding
China's harmony approach. It states, "Our endeavors to strengthen national defense aim to
safeguard China's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and ensure its peaceful
development." This policy is a clear departure from traditional hegemonic military strategies,
which often prioritize power projection and military dominance. Instead, China's approach is
characterized by a focus on internal security and development, and a commitment to peaceful

29
resolution of international disputes. The Taiwan issue as well as the Sino-Indian border conflicts
serves as an illustrative example (Qaddos 2018; Qimao 2003). While tensions and stand-offs have
occurred, China has largely employed diplomatic and economic measures, instead of outright
military aggression, to manage and negotiate these conflicts (Qaddos 2018; Qimao 2003). This is
consistent with China's broader approach of using economic and diplomatic tools, rather than
military means, to achieve its strategic objectives (Y. Wang 2008).
Furthermore, the document's emphasis on global cooperation and opposition to hegemonism and
power politics reinforces China's pursuit of harmonious international relations. The commitment
to "actively participate in regional and international security affairs" and "play an active role in
international political and security fields" aligns with a strategy of cooperative engagement and
mutual benefit, rather than aggressive military expansion.
The 19th Party Congress document (2017) emphasizes China's dedication to peace, development,
cooperation, and mutual benefit. A pivotal quote from the document states: "China will continue
to hold high the banner of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit." This reflects
China's commitment to fostering a global environment characterized by harmony and shared
prosperity, rather than pursuing unilateral dominance or hegemony. The document acknowledges
the complexities of the modern world, including both the opportunities and challenges it presents.
It asserts, "Our world is full of both hope and challenges... No country can afford to retreat into
self-isolation." This highlights China's understanding of the interconnected nature of contemporary
global issues and its commitment to collaborative solutions.
China's foreign policy, as outlined in the document, is rooted in the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence, advocating for "mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation." This
approach is fundamentally different from hegemonic strategies that often rely on coercion or
dominance. It underscores China's preference for a multipolar world where nations coexist
peacefully and cooperate for mutual benefit.
The 20th Party Congress document (2022) further reinforces China's commitment to peaceful
development and global cooperation. It states, "China remains firm in pursuing an independent
foreign policy of peace... and it is dedicated to promoting a human community with a shared
future." This vision aligns with the concept of global harmony, where China positions itself as a
responsible global actor, contributing positively to international affairs.
The document explicitly rejects hegemonic and power politics: "China stands firmly against all
forms of hegemonism and power politics, the Cold War mentality, interference in other countries’
internal affairs, and double standards." This rejection is a clear indication of China's alternative
approach to international relations, one that prioritizes peaceful coexistence over aggressive
expansion. China's defense policy is described as inherently defensive, with the document stating,

30
"China pursues a defensive national defense policy... China will never seek hegemony or engage
in expansionism." This policy is a cornerstone of China's harmony approach, ensuring that its
development and strengthening as a nation do not pose threats to global peace or stability.
The 18th, 19th and 20th Party Congress documents articulate a clear and consistent message: China's
commitment to a path of peaceful development, mutual respect, and global cooperation. This
approach is in stark contrast to traditional hegemonic strategies, focusing instead on building a
community with a shared future for mankind. Through these commitments, China demonstrates
its dedication to a harmonious approach in international relations, seeking to contribute positively
to global peace, development, and stability.
The interplay of China's economic capacity, its manufacturing prowess, its measured military
expenditure, and the guiding ideologies all converge to a strategic orientation that, while fully
capable of pursuing a path towards military hegemony, consciously opts for a broader, more
balanced approach to global engagement. This approach not only highlights China's potential for
militaristic escalation but more importantly illuminates the strategic priorities underpinning its
restraint.
The Global Security Initiative (GSI), as outlined in the 2023 Concept Paper, further solidifies
China's commitment to a harmonious approach in international relations (GSI 2023). This
initiative underscores the interconnectedness of global security challenges and emphasizes the
need for collective action, aligning with China's vision of peaceful development and mutual
cooperation. Central to the GSI are principles that reflect China's dedication to a harmonious world
order. The initiative advocates for "common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable
security," emphasizing a holistic approach to security that resonates with China's ideology of
peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. This principle aligns with the sentiments expressed in the
19th and 20th Party Congress documents, where China emphasizes its commitment to global peace
and development.
The GSI also underscores the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
all countries, echoing China's long-standing foreign policy of non-interference and sovereign
equality. This stance is a clear rejection of hegemonism and power politics, as China advocates for
a multipolar world order and multilateralism, in line with the principles of the UN Charter, which
the GSI strongly upholds. Furthermore, the GSI acknowledges the indivisibility of security,
advocating for a balanced approach that considers the interests of all nations. This principle of
addressing the legitimate security concerns of all country’s distances China from traditional
hegemonic practices, emphasizing a more inclusive and equitable approach to global security.
The peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and consultation is another key aspect of the
GSI, aligning with China's diplomatic approach and its emphasis on peaceful development. This

31
approach is consistent with China's stance against unilateralism and its commitment to resolving
international disputes amicably. In addressing both traditional and non-traditional security
challenges, the GSI calls for collaborative efforts, highlighting China's preference for
comprehensive security solutions. This approach demonstrates China's commitment to playing a
constructive role in global security governance and reinforces its harmony-oriented approach.
Therefore, the Global Security Initiative is a clear testament to China's dedication to building a
community with a shared future for mankind. It emphasizes principles and actions consistent with
China's stated ideologies of peaceful development, mutual respect, and global cooperation. By
advocating for a comprehensive and cooperative approach to security, the GSI reinforces China's
narrative of harmony over hegemony in the international arena, further demonstrating its
commitment to a path of peaceful development and cooperation.
The document "A Global Community of Shared Future: China's Proposals and Actions" provides
a comprehensive framework that further underscores China's commitment to fostering a
harmonious global community (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2023). This vision, deeply
rooted in China's cultural heritage and modernization experience, offers a unique perspective on
addressing contemporary international relations and global governance challenges.
At the heart of this vision is the concept of interconnectedness and collective response to global
challenges. The document emphasizes the critical juncture at which humanity stands, advocating
a shift from division and confrontation towards unity, cooperation, and mutual respect. This
approach is encapsulated in the assertion that "the world is undergoing change on a scale unseen
in a century," highlighting the urgency and the need for a cohesive global strategy. China's
blueprint for the future is grounded in the principles of mutual respect, equity, justice, and mutually
beneficial cooperation. These principles are not just diplomatic strategies but are deeply embedded
in the rich tapestry of Chinese culture, which values harmony and peaceful coexistence. The
document draws on these cultural roots, stating, "Harmony is the core concept of Chinese culture,"
which underscores the preference for a harmonious approach over conflict and discord.
The direction and path outlined in the document for achieving this global community focus on
several key areas. Promoting a new type of economic globalization, pursuing a peaceful
development path, fostering new international relations, practicing true multilateralism, and
promoting common human values are all integral to this vision. This multifaceted approach reflects
China's understanding that a harmonious global community is not unidimensional but requires
concerted efforts in various domains which could potentially leads to a non-hegemonic world order
focused on mutual growth and success (Artner and Yin 2023; Yin 2023; Eun 2022).
China's actions and contributions, as detailed in the document, are testament to its commitment to
this vision. Initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative,

32
among others, are not just foreign policy tools but are seen as extensions of China's philosophy of
mutual benefit and shared growth. The document states, "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a
vivid example of building a global community of shared future," which illustrates how these
initiatives are aligned with the broader goal of global harmony. Finally, the document calls for
global action and cooperation to realize the vision of a global community of shared future. It
underscores the importance of confidence, a broad mind, a global vision, a sense of responsibility,
and a willingness to act. This call to action is a clear indication of China's stance on collective
responsibility and collaboration for a sustainable future.
Overall, "A Global Community of Shared Future: China's Proposals and Actions" is a manifesto
of China's commitment to a harmonious global order. It reflects a deep understanding of the
challenges facing the world and offers a comprehensive, culturally rooted, and action-oriented
approach to addressing them. The document not only outlines China's vision but also demonstrates
its readiness to lead and collaborate in building a more harmonious and sustainable world which
further showcase China’s overall stance and pursuit of Harmony.
The restraint China demonstrates despite its potential for increased military development aligns
well with the concept of "defensive realism" in international relations theory. Realism, as
articulated by scholars like Kenneth Waltz and John J. Mearsheimer, postulates that states aim to
maintain their position in the international system rather than aggressively seek to dominate others
(Waltz 1979, 91–101; Mearsheimer 2001). In this context, an increase in a state's military power
is seen as a reaction to perceived threats rather than an inherent desire for hegemony.
The SIPRI data on China's military expenditure, in conjunction with its robust manufacturing
capacity and economic growth, provides empirical evidence that could be interpreted in line with
defensive realism. Despite the capacity for massive militarization, China has maintained a stable
military expenditure relative to its GDP, suggesting a focus on maintaining its security rather than
seeking to aggressively dominate others.
China's "Peaceful Development," "Harmonious World," "Chinese Dream," and "A Human
Community with a Shared Future" ideologies are indicative of a defensive realist orientation.
These ideologies advocate for a cooperative and harmonious international order over aggressive
competition and military dominance. This reflects a prioritization of economic development and
global cooperation, aligning with the defensive realist view that states are primarily security-
seeking entities rather than power-maximizing ones.
Constructivist Theory in international relations suggests that state interests and behaviors are not
just shaped by the anarchic structure of the international system (as realists argue) but also by
ideational factors such as beliefs, identities, and norms (Allan, Vucetic, and Hopf 2018). This could
further give reasoning to China’s non hegemonic argument as well as showcase how China’s

33
ideologies direct their overall global strategies. Constructivists believe that international politics is
shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and social identities. States are not just
motivated by material interests but also by ideas, which can change over time and are shaped by
internal and external interactions.
Analyzing China's ideologies through a constructivist lens:
1. Peaceful Development: This suggests a narrative where China assures the world that its
rise will not pose a threat to the global order, but rather be a contributor to it. This is not
just a strategy for economic growth but also a defining idea of China's identity in the global
arena.
2. Harmonious World: This represents China's aspiration for a multipolar world where
nations coexist peacefully. It resonates with the constructivist emphasis on international
cooperation shaped by shared ideas and norms.
3. Chinese Dream: While it primarily focuses on national rejuvenation, it also indicates
China's desire to craft a narrative about its global role and responsibility. A constructivist
would argue that this dream shapes and is shaped by China's interactions with other global
actors.
4. A Human Community with a Shared Future/ A Global Community with a Shared
Future: This ideology signals a shift from a Westphalian sovereignty-based international
system to one that emphasizes global governance and mutual interdependence. A
constructivist perspective would emphasize how this ideology reflects changing global
norms around sovereignty and responsibility.
In essence, while realism explains China's cautious approach to its rise in the global order,
constructivism provides a deeper understanding of the ideational underpinnings of China's foreign
policy ideologies and how they shape, and are shaped by, China's interactions with the world. The
relative restraint in China's military expenditure despite its potential for militaristic escalation
provides an interesting case study for realism. It suggests that despite the anarchic nature of the
international system, states, when driven by certain ideologies and strategic considerations, can
and do opt for a more balanced approach to security and power, one that does not inherently
involve aggressive military expansion.
However, it should be noted that realism or constructivism, like any theory, provides a lens through
which to interpret state behavior, and it is not without its limitations. It is important to continue
examining China's military expenditure trends and strategic behavior in conjunction with other
factors, such as its diplomatic actions, rhetoric, and policy decisions, to gain a comprehensive
understanding of its approach to military development in the evolving global context.
5. Conclusion

34
In conclusion, this study aimed to investigate the extent to which China's military capabilities,
spending, and arms trade patterns correspond with its ideological commitments to peaceful
development, the Chinese Dream, a Harmonious World, and the vision of a "Human Community
with a Shared Future." Our hypothesis posited that, although China possesses the potential for
regional hegemony, its military practices align more closely with its espoused ideologies rather
than an ambitious pursuit of regional dominance.
Empirical examination of the data from SIPRI corroborated our hypothesis, revealing that China's
military spending, while significant, is neither commensurate with its potential nor indicative of
an aggressive pursuit of hegemony. Despite China's rapidly expanding economy and the capability
to dramatically increase its military expenditure, it has chosen a path of restraint, with its military
spending as a percentage of GDP remaining stable and significantly lower than the United States.
Moreover, China's position in the global arms trade, as both an importer and exporter, further
underlines its measured approach. Rather than utilizing its robust manufacturing capabilities to
dominate the arms market, China has exhibited a balanced involvement, displaying neither an
excessive reliance on foreign military technology nor a dominating presence as an arms supplier.
This aligns with its commitment to a "Human Community with a Shared Future," emphasizing
cooperation and mutual development over unilateral domination.
The presence of nuclear weapons, a significant development since the Cold War era, provides a
critical backdrop for our findings. The mutually assured destruction that comes with nuclear
warfare acts as a deterrent to the aggressive pursuit of military dominance, reinforcing the strategic
logic of China's restrained approach and its alignment with peaceful development ideologies.
These findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of China's strategic choices and the interplay
between its military capabilities and ideological commitments. Rather than a binary choice
between peace and power, China appears to navigate a complex path that aims to secure its national
interests, maintain regional stability, and adhere to its philosophical principles. The findings
underscore the importance of incorporating ideological context when interpreting military
practices, a facet often overlooked but essential for a comprehensive understanding of international
relations and security dynamics.
However, it is critical to acknowledge that while our study provides insights into China's current
stance, these dynamics are subject to change given the fluid nature of international politics.
Continuous monitoring and reevaluation of these trends are crucial for understanding the evolving
trajectories of China's defense strategy and its implications for global peace and stability. From a
realist perspective, China's rise as a major power poses a potential threat to other states in the
region, as well as global powers such as the United States. This is because realist theory suggests
that states are never fully satisfied with their power and will always strive to achieve greater
influence and control. In this context, China's adherence to the principles of peaceful development

35
and the Chinese Dream could be viewed as a strategic move designed to reduce opposition to its
growing influence in East Asia.
Moreover, China's non-democratic political system adds another layer of uncertainty for other
states. The democratic peace theory posits that democratic states are less likely to engage in
military conflict with one another. Since China is a one-party state governed by the Communist
Party of China, its political system inherently diverges from the democratic norms that underpin
the international order. This discrepancy can fuel skepticism and apprehension among other states
regarding China's true intentions in the region. Additionally, history has shown that a rising power
can disrupt the balance of power and trigger conflicts or wars, as seen in the cases of Germany in
the early 20th century and Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. This historical context further amplifies
the concerns of other states in the face of China's rapid rise.
In summary, while the evidence presented in this paper suggests that China's military behavior is
primarily driven by its ideological commitments to peaceful development and the Chinese Dream,
Harmonious World and A Human Community with a Shared Future, it is crucial to recognize that
other states may remain skeptical of these intentions due to the inherent uncertainties of an anarchic
international system, the realist emphasis on power maximization, China's non-democratic
political system, and historical examples of rising powers disrupting regional stability.
Acknowledging these concerns and addressing them through transparent diplomacy and
confidence-building measures is essential for fostering regional stability and ensuring that China's
rise is perceived as a peaceful development rather than a potential threat to the international order.
Overall, China's commitment to collaboration and mutual growth is not a recent development but
a principle that likely predates Deng Xiaoping's 1974 address, echoing through the nation's
historical and ideological evolution. This enduring ethos is encapsulated in various ideological
statements, white papers, and Party Congress documents, underscoring China's consistent
advocacy for a peaceful role within the global order—a trend that continues to shape its
international posture up to the present year.
References
Ali, Iftikhar, and Jatswan S Sidhu. 2023. “Strategic Dynamics of the Arms Race in South Asia.”
Journal of Asian and African Studies, January, 002190962311531.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096231153150.
Ali, Salman, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2022. “Deterrence Measure: A Cause for Promoting
Regional Instability in South Asia.” Chinese Journal of International Review 04 (02).
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2630531322500081.
Allan, Bentley B., Srdjan Vucetic, and Ted Hopf. 2018. “The Distribution of Identity and the
Future of International Order: China’s Hegemonic Prospects.” International Organization
72 (4): 839–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000267.

36
Allen, Franklin, Jun Qian, and Meijun Qian. 2003. “Law, Finance, and Economic Growth in
China.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.419481.
Artner, Annamária, and Zhiguang Yin. 2023. “Towards a Non-Hegemonic World Order –
Emancipation and the Political Agency of the Global South in a Changing World Order.”
Third World Quarterly 44 (10): 2193–2207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2023.2251422.
Beeson, Mark. 2009. “Hegemonic Transition in East Asia? The Dynamics of Chinese and
American Power.” Review of International Studies 35 (1): 95–112.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509008341.
Beeson, Mark, and Corey Crawford. 2023. “Putting the BRI in Perspective: History, Hegemony
and Geoeconomics.” Chinese Political Science Review 8 (1): 45–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00210-y.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam. 1996. “The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816–1985.”
American Political Science Review 90 (2): 239–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082882.
Betts, Richard K. 1988. “Nuclear Peace and Conventional War.” Journal of Strategic Studies 11
(1): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402398808437330.
Bibi, Gulshan, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2023. “RAMIFICATIONS OF INDIA’S NAVAL
BUILD-UP IN NUCLEAR REALMS.” Margalla Papers 27 (2): 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.54690/margallapapers.27.2.171.
Bijian, Zheng. 2005. “China’s ‘Peaceful Rise’ to Great-Power Status.” Foreign Affairs 84 (5):
18. https://doi.org/10.2307/20031702.
Bitzinger, Richard, and James Char. 2020. Reshaping the Chinese Military The PLA’s Roles and
Missions in the Xi Jinping Era. Routledge.
Buzan, B., and M. Cox. 2013. “China and the US: Comparable Cases of ‘Peaceful Rise’?” The
Chinese Journal of International Politics 6 (2): 109–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pot003.
Cai, Kevin G. 2023. “China’s Initiatives: A Bypassing Strategy for the Reform of Global
Economic Governance.” Chinese Political Science Review 8 (1): 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00215-7.
Carter, Jeff, Heather L. Ondercin, and Glenn Palmer. 2021. “Guns, Butter, and Growth: The
Consequences of Military Spending Reconsidered.” Political Research Quarterly 74 (1):
148–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919890417.
China’s peaceful development. 2011. “THE STATE COUNCIL OF THE PEOPLE’S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA.” China’s Peaceful Development. 2011.
http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2014/09/09/content_281474986284646.htm
.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2023. “Forging Ahead on the New Journey toward a
Community with a Shared Future for Mankind. 中华人民共和国外交部. .” 2023.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/202303/t20230329_11051025.ht
ml#:~:text=overcome%20the%20difficulties.-,The%20vision%20of%20a%20community%
20with%20a%20shared%20future%20for,security%20deficit%20in%20the%20world.

37
Dalby, Simon. 1995. “Security, Intelligence, the National Interest and the Global Environment.”
Intelligence and National Security 10 (4): 175–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02684529508432332.
Demeure, Nicolas, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2023a. “Effect of the Zero-Covid Policy on Chinese
FDI Inflows and Government’s Response: Has the Pandemic Led to Distinctive Paradigm
Change in China’s Hypergrowth Approach to Development?” Journal of Strategic and
Global Studies 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.7454/jsgs.v6i2.1124.
———. 2023b. “France in the Middle East: A Democratic Justification for Military
Interventions in Iraq and Beyond.” Journal of Middle East and Islamic Studies 10 (2).
https://doi.org/10.7454/meis.v10i2.167.
Deng, Xiaoping. 1974. “Speech by Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of
China, Deng Xiaoping, at the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly. .” 1974.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1974/04/10.htm.
Diamond, Larry, and James O. Ellis. 2023. “Deterring a Chinese Military Attack on Taiwan.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 79 (2): 65–71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2023.2178166.
Dourado, Leolino. 2023. “China-Backed Infrastructure in the Global South: Lessons from the
Case of the Brazil–Peru Transcontinental Railway Project.” Third World Quarterly 44 (4):
814–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2154204.
Doyle, Michael. 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2.” Philosophy &
Public Affairs, 323–53.
Eun, Yong-Soo. 2022. “Alternative Order Without Alternative Norms?” Fudan Journal of the
Humanities and Social Sciences 15 (2): 227–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-021-00339-
1.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political
Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.
https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.
Fleurant, Aude-Emmanuelle. 2017. “The Economics of Arms.” The RUSI Journal 162 (5): 75–
77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2017.1401409.
Ghiselli, Andrea. 2018. “Interpreting China’s Rise in a Decentered World Through the Lens of
Peacekeeping and Antipiracy Missions.” Chinese Political Science Review 3: 252–69.
Gilli, Andrea, and Mauro Gilli. 2019. “Why China Has Not Caught Up Yet: Military-
Technological Superiority and the Limits of Imitation, Reverse Engineering, and Cyber
Espionage.” International Security 43 (3): 141–89. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00337.
Gilpin, Robert. 1988. “The Theory of Hegemonic War.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18
(4).
Glaser, Bonnie S, and Evan S Medeiros. 2007. “The Changing Ecology of Foreign Policy-
Making in China: The Ascension and Demise of the Theory of ‘Peaceful Rise.’” The China
Quarterly 190 (June): 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741007001208.
Grygiel, Jakub J. 2021. “The Limits of Sea Power.” Naval War College Review 74 (4).

38
GSI. 2023. “The Global Security Initiative Concept Paper. .” 2023.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230221_11028348.html.
Hao, Su. 2008. “Harmonious World: The Conceived International Order in Framework of
China’s Foreign Affairs.” Foreign Affairs 87 (1): 29–55.
Heo, Uk, and Min Ye. 2019. “U.S. Military Deployment and Host-Nation Economic Growth.”
Armed Forces & Society 45 (2): 234–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X17738219.
IISS. 2022. “The Military Balance 2022.” International Institute for Strategic Studies. . 2022.
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2022/.
Ikenberry, John. 2008. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System
Survive?” Foreign Affairs 87 (1).
Izadi, Roya. 2022. “State Security or Exploitation: A Theory of Military Involvement in the
Economy.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 66 (4–5): 729–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027211070574.
Johannesson, Jokull. 2017. “Russia-Ukraine Balance of Military Power.” Journal of
International Studies 10 (1): 63–73. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-1/4.
Kant, Immanuel. 1970. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch . Cambridge University Press. .
Kim, Min-hyung. 2022. “Hedging between the United States and China? South Korea’s
Ideology-Driven Behavior and Its Implications for National Security.” International
Relations of the Asia-Pacific 23 (1): 129–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcab020.
Kim, Yongshin, and Sungho Rho. 2024. “The US–China Chip War, Economy–Security Nexus,
and Asia.” Journal of Chinese Political Science, February. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-
024-09881-7.
Kirshner, Jonathan. 2012. “The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical Realism and the Rise of
China.” European Journal of International Relations 18 (1): 53–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110373949.
Kirton, John, and Alissa Xinhe Wang. 2023. “China’s Complex Leadership in G20 and Global
Governance: From Hangzhou 2016 to Kunming 2021.” Chinese Political Science Review 8
(3): 331–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00213-9.
Lee, Brice Tseen Fu, Ayidana Asihaer, Juan Pablo Sims, and Salman Ali. 2023. “The Interplay
of Public Health, Politics, and Economics in COVID-19 Border Control Strategies: A
Comparative Study of Brunei Darussalam, UK, China, Germany, and Australia.” Unnes
Political Science Journal 7 (2).
Lee, Brice Tseen Fu, and Juan Pablo Sims. 2023. “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: A Framework
for Understanding China’s SOEs, SMEs and Decentralisation.” China Report 59 (4): 402–
21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00094455231187692.
Levine, Paul, and Ron Smith. 2003. The Arms Trade, Security and Conflict. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203477168.
Levine, Paul, and Ronald Smith. 1995. “The Arms Trade and Arms Control.” Economic Journal
105 (429).

39
Liangyu. 2019. “China Will Never Seek Hegemony: White Paper.” Xinhua. 2019.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/24/c_138253236.htm.
Liu, Hong. 2016. “Opportunities and Anxieties for the Chinese Diaspora in Southeast Asia.”
Current History 115 (784): 312–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2016.115.784.312.
Liu, Yu, and Richard B. Saltman. 2020. “Policy Lessons From Early Reactions to the COVID-19
Virus in China.” American Journal of Public Health 110 (8): 1145–48.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305732.
Loftus, Suzanne. 2023. “Management of the Liberal International Order.” In , 27–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20089-2_2.
Mastro, Oriana Skylar. 2022. “Understanding the Challenge of China’s Rise: Fixing Conceptual
Confusion about Intentions.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 27 (3): 585–600.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-022-09805-3.
Mearsheimer, John Joseph. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.”
International Security 15 (1).
———. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
———. 2014. “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That
Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs.” Foreign Affairs 93 (5).
Mehan, Hugh, Charles E. Nathanson, and James M. Skelly. 1990. “Nuclear Discourse in the
1980s: The Unravelling Conventions of the Cold War.” Discourse & Society 1 (2): 133–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926590001002002.
Menegazzi, Silvia. 2020. “Rising Powers and the Reform of Global Economic Governance: The
BRICS and the Normative Challenge Ahead.” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social
Sciences 13 (1): 135–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00258-2.
Meng, Weizhan. 2023. “From Defensive Realism to Hegemonic Stability: Explaining the
Interactions Between the Imperial China and the Surrounding Regimes.” Fudan Journal of
the Humanities and Social Sciences 16 (4): 455–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-023-
00385-x.
Nathan, Andrew J., and Boshu Zhang. 2022. “‘A Shared Future for Mankind’: Rhetoric and
Reality in Chinese Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping.” Journal of Contemporary China 31
(133): 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.1926091.
Nye, Joseph S. 2023. “As China Rises, Must Others Bow?” In , 89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0714-4_14.
Ouyang, Hanzhen, Chang Li, Guangwei Liu, Mingxin Zhang, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2022.
“Development Zones and Firm Innovation: Evidence from Shanghai.” Chinese Journal of
Urban and Environmental Studies 10 (04). https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345748122500282.
Pan, Zhenqiang. 2018. “A Study of China’s No-First-Use Policy on Nuclear Weapons.” Journal
for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 1 (1): 115–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2018.1458415.
Papageorgiou, Maria, and Daniella da Silva Nogueira de Melo. 2022. “China as a Responsible
Power Amid the COVID-19 Crisis: Perceptions of Partners and Adversaries on Twitter.”

40
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 15 (2): 159–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-022-00344-y.
Paris, Roland. 1997. “Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism.” International
Security 22 (2): 54–89. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.22.2.54.
Pattanaik, Smruti. 2018. “India, Pakistan and the Contest for Regional Hegemony.” In The Role
of Geo-Economics, 173–83.
Pu, Xiaoyu. 2017. “Controversial Identity of a Rising China.” The Chinese Journal of
International Politics 10 (2): 131–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pox004.
Qaddos, Maira. 2018. “Sino-Indian Border Conflict and Implications for Bilateral Relations.”
Policy Perspectives: The Journal of the Institute of Policy Studies 15 (2).
https://doi.org/10.13169/polipers.15.2.0057.
Qimao, Chen. 2003. “China’s New Approaches to a Peaceful Solution of the Taiwan Issue.”
American Foreign Policy Interests 25 (6): 513–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/714044180.
Rana, Waheeda. 2015. “Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist
and Neoliberal Thoughts.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 6 (2).
Rauchhaus, Robert. 2009. “Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis.” Journal of Conflict
Resolution 53 (2): 258–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002708330387.
Sagan, Scott, and Kenneth Waltz. 2002. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed.
W.W. Norton.
Sims, Juan Pablo, Yun-Tso Lee, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2023. “New Chinese Economic Policy
to Latin America? A QCA Approach to the Belt and Road Initiative.” Chinese Political
Science Review, July. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-023-00244-w.
SIPRI. 2023. “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.” STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL
PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. 2023.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55163/CQGC9685.
Smith, Martin A. 2013. “Russia and Multipolarity since the End of the Cold War.” East
European Politics 29 (1): 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2013.764481.
Song, Yu, and Bo Chen. 2024. “Are the Defense Policy and Military Expenditure in China
Economically or Politically Driven?” Journal of Chinese Political Science, March.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-024-09884-4.
Sweidan, Osama D. 2023. “Geopolitical Risk and Military Expenditures: Evidence from the US
Economy.” Russian Journal of Economics 9 (2): 201–18.
https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.9.97733.
The 18th Party Congress document. 2012. “Full Text of Hu Jintao’s Report at 18th Party
Congress.” 2012. http://np.china-
embassy.gov.cn/eng/Diplomacy/201211/t20121118_1586373.htm.
The 19th Party Congress document. 2017. “Full Text of Xi Jinping’s Report at 19th CPC
National Congress.” 2017.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/19thcpcnationalcongress/2017-
11/04/content_34115212.htm.

41
The 20th Party Congress document. 2022. “Full Text of the Report to the 20th National Congress
of the Communist Party of China.” 2022. http://my.china-
embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202210/t20221026_10792358.htm.
Waldron, Arthur. 2005. “The Rise of China: Military and Political Implications.” Review of
International Studies 31 (4): 715–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006728.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. 1st ed. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company .
Wang, Yiwei. 2008. “Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power.” The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 257–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312757.
Wang, Zheng. 2014. “The Chinese Dream: Concept and Context.” Journal of Chinese Political
Science 19 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-013-9272-0.
Ward, Michael D., and David R. Davis. 1992. “Sizing up the Peace Dividend: Economic Growth
and Military Spending in the United States, 1948–1996.” American Political Science
Review 86 (3): 748–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964136.
Wezeman, Pieter D., Katarina Djokic, Mathew George, Zain Hussain, and Siemon T. Wezeman.
2024. “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023.” Stockholm.
https://doi.org/10.55163/PBRP4239.
Wohlforth, William. 1994. “Realism and the End of the Cold War.” International Security 19
(3).
Wong, Kwok Chung. 2021. “The Rise of China’s Developmental Peace: Can an Economic
Approach to Peacebuilding Create Sustainable Peace?” Global Society 35 (4): 522–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2021.1942802.
Xiaochun, Zhao. 2018. “In Pursuit of a Community of Shared Future: China’s Global Activism
in Perspective.” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies 04 (01): 23–37.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2377740018500082.
Yang, Heewon, Chanyoung Hong, Sungmoon Jung, and Jeong-Dong Lee. 2015. “Arms or
Butter: The Economic Effect of an Increase in Military Expenditure.” Journal of Policy
Modeling 37 (4): 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.03.014.
Yaqing, Q. 2010. “International Society as a Process: Institutions, Identities, and China’s
Peaceful Rise.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (2): 129–53.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poq007.
Yildirim†, Jülide, Selami Sezgin, and Nadir Öcal. 2005. “MILITARY EXPENDITURE AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES: A DYNAMIC PANEL
DATA ANALYSIS.” Defence and Peace Economics 16 (4): 283–95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10242690500114751.
Yin, Zhiguang. 2023. “‘World of Tomorrow’ Afro–Asian Solidarity and the Great Leap Forward
of Culture in the People’s Republic of China.” Third World Quarterly 44 (10): 2263–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2074391.

42
Yuan, Changrui, and Brice Tseen Fu Lee. 2023a. “EXPLORING CHINA’S RESPONSE TO
THE ROHINGYA CRISIS: A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE.” Journal of Terrorism Studies 5
(1). https://doi.org/10.7454/jts.v5i1.1056.
———. 2023b. “FROM RIVALS TO PARTNERS: THE EVOLUTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION AMONG CHINA, JAPAN, AND KOREA.”
Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v25i1.1267.
Zhang, Falin, Yang Cui, and Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn. 2023. “Digital RMB vs. Dollar
Hegemony? Friendly Foes in China-US Currency Competition.” Journal of Chinese
Political Science, November. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09876-w.
Zhao, Suisheng. 1992. “Beijing’s Perception of the International System and Foreign Policy
Adjustment in the Post-Cold War World.” Journal of Northeast Asian Studies 11 (3): 70–
83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03023328.