In the face of China's rapid economic development, people have a wide range of opinions about "the rise of China." Some believe China is already a risen power, others think it is in the course of rising and while some dismiss the "China rise" as sheer overstatement.

In my opinion, the crux of argument lies in the time frame of "China's rise." Questions should be asked: When did China's emerging process begin and when will the process be completed? Has the country already fulfilled its "rise"?

Those who embrace the "China rise" theory offer their reasons: The country's economy ranked fifth largest in the world in 2005, with its GDP standing at US$2,710 billion compared with US$200 billion in 1978, though its per capita GDP was just US$1,591, ranking behind more than 100 other nations.

The economy has kept an average 9.6 per cent growth each of the past 28 years, which is rarely seen in world economic development history.

The process of China's emerging as a major player in the world economic arena, in the view of this group of people, seems to have started in the late 1970s when the country embarked on the road of reform and opening up. It is by no means easy for a large country with a population of 1.3 billion to maintain such a fast growth rate for 28 years in a row. It should be kept in mind that Japan, a country with a much smaller populace, 100 million, managed to maintain the fast development momentum for less than two decades in the 1950s and 60s.

But some people think otherwise. They argue that China's 2005 GDP share in the world total stood at only 5 per cent compared with its 4.9 per-cent share in 1955. In contrast, Japan's share in 1955 was merely 2.5 per cent, though groundwork had been done by then for the future take-off. Japan's GDP proportion in the global total, however, reached 10 per cent in 1980, though its population was only one-10th China's.

In the same year, China contributed a 2.5 per cent slice to the world's total GDP, as a result of the harm done by the catastrophic "cultural revolution (1966-76)."

Japan had grasped the golden opportunity offered by the world technological and industrial revolutions during that time while China missed it, which can be blamed on its "building socialism with the door shut" and on the "cultural revolution."

Although Japan's fast growth in the 1950s and 60s relied tremendously on heavy industry, the country later went in for high-tech and, as a result, smart Japanese cars, televisions, cameras and audio products started inundating markets the world over. Hence the name "the factory of the world."

Japan may be parasitic in breakthroughs made in basic research, but they are strong in technical innovation to make their products marketable and competitive.

Now China is also called "the factory of the world." Its advantages lie largely in labour-intensive industries, which are in the middle stream of the chain of production, leaving the upper-stream links, such as research and development of new products, and down-stream ones, which mean the capability of tapping the world market, to the care of foreign corporations.

At present, half of China's exports are contributed by joint ventures and foreign-funded companies. So, it is better to call the country "the workshop of the world" rather than "the factory of the world."

Compared with Japan, the real "factory of the world," China is still far short of its emergence as a world-class player. Moreover, the country's per capita GDP is only one-13th that of the United Sates and one-20th that of Japan. Even the per capita GDP of the Republic of Korea is more than 10 fold that of China.

China, growing fast economically, spent 28 years since 1978 restoring 5 per cent GDP share in the world economy. Optimistic estimates put the size of the Chinese economy at 30 per cent of the world's total by 2030, exceeding the share of Japan and approaching the United States'. By then the country could live up to the name of "a risen power."

About 70 per cent of overseas capital pouring into China comes from the East Asian region, including Japan. This indicates that China's emergence as an economic power is closely associated with the development of East Asia, with each side being indispensable to the other. In view of this, Japan is now presented with two strategic options. One is co-operation with China, which automatically contributes to the rise of East Asia as a whole. The other is thwarting China's development, which would ultimately ruin the rise of East Asia.

In military terms, the Chinese military forces lag far behind the US military not only in sheer numbers of sophisticated weapons but also in technological level and the level of military strategic planning and operation.

It is hard to imagine that the Chinese military would be able to catch up with its US counterpart in strategic deterrent capability and in conventional combating power in the decades to come. Moreover, excessive eagerness to catch up would go overboard. The former Soviet Union offered a good lesson in this respect.

In short, China is currently at the starting point of its rise to the status of a world-class power.

In the face of bottlenecks of environmental pollution, resource shortages and a heavy population burden, it will be fairly hard for the country to maintain the fast growth momentum in the coming 24 years. It is therefore predicted that the goal will be fulfilled several decades later.

Fortunately, the nation is presented with important strategic opportunities right now. Led by information technology, energy saving, new energy resources, environmental and biological technologies are powering a new round of technical and industrial revolution. It is obvious that sticking to reform and opening up and seizing the opportunity offered by the new technical and industrial revolution constitutes the pre-condition for the rise of China. This time, we should not miss the golden opportunity.

Most important of all, peaceful international environs should be maintained at all costs. Wars only serve to kill development and prosperity. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. for example, set back the economies of the warring parties several decades. There is only one way for the rise of China sticking to the road of peaceful development.

The author is a researcher from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(China Daily 03/03/2006 page4)