Introduction

For any state, the intricacies of its grand strategy impact its place in the global order. For those states that have the potential to become one of the world’s next superpowers, this strategy is the blueprint to achieve global dominance. While the United States is currently considered the world’s hegemonic power, several other states possess the potential to be superpowers in the making, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRIC countries). Assuming these great powers desire to better their positions, their respective strategies may either propel them into a leading international role or act as a hindrance to their ascent. The examples of China and India, in particular, serve as interesting cases to explore due to their potential to become superpowers as well as their vastly different approaches in world affairs. Ascension toward superpower stature is entirely possible for either country in the future, but this path is not well paved. It is simply not enough to pursue an insular, strength-maximizing policy. International legitimacy and reputation are important aspects to consider when measuring power. The strategies employed by states to amass power, therefore, are subject to the perception of other global actors if they aspire to the status of a superpower.

This article will address the strategies pursued by China and India to achieve dominance in the global order. First, to establish what it means to be a superpower and how to achieve this status, we will introduce the framework by which superpowers are measured and the importance of international legitimization. We will then discuss why China and India represent compelling case studies as countries gaining prominence in the global order. Taking into account recent developments, the major strategies of each state will be analyzed with regard to global reception and whether these strategies help or hinder the rise to dominance. Finally, this article will conclude that in order to gain the status of a superpower, a country’s strategy must balance asserting dominance with the maintenance of global legitimacy and reputation.

What Does It Take?

According to John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism, great powers vie for the status of world superpower by amassing power at the expense of other states.[1] It is presumed that the ultimate and most ideal power conditions for a state are achieved when a state reaches total hegemony. However, Mearsheimer argues that this task is impossible for two reasons: first, that great powers will always find incentive to tilt the balance of power in their favor and second, that great powers will never be satisfied with the status quo of power.[2] Therefore, the more achievable goal is for a great power to pursue the status of a superpower rather than the coveted position of global hegemon. It is here that we find China and India.

To determine the point at which a state becomes a superpower, scholars have created varying definitions and frameworks. According to Alice Lyman Miller’s framework, a superpower is measured by its ascendancy in the four axes of power: military, political, economic, and cultural.[3] Dominance in any one of these may enhance a nation’s power, but “extreme advancement, advantage, and dominance on each of these dimensions” are required to attain the stature of a superpower.[4] By these parameters, the United States is currently the only state to enjoy this status unambiguously since the collapse of the Soviet Union, therefore making it the global hegemon of our day.[5]

As plans for amassing power, grand strategies of states are chiefly concerned with ascendancy in the four arenas discussed above. The term in the traditional sense, expressed by military historian Liddell Hart in 1967, emphasized utilizing military means to fulfill state policy aims.[6] Since then, leaders of states have come to realize that restricting their grand strategy plans meant underutilizing other forms of power at their disposal. The Cold War era has since shaped subsequent understandings of strategy. The U.S.-Soviet standoff remained a non-military conflict due to effective nuclear deterrence. Due to the absence of direct military confrontation, “political vitality…economic dynamism, and cultural appeal became the decisive dimensions” of the contest.[7] Now, following the precedent of Cold War tactics, states have recognized the importance of these four axes and are constantly revising their strategies accordingly to fulfill their power-maximizing goals. Indeed, for great powers such as China and India, which are already poised for ascension on the international stage, grand strategy aims to continue the rise to superpower stature.

Building on Miller’s framework, there is another a crucial variable that should be taken into account in addition to advancement and dominance in the four axes. International legitimacy must be considered integral to the status of a superpower. As Mlada Bukovansky plainly explains, state legitimacy, and thus state power, requires external recognition.[8] This international legitimacy is constructed as a purely subjective quality that is relational between actors and defined by one actor’s perception of the other.[9] Robert Kagan has observed that a “perceived pattern of illegitimate behavior can limit the cooperation other countries are willing to offer and put sand in the gears of even a sole superpower.”[10] Applying this notion to great powers, which possess de facto legitimacy, it can be argued that gaining legitimacy takes more than simple recognition to be constitutive; it requires a certain amount of engagement and cooperation, particularly from those states that have comparable or superior power.[11] Conversely, international opposition or hostility to a state’s strategies may hinder its capability of ascension.

In this regard, states are mainly concerned with other actors possessing equal or more power, including international institutions, which have the power of prescribing normative behavior of states.[12] The U.S., as global hegemon, must be taken into special consideration when analyzing the strategies of China and India. Since the current global order is dictated by democratic capitalist states, led by the U.S., the balance of power is usually in the Western system’s favor.[13] The U.S. recognizes that its leadership of the global order positions it to dictate the environment in which India and China will need to make critical strategic choices. To be sure, Russia has risen again since the implosion of the Soviet Union and is now commonly considered a rival of the West, especially the U.S. Furthermore, there are multilateral organizations and alliances such as NATO, the United Nations, and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that great powers both take part in and take heed of. These organizations not only possess power in and of themselves, but also act as channels for the extension of U.S. influence far beyond American borders, contributing to the power and significance of the global hegemon.[14] It is opinions such as these, from the world’s most influential countries and organizations comprised of a plurality of nations, which will most impact a state’s global legitimacy.