Many Americans view China's emergence as the world's second largest economy with trepidation. The US, it seems, is in decline. China is a "rising power" destined to take over America's role as global hegemon sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Recently, however, China's prospects are looking less rosy. First quarter GDP grew only 7.7 percent, down from an already subpar 7.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Exports are slowing and the investment-led growth upon which the country has relied in the past is clearly unsustainable.
Beijing is hoping to keep the economy on track by transitioning to a new "growth model" based on consumption and productivity gains. Yet so far there is little evidence to suggest that this strategy is working. Indeed, there is really no reason to believe that such a transition can be achieved under the country's current political-economic system.
As the Chinese juggernaut starts to lose momentum, should Americans be breathing a collective sigh of relief? Not really. Unfortunately, China's decline is likely to be a lot less peaceful than its rise.
Slower growth will pose an existential problem for the Chinese Communist Party. Ever since the end of the Maoist era in 1978, economic development has been the party's primary source of legitimacy.
A prolonged slowdown will weaken its hold on power in much the same way that crop failures during imperial times undermined the emperor's claim to the "mandate of heaven." If China is not going to be "number one" after all, some other justification for party rule will be urgently needed.
The party's best bet will be to play the nationalist card, making the defense of the "motherland" its primary mission. This will not be difficult. It will be easy to blame China's economic failures on the machinations of foreign powers, even as Mao Zedong did in his famous speech proclaiming the founding of the People's Republic in 1949.
The fact that China had "fallen behind," he said, was "due entirely to oppression and exploitation by foreign imperialism and domestic reactionary governments."
