With the offset of the American abdication, a resounding effect has commenced on the international community where a number of people have come to believe that China will replace The United States as a hegemony. While this theory does have its affirmative backing, it does not stand economically, financially or politically.
ECONOMIC SECTOR
While China has been under the spotlight for years being hallowed as the “factory of the world” and then as the “bridge builder of the world”, in an ironic result; its capacity for economic reform is still in question and its financial sector remains far less developed than that of the western world. With a slow rate of growth, economic inefficient are bound with no price elasticity. China's financial sector intern fails to provide investors with a rate of consistently profitable returns with an extended market viability formula due to serious constraints associated with the deeply embedded government involvement in the country. Being a leader to sustain the liberal international order will require China to commit a vast amount of resources. While China is now a net donor of foreign aid, it is far from achieving the donor status of many member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and development (OECD). China's funding towards sectors like Global health is 200 million dollars which is inherently lesser than that of the USA which is 10 billion. China does not receive foreign aid or specialized developmental assistance in approval by the ruling state part of the country analogous to the U.S. Agency for international development (USAID) to coordinate and construct development assistance to the United States. The international community is yet to witness the long-term viability of China’s recent economic partnerships unlike those the United States has strongly cemented over the years.
POLITICAL
The presence of soft power abroad without strong domestic institutions within China threatens to undermine China's global presence with the China Central Television being a state owned media organization supervised by SARFT ( State administration of Radio, film and Television) assigned and controlled by the Chinese government. China's own lack of legal enforcement and ramifications may not play out well along the One Belt One Road project masterminded by Xi Jinping ; resulting in corruption or project non-viability particularly since many of the nations in which it will invest will have poor legal frameworks themselves. All this in addition to China’s ongoing capital controls and lack of financial liberalization hindering the internationalization of the Renminbi currency which makes its financial of global projects unappealing. The Chinese government has also sympathized with current global order and chooses a country first policy to not meddle in international conflict. As compared to other countries, China does not interfere in international politics and resolves. Through meetings over last years summit, countries like Russia and India have deciding to build a framework to keep countries overusing a P5 status in check.
The United States of America was delineated the hegemony status at the cusp of the World War II and titled a global power by the rest of the world including Europe and Japan and the rest of the developed world. Hegemon status is not directly granted to the nations that trade the most or grow the fasted by covers a plethora of state and internationally related subjects before entitled.
The apparent ‘withdrawal’ of the United States of America from various previously brokered agreement that promote international peace and symbiotic coexistence of nations is seen as the Great American Abdication. While some might argue that this is a deliberately thought out execution of its new foreign policy- America First, the negative house begs to differ. The Great American Abdication, unlike popular belief, isn't powered by the newly(2016) elected Republican government, rather a gradual withdrawal that has been happening since the beginning of 2000s, the dramatic declaration of its new foreign policy is what made it seem like the product of the republican govt.
So what exactly does the American abdication being gradual change? A gradual withdrawal from the international stage refers to a systematic reshuffling of its priorities, systematic thus conscious of its repercussions leading to a more stable approach. Whereas a sudden reordering of priorities of a world superpower like the US would cause disastrous instability- the kind that the affirmative proposes. However, the negative house assumes the burden of proving the American Abdication is a gradual process thus refuting the very basis of the affirmative argument.
While the affirmative house believes that US had been a ‘global leader’ that made the peaceful coexistence of its fellow nations it's primary priority, the negative house, once again, believes otherwise. The US had gained power and influence over the rest of the world after its ruthless display of military power in the World Wars and it's compassion towards the well being of its fellow nations in instances like bailing Germany out of the Guilt Clause clutches post world war 2.
However, the United States considers this very influence it has over other countries as a means to further its own interests. Moreover, there have been numerous instances in the past decades of US profiting from proxy wars- a clear example of the United States’ negligence towards the humanitarian well being of its fellow nations when it's abuse leads to profits for the ‘States. After considering the United States’ use of its global hegemony in the past few decades, the negative house is forced to believe that the abdication of US’ international leadership might in fact promote stability.