Why China Is Likely to Win the Long-Term Economic Race Against Europe and America

 

Why China Is Likely to Win the Long-Term Economic Race Against Europe and America

By

Rakesh K Sharma

The global economic race between China on one side and the United States and Europe on the other is often framed in terms of technology, military strength, or political ideology. But at its core, this competition is about something far more fundamental: how nations choose to build power. Over the long run, China’s approach gives it a decisive and structural advantage.

For decades, the United States and much of Europe have relied on a strategy best described as divide and rule. This approach has shaped foreign policy, trade practices, and even domestic economic structures. Manufacturing was steadily outsourced to cheaper regions, while Western economies became increasingly dependent on large corporations, financial markets, and consumption rather than production. At the same time, weaker nations were kept divided politically, economically, and often militarily, ensuring they could never emerge as serious competitors or stable partners.

War and instability became recurring tools of this strategy. Countries that challenged Western economic dominance often faced sanctions, proxy conflicts, regime-change efforts, or prolonged instability. Terrorism and regional wars do not emerge in isolation; they thrive in fractured societies where institutions are weakened, and economic self-reliance is discouraged. While this model preserved Western dominance for decades, it hollowed out industrial capacity at home and bred deep resentment abroad.

One of the clearest examples of this failure can be seen in the nations south of the United States’ border. Instead of helping to strengthen these economies and turn them into stable markets for American goods, U.S. policy treated many of them as disposable buffer states. American corporations and wealthy investors captured prime land and resources, while local economies were left dependent on remittances and aid. These countries were pushed into destructive drug wars, even as drugs flowed into the United States, were legalized or commercialized in different forms, and devastated American communities.

Rather than addressing this policy failure, the United States chose to fight a “war on immigration,” a war it never needed to fight. Mass migration is not an external invasion; it is a predictable outcome of decades of economic destabilization. Had neighboring economies been strengthened through genuine investment, industrial development, and long-term partnership, large-scale migration would not exist at its current scale.

Instead, immigration has been weaponized politically. It has divided Americans against one another, native-born against immigrant, worker against worker, while the underlying economic causes remain unaddressed. This internal conflict weakens social cohesion, distorts public debate, and consumes enormous political and financial capital that could have been invested in rebuilding the domestic economy.

China chose a fundamentally different path.

Instead of dividing markets, China focused on integrating them. Rather than weakening neighboring economies, it invested in them. Through large-scale infrastructure projects, trade corridors, ports, railways, and long-term financing, China linked its economic growth to that of surrounding regions and even distant nations. Investments in South and Central Asia, including Pakistan and Nepal, illustrate this strategy clearly: infrastructure development expands local economies while simultaneously opening stable markets for Chinese goods, services, and technology.

This is not charity. It is strategic integration. Stronger neighboring economies create long-term demand, political stability, and shared growth. A weakened neighbor offers no such value.

China’s trade relationship with India further highlights this contrast. While China systematically strengthened its manufacturing base over decades, India shifted heavily toward services without fully building industrial depth. The resulting trade imbalance reflects long-term planning on one side and missed opportunity on the other.

Militarily, China is often misunderstood. While it does not advertise power the way Western nations do, it is a major defense manufacturer and exporter with proven technological capabilities. Yet China does not rely on constant warfare to sustain its economy. Unlike the United States and its allies, it does not maintain a global posture of permanent military intervention or spend trillions annually projecting power across continents.

The absence of perpetual war is itself an economic advantage. Every trillion dollars not spent on war is a trillion that can be invested in infrastructure, education, scientific research, and domestic stability. It also reduces global backlash. There is relatively little worldwide anger directed at the Chinese people because China is not widely perceived as an occupying or destabilizing force.

Demographically, China does face a population slowdown due to decades of strict family-planning policies. Yet this shift may increase per capita wealth and productivity, particularly as automation and advanced manufacturing reduce reliance on sheer population size. Fewer dependents combined with higher productivity per worker can strengthen economic resilience rather than weaken it.

Meanwhile, the United States and Europe remain trapped in outward-looking strategies. Instead of rebuilding domestic manufacturing, modernizing infrastructure, and strengthening internal economic foundations, they continue to project power abroad. This approach drains resources, accelerates inequality at home, and creates enemies overseas.

Divide and rule is not a strategy of strength. It is a strategy of fear. It works only temporarily and ultimately unites others against you. Nations eventually recognize who profits from instability and who benefits from peace.

China’s advantage lies in a simple reality: it builds where others destroy, integrates where others fragment, and invests where others extract. Unless the United States and Europe fundamentally change their thinking, turning inward to rebuild their economies instead of outward to control others, the balance of power will continue to shift.

The future belongs not to those who build weapons of mass destruction, but to those who build systems that improve the quality of life. Unless the West abandons fear-driven dominance in favor of cooperation and internal renewal, China will continue to gain economic ground steadily, quietly, and decisively.