A Critical Juncture? Covid‐19 and the Fate of the U.S.–CHINA Struggle for Supremacy

Abstract

This article compares the United States’ and China's international efforts of responding to the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and considers how the global public is receiving both to project how such measures would likely shape the international leadership competition. How do the international efforts of the United States and China on COVID-19 affect their respective soft power? How does the global public perception of the United States' and China's COVID-19 efforts affect their competitive advantage for global leadership? Based on the theory of soft power, I use Europe and Africa as cases with global perception data from the Pew Research Center (2017–2020) to argue that China would likely win some admiration for its COVID-19 efforts. However, it is unlikely to substantially shape positive global public perception of China to gain a competitive edge over the United States. This argument is based on the narrative China presents in the pandemic, its diplomatic style, and the ideational attachment the U.S. style has established. I utilize a phenomenological approach with narrative analysis.

In a Security Dilemma

“…The economic capacity of China increases its global bargaining power, funds technological and innovative programs, and, most importantly, questions the status quo . China's wealth enables it to engage in penetrating economic relations with the developing world, shaping its interests and winning friends (Ameyaw‐Brobbey 2021). Since 2000, it has created the Forum on China‐Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) to enhance its interaction with Africans.…”

“…The two have formed limited strategic partnerships and institutionalized the China–Russia Northeast Asia Security Dialogue since 2015 (Han and Paul 2020, p. 2). President Xi and President Putin have established a blossoming interpersonal relationship (Ameyaw‐Brobbey 2021). China and Russia also support each other in international institutions on issues such as Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran.…”

A Micro-assessment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Realities on Small-Scale Vendors in Ghana: China as a Leveraging Resource

“…Nevertheless, Ameyaw-Brobbey (2021a) disagrees with this assertion. He compares the US and China’s international response to the pandemic and considers how the international public is receiving both to project how they will likely shape the leadership competition.…”

“…Other scholars argue that the pandemic might have caused more harm than good to China. They claim it has lost a chance to present its development model and credibility to the world because its blame for the origination may validate the global public’s negative opinions of China and its identity and accelerate the already existing negative trend (Ameyaw-Brobbey 2021b; Kavalski 2021).…”

Note From the Editor:

“…Studies in this area that have passed the journal's rigorous peer‐review process have considered the ongoing global health crisis from a variety of critical perspectives. These include early pieces making empirical sense of discrepancies in COVID‐19 data and reporting (Baris and Pelizzo 2020) as well as the sociopolitical and/or geopolitical challenges invoked by the pandemic in cities (Rich 2021), single countries (Klimkin and Umland 2020), across different regions (Kinyondo and Pelizzo 2021; Kavalski 2021), and concerning the global order (Ameyaw‐Brobbey 2021; Ross Smith and Fallon 2020).…”