Will China's rise as a global superpower be peaceful?

China's territorial disputes and alliances

Question: Will China's rise as a global superpower be peaceful?
Position‹2 of 2: No, China's rise will not be peaceful
Argument1 of 3›: China's territorial disputes and alliances

China continues to have territorial disputes with its neighbours and military alliances with pariah states.

The argument

Conflict between China and the rest of the world remains a strong possibility due to its outstanding territorial claims in both the South China Sea with Brunei, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, and its historical claim over the island of Taiwan, which the USA has promised to protect in any military conflict. China also regularly aligns with pariah states such as Vladimir Putin's Russia, offering them support in the UN Security Council by vetoing any attempts at sanctions. This includes recent attempts by the West to sanction the regime of Bashir Al Assad for the use of chemical weapons which was vetoed by China. Increased military spending in China and a more assertive foreign policy has led many to speculate that China's territorial claims and alliances will be backed up by force.

Premises

[P1]China maintains active territorial disputes across the South China Sea and over Taiwan, the latter of which the United States has pledged to defend militarily. [P2] China consistently aligns with pariah regimes like Russia and Assad's Syria, shielding them from international sanctions through UN Security Council vetoes. [P3] Rising Chinese military spending and a more assertive foreign policy suggest these claims and alliances will increasingly be backed by force. [C] Therefore, China's rise as a global superpower will not be peaceful.

Counter-arguments

Those who expect a broadly peaceful rise reply that territorial disputes and diplomatic alignments have persisted for decades without escalating to major war, which they read as evidence of deterrence and pragmatic restraint rather than an inevitable slide to conflict. They argue China's prosperity depends on stable trade and access to global markets, giving it strong incentives to avoid war, and that vetoes at the UN and assertive rhetoric are normal great-power behaviour rather than proof of violent intent. Rising military spending, on this view, tracks China's growing economy and its need to secure trade routes, and need not mean its claims will be pressed by force.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Longstanding territorial disputes have so far been managed without war, so their existence shows friction, not that conflict is the likely outcome. [Rejecting P2] Aligning with other states and using Security Council vetoes is ordinary great-power diplomacy, which does not by itself indicate a willingness to use force. [Rejecting P3] Higher military spending accompanies economic growth and the protection of trade routes; it is consistent with deterrence and does not establish that China intends to back its claims with force.