This author thinks that Asia is not going to dominate the next century and that America can continue to shape Asia (and the world) as a leader:
In the long run, Asia will see ups and downs in growth and periods of cooperation alternating with crisis—just like everywhere else. Far from being the only global leaders, Asian governments and businesses will eagerly look for new ideas and reforms from more successful regions around the world. However, by sailing against the prevailing winds, the United States can play a major role in shaping Asia’s future toward further openness and stability, working with willing partners and the millions of people who long for a freer and more prosperous region.
If you mean will China lead a submissive Asia to dominate the world, no. I never thought that was a given. But of course, with the people, industry, and science it has, Asia will be the largest concentration of GDP in the world. But it is too divided by conflicting goals to unify easily. Which is good for Asia and the world because that means China won't rule the continent.
I thought China had a window of opportunity to be the most powerful country, and thought it could easily fail to hold the lead, concluding:
China wants to pass us by. They could do it. We shouldn't want them to, however. And unless we shoot ourselves in the foot and cripple our own economy to essentially throw the race (and God help me, I go to sleep every night trying to convince myself that our leaders aren't doing just that), there is no reason we have to give up our lead. Or if we do drop to the number two spot, no reason we can't regain the lead.
And never forget that when our relative power is in the balance, our geography gives us one heck of an advantage over China. In the future, when people speak of the "American century," we should be able to respond, "be more specific."
In that linked post about our geography I said:
I don't lose sleep at night over China's rise in power and wouldn't change places with them. Oh, if China is able to focus their power on a localized area, like Taiwan, they can generate local superiority for a short time--perhaps long enough to win that battle--but if we are able to mobilize and deploy our power, we can beat China on any battlefield. And we'd likely have powerful local allies to help us. China is a threat to our interests even now, but only if they catch us off guard.
Remember that geography (and our completely dominant Navy) means our power is free to deploy worldwide while China is hemmed in by hostile or potentially hostile neighbors. It's the Expeditionary Kingdom versus the Trapped in the Middle Kingdom.
More than a decade later our naval power is superior but not dominant. But we are finally reacting and we do have powerful naval allies who can contribute to the defeat of China's fleet.
And if China has just about peaked already, the American Century may continue with no gap.
Still, does the author of that initial article overstate things when he implies that Asia nearly came to blows as Russian, Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese aircraft kind of faced off in the summer of 2019? There could have been an air clash but that does not mean war would follow. Three hundred rounds sounds like a lot of warning fire but that is just 3 seconds of shooting. Sure, it demonstrates the divisions in Asia. But leading off with that seems ... off. Or maybe not.
Lack of vulnerable land borders between powerful Asian states helps reduce the chance of full war. Only Russia and China have that factor that contributes to war, but as long as Russia is appeasing China, there won't be a great power war in Asia.
