China's Sudden Rise to Power Essay

“China Rising” is a non-arguable fact and the one of the most important subject in the twenty-first century. The rise of China is a relative threat to the neighbor regions or other great powers. Further, some scholars also comment that China either will replace or has already superseded the United State as the world’s only superpower. China’s growth is too rapid and massive that other nations have limited or no opportunity to compete with it. By using international relations theories to analyze US-China relations, there are three main stream theories commonly using to explain this case: Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. In addition, in the article “The Future of US-China Relations” composed by Aaron L. Friedberg, professor of politics and international affairs, he comments that people predict US-China relations with two different views – optimistic or pessimistic. However, which international relation theory applies this political phenomenon the best is still debatable. This paper will argue that the conflicts between the two nations are normal while China is growing, because the conflicts are derived from different perspectives. Pessimistic realism and optimistic liberalism are two main points that will be addressing when approach to this critical issue. Finally, the main argument in this paper is to show why pessimistic realism will eventually prove to be accurate and true to explain the future of US-China relationships.

Realism is one of the most dominant international relations theories in the academic world. But within Realism, Realists are split on a number of issues. A perfect example of which being the rise of China. Over the past 30 years China has increased not only in population and power, but has also achieved one of the strongest economies in the world. The rise of China is seen as problematic by many realists. Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has enjoyed a position of hegemony in the unipolar power structure of the world. Many fear that the rise of China could upset the current balance of power. One such individual is a prominent realist scholar, John Mearsheimer. He believes that war with China is inevitable and “calls for the US to do whatever it can to slow China’s rise.” Another political theorist Jonathan Kirshner wrote this paper to counter many of Mearsheimer’s claims, stating that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism “is wrong, and dangerous”. Kirshner suggests that instead of using offensive realism we should look instead to the theories roots in classical realism to analyse the rise of China.

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

As many other countries around the world China has its long history of a struggle for equality and prosperity against tyrants and dictatorships. The establishment of People’s Republic of China in 1949 seemed to have put an end to that struggle for a better life. “The Chinese people have stood up!” declared Mao Tse-tung, the chairman of China’s Communist Party (CPP) – a leading political force in the country for the time. The people were defined as a coalition of four social classes: the workers, the peasants, the petite bourgeoisie and the national-capitalists. The four classes were to be led buy the CPP, as the leader of the working class.

It is no longer appropriate to say, “China is quickly emerging as a global superpower.” The fact is China is just that. Realizing this the United States of America has attempted to once again turn its focus eastward. Continuing problems at home and in the Middle East however have made doing so difficult. Additionally more and more frequently attempts at influencing the ongoing narrative in the Asia- Pacific region have been rebuffed. Even allies have found strength in the emergence of a system that fails to conform to previously prescribed methods and ideals. This leads to a fundamental question America must answer quickly. Has the growing hypocrisy of idealistic political rhetoric versus actual foreign policy finally undermined American credibility with developing nations, or for the purposes of this paper more specifically China? The answer is yes.

President Barack Obama’s (2014) commencement address at West Point was an effort to dispel all doubt of the United States’s (US) “exceptionalism” and the belief that America was in decline. In that speech, he emphasised how America was still a global leader, in all counts militarily, economically and most importantly, on global affairs, with regards to liberal internationalist pursuits. And indeed from the end of the second world war, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been an unmatched unipolar hegemon in the world. Issues such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis have greatly affected US standing in the world (American Political Science Association, 2009). This is also further challenged by rising powers, most notably China and the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. All four countries have in recent years significantly increased their military budget (Kruger, 2011) and are currently, by International Monetary Fund (IMF) predictions, to contribute to over half of the world’s growth and predicted to overtake most developed economies by 2050, with China projected to have the world’s largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the same time (Financial Times, n.d.). This essay will look at various aspects of traditional US dominance, namely military, economic, as well as soft power in relation to other states to determine if a relative decline is evident. Additionally, US world leadership in international

And with this strong role China has been assuming, so has it been getting stronger by building military equipment competitive with those of the U.S. and drawing narrower a military gap it once possessed when compared to America’s armed forces. Furthermore, China has “displaced the United States as the world’s leading manufacturing nation” in 2010 (US Foreign Policy, pg. 414). Not a surprise since a majority of products purchased in the U.S. carry a label stating, “Made in China.” And predictions hold China as the world’s largest economy by year 2041 (US Foreign Policy, pg. 415). Thus, the fact that China has become an emergence matters. Since the dismantled of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was not challenged, when it came to power by any other competitor, however now, the U.S. dominance in international politics has to deal with a China that has the capabilities to lead the world’s economy.

It is widely known that China has been rising in its political power. China’s exponential economic growth and increased international political activity increases its chances in increasing its power, which also increases its influence on other countries. As China continues to expand in its power, western power has steadily began to decline; with the recession hitting the United States in 2008, the States have been declining as a prominent world power. As China begins to gain more power and the Unite States’ power staggers, there are two possibilities: China will either begin to rise peacefully, or China will rise with conflict and tension. Realists recognize that as China becomes a dominant world player, the country will influence the

China’s last dynasty ended one hundred years ago, and the last great dynasty ended one thousand years ago. (Dharmananda)Nonetheless, China is rising out of the ashes in modern times. China became a communist nation in nineteen hundred and forty nine. (Woods, 2009) With the help of the U.S.S.R., China made multiple nuclear weapons in the nineteen fifties. This sparked the start of China’s military modernization and their reemergence to the international community. China’s international policy is to promote world peace. They hope to do so by staying neutral and only defending their interests, and not instigating. The only contradiction in China’s policy is that it interferes with Tibet and Taiwan. If Taiwan ever tries declaring

"The 19th century belonged to the British. The 20th century belonged to the United States. But the 21st century belongs to China,"

Chung (2012) declares how South Koreans’ perceive China’s rise is the policy position Beijing takes on North Korea. Chung supports his claim, noting Seoul’s disappointment in Beijing’s policy stance over North Korean aggression in 2010, which raises new security concerns over Seoul’s growing trade imbalance with China (Chung, 2012, 220). Chung reminds readers of how China used its economic leverage over “Japan’s heavy dependence on China-produced rare earth elements in the row over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands in 2010” (Chung 2012, 221). The failure of Bejing to denounce a North Korean lethal shelling of Yeonpyeong, and sinking of a South Korean ship, both in 2010, calls into question how much “a fair and honest broker” China might be in reunification negotiations (Chung 2012, 224). Chung concludes that 2010 marks a downward turn in Sino-South Korean relations. Bejing’s behavior over North Korean aggression brings to light Seoul’s economic dependence on, at “21 percent in 2010,” China, and as a new security threat to South Korea (Chung 2012, 220-233).

Theories are used in many fields of science, but in no field are they more prevalent than Political Science. These theories are often used and researched upon to try and attempt to discern how states interact with one another. Offensive Realism, a new branch of realist political theory, is brought forth in John Mearsheimer’s book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. This theory focuses on the key aspects of realism, while adding a twist as to why war is an option. In his book, Mearsheimer explains the history of great powers, and predicts that China, the world’s current rising great power, will not gain hegemony in Asia peacefully. With the rise of China, he asserts the US will form coalitions with multiple states throughout Asia, to contain their growing power. This rise in power, and subsequent reactions by the US, are based on his theory Offensive Realism, which is used to predict China’s future actions. The rise of powers, and the reactions of other powers, is historically analyzed, beginning in the late 18th century, all the way to modern times. These analyzes each attempt to support his overall claim that China will rise through non-peaceful means, and shows significant support with historical examples. While the theory often meets an exception when the usual non-European power, Japan, is mentioned, Mearsheimer’s theory introduces a solid new aspect to the realm of Political Science, and presents enough evidence and information to be considered integral to

Many scholars have observed IR (International relations) through different theoretical lens throughout time, the two most debated on theoretical lens in international relation are liberalism and realism. Realism according to Korab-Karpowicz is the view of international politics in which states are only concerned with there own self interest, security and struggle of power (Korab-Karpowicz/2017). While on the other hand liberalism defined by John Ikenberry is the focus of “society, interdependence and progressive change”(Ikenberry 2009/pg.204-205).Although realism sees the world in a pessimistic view, it is the most powerful descriptor of IR. This essay will support the claim that realism has provided a more convincing description of IR through the analysis of power lust, self security and economic greed states have shown throughout time. However the essay will also entertain liberalist arguments through the view of interdependence and common interest.

The study of international relations takes a vast spectrum of theoretical approaches. A theory of international relations is a collection of concepts that delineate how the international system operates (SparkNote on International Politics, 2010). Contrary to an ideology, a theory of international studies is endorsed with solid evidence. This essay will focus on two dominant theories of International Relations (IR), namely realism and liberalism to decide for this matter on the more pragmatic one for the study of IR. According to realism, states work only to gain more power relative to that of other states (Donelan: 1990:23). Liberalism matured in the 1970s as some scholars generated arguments that realism was defunct. With the rise of globalization, the immediate increase in communications technology, and the expansion of international trade meant that states could no longer be dependent on complete power politics to resolve matters (Lawson, 2015:96).

“Theory of international politics” is a Classic because it gives a chance to recognise not just the international system but also history and ethos in context. Gives individuals a chance to think outside the box and perhaps understand the international state much clearer. Waltz’s notes that Polarity is the only important change in system structure that we can expect under anarchy. Waltz’s theory of international politics is proven to be an unusual powerful volume, creating new discussions and giving new incentive to existing ones. For example, “the book commenced a debate over whether state’s concerns over relative gains impeded cooperation and added momentum to the question of whether bipolar or multipolar international systems were more war-prone” (Griffiths, 2007). However, a flaw is that his theory is too reliant on material understanding of power and misses the social. On the other hand, regardless of his dependency on material understanding, his theory is still practical and helps to understand issues that have occurred from a neo-realist perspective. To the extent “that structural realism sought to explain the cold war by referring to bipolarity”, Waltz’s argued that the cold war was “firmly rooted in the structure of post war international politics and will last if that structure endures” (Waltz, 1989). A downfall of waltz’s ideology is that it’s difficult to settle with the decline in interstate war and the increase in multilateral co-operation among state. Moreover