James Wooley's Argument Analysis

For the last several decades China and Japan have both risen as superpowers and dominated the Pacific. Japan during the 1980s had the “economic miracle”, however it had a recession in the 1990s that set Japan back. As China becomes a rising superpower due to growing populations and cheap labor and, while Japan remains a “fragile superpower” because of the lack of resources and ageing population both nations will continue to grow, or will China become another fallen communist nation and will the tiger of the Pacific come to a roaring halt? Ever since the Four Humiliations in 1839 China was in desperate need to modernize and change many aspects of its government if it wanted to keep up with the ever-changing world.

As every day passes China grows stronger in every aspect and eventually they will be knocking on America’s doorstep in each of those categories. Economically, China is closing rapidly, but even the sleeping giant as Napoleon Bonaparte called it, has its limits. To be blunt, China is resource hungry and who knows what their country will do next. With the level of nationalism that their people have, China could go in multiple directions. For example, let us look at both China attempting to exert control over the South China Sea and also with the Senkaku Islands. Both of these areas are becoming more and more hostile, which ultimately could lead to deadly military engagements. With that being said, Blij also proposes an argument that I have been pondering for a while and that is a potential cold war between the U.S.A. and China. On the outside it seems as if there is a potential collision course to that conclusion. However, Blij does offer an interesting solution to this possibility and it is one that I believe should be the strongest takeaway. Blij suggests that trade, scientific, cultural and educational links and exchanges can be the solution to this issue. After all, China is responsible for many of the essential aspects to our life. Therefore, the least we as Americans can do is learn the various geographical aspects that encircle

Wang points to Deng Xiaoping’s “Four Modernizations” of agriculture, industry, science and technology, and the military as the foundation of the reforms that led to China becoming the world’s second largest economy in 2011 . Many of these reforms became reality when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, after which trade with the U.S. exploded. Also in this section, the author talks about a number of issues that have strained the relationship since 1970, including the Tiananmen Square incident, Tibet, China’s human rights record, the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade, Taiwan, and U.S. anxieties over the trade imbalance. Both sides have been able to weather these setbacks and Wang optimistically concludes “with the conviction that political cooperation […] is in the interests of the United States, China and indeed the world in the twenty first century.” Wang stitches together a very thoughtful, well-researched and relatively cohesive piece of work.

The recent interactions of emerging and established states suggest that the existing standards of the current global economy are shifting. According to Stewart Patrick in his article “Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers,” the United States must accommodate for emerging states within the global economy and refrain from enforcing their values of an open and liberal international economy in order to achieve effective cooperation. Similarly, Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell argue in their article “How China Sees America: The Sum of Beijingʻs Fears” that as China gains more influence within the global economy, the United States will have to respond appropriately to maintain its economic values. Both articles ultimately assert that

Well, according to constructionists, how a state acts is dependent upon its ideas, beliefs, and values. Based off of this it is safe to assume that the US and China will not both respond the same to the current political climate. With a good example of this cultural split being Roger Cohen's "Dog Days of China", which shows how even with the continuing homogenizing of the world there are still significant differences in cultures; especially between the East and West. So based off of this, if the US were to pursue cooperation, it wouldn't be illogical for China to pursue competition or vice versa. As well, going off the topic of the culture determining how a state acts, it's important to note one important part of China's culture; the century of humiliation. This century of humiliation, stirred by the two Opium Wars, in which has China suffered at the hands of the west, has been a defining motif for China's recent rise to power. Which is why they leave the ruins of Yuanmingyuan, the old imperial palaces destroyed by the West in the Second Opium War, as a constant reminder. Thus possibly being an indicator how China may see their rise at the cost of the US' fall as just retribution for past transgressions. As well, in constructionist thought international relations is also determined by the structure of interactions. And the current structure is that of a single polarity world brought about by the demise of another super power after a long period of staunch tension. So China's rise could be a precursor to this structure reproducing itself. With China becoming powerful enough to rival the US, resulting in a new Cold War type period starting, then after a time leaving only a single superpower left standing. Because of this and the fact that constructionist view states that actors are irrational, it may seem that even for a constructivist, China's rise cannot be seen as

Andrew Krepinevich, a defense policy analyst who currently serves as President for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, wrote an article entitled, “How to Deter China, The Case for Archipelagic Defense”. We see in this article that global expansion is a complicated global issue, especially when you are dealing with a powerful and power-hungry nation, such as China, that is suspected of not being doing everything in the most ethical manner. It’s noted that China is hungry for power and desires to expand more and more. The article includes strategies that the United States may be able to implement in order to aid in Asian peace. For example, Krepinevich tells us that, with China in mind, the United States has begun to move

China has seen their cost to manufacture goods nearly equal that of the United States (IndustryWeekly). Armed with this information, we may see investors abandon this nation and head for cheaper options such as India or Indonesia. Apart from an economic shift, because the United States exerts such a great global military and political force, any shift in hegemony would potentially need to result from a large struggle the likes of World War Two, or further political involvement from another

China’s motive with the territory in the sea originates from the opportunity to establish military and naval compounds. The Chinese government hopes to “fortify its military foothold in the South China Sea…” (Jeff. M Smith) by making runways and other infrastructure that is beneficial to the military. Chinese militarism and naval power are continually growing as it is one of the strongest armed forces in the world. The idea of China having large control over the South China Sea produces fear among USA as it is traditionally the most dominant military force. Similarly, prior to World War One, Great Britain felt threaten by the rise of Germany’s military and naval power. In response, Great Britain produces large quantity of naval ships and

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended

The events that have taken place over the past couple of centuries, and more so the past decade, have monumentally impacted the relationship between the United States and China for better and for worse. Today, China and the U.S. have evolved into two of the most elite superpowers in the world, and they classify as some of the most prominent leaders in economics, military, technology, and universal innovation. Currently, the United States is just weeks away from electing their next president, cyber-attacks are being investigated exponentially, and the South China Sea Debate continues to be disputed. The outcomes of all these events will undoubtedly affect the relationship between China and the United States for the next 10 years.

The rapid rise in economy of China has turned this country into rival of America. However, in an effort to change the trade policies of China, stop military operations reinforce Beijing 's South China Sea from America, but that’s not enough improve diplomatic relations with 11 countries in the TPP agreement. Beijing said the United States is a force only in Asia as they want, while China will forever be a force in Asia. As candid statement of the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong during his visit to Washington last August, the TPP will "challenge the prestige" of the United States with partners in the region. According to Mr. Li, each nation has faced some opposition political and sensitive issue in the country, pay a political price to get to the negotiating table and signed agreements but finally they cannot receive what they want. Now, United State diplomats do not have what they want in Asia, After the US told the regional partners was signed TPP will strengthen America 's leadership position in the region, the regional partner also concluded to be a waiver of TPP would undermine America 's leadership position and China is ready to be leadership position which vacated this area. In terms of the overall situation of power in Asia, the US withdrew from the TPP, that means United State is bringing the beneficial strategy for China, not only because a trade agreement supported by the United States, U.S foreign policies will be disappear forever

China is experiencing significant military and economic powers that could create a threat for its neighbors. Therefore, soft power is indeed an important tool that China is trying to invest in in order to improve its image and recover from its unpopular policies, and to

The Southern China Sea dispute is essentially a contest between China and Vietnam, Philippine, Malaysia and several other Southeast Asian nations over territorial control in the South China Sea, which includes some of the most strategically important maritime territory on earth. China claimed the sovereignty of territory by far the largest portion of territory - an area defined by the "nine-dash line" which stretches hundreds of miles south and east from its most southerly province of Hainan. China has backed its expansive claims with island-building and naval patrols. At the same time, the Philippines was seeking to develop the seabed hydrocarbon resources of Reed Bank in the South China Sea, an area under dispute with China. Should Manila put plan to action, Beijing is likely to dispatch enforcement vessels to disrupt such activities. Given the deteriorating bilateral relationship, tensions between the two countries are in danger of escalating to the point of brinkmanship. The disputes are further entrenched by rampant nationalism, as each claimant attaches symbolic value to the South China Sea islands that far exceeds their objective material wealth. The newly elected president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte has expressed a willingness to negotiate with China over the disputed islands which dramatizes the issue. That’s an about-face from the previous administration, which had taken a

The general consensus among scholars concludes that China is assertive (Chen, Pu & Johnston, 2014, 176). The assertive conduct of China can have an impact on the regional order and stability in South China Sea. The scholars have different views on the assertiveness of Chinese foreign policy (Chen et al., 2014, 176). The argument in favour of implementing assertive foreign policy affirms that China has good intentions regarding the South China Sea (Chen et al., 2014, 181). China is required to have an assertive conduct because a moderate approach would not bring regional stability (Fangyin, 2016, 877). The opposing argument on assertive foreign policy is concerned with the aggressive and provocative behaviour of China (Chen et al., 2014,

The general consensus among academics and experts in the field of politics concludes that China is assertive. The assertive conduct of China can have an impact on the regional order and stability in South China Sea. The academics and experts in politics have different perspective on the assertive behaviour of Chinese foreign policy. The argument in favour of implementing assertive foreign policies affirms that China has good intentions regarding the South China Sea. China is required to have an assertive behaviour to bring regional stability and solve the territorial disputes on the South China Sea. The opposing argument on assertive foreign policies displays concerns with the aggressive and provocative behaviour of China (Chen, Pu &