The Rise Of China Is Destroying The United States

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

Research suggests that Hegemony can be best understood as a way of “power that combines coercion and persuasion” (Raghavan, 2017). History can tell that a hegemony in a downturn will turn out to be even more ready to engage in imperialistic activities has an effort to contain or regain its decreasing power. But American military dominance cannot be enough to protect hegemony without Global economic dominance. There are ways to which Hegemony can be described, back when U.S. imperialism dominated Haiti, they had Hegemony over Haiti and it economic and political construction. Wherefore, in an age of homogony, U.S.’ “foreign and domestic policies have assumed an unprecedented prominence in the affairs of other nations and regions as they seek to accommodate, and where possible benefit from, the evolution of U.S. hegemony” (Beeson,

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Although Athenian's did claim hegemony through honour which was brought about through their defeat of the Persian empire in the name of freedom, the Melian slaughter discussed by Thucydides, showed that their influence over their allies was non-democratic and ultimately shows leadership through arkhe. Lebow and Kelly suggest that currently, 'hegemonia is even more important than it was in the Cold War' (Lebow, pg605, 2001) for the US. Wohlforth states that the US is the 'first state in modern history...with decisive preponderance in all the underlying components of power' (Wohlforth, pg7, 1999). When discussing power it is important to think about America's possession of 'soft power...which is increasingly important in influencing international behaviour' (Lebow, pg605, 2001) in terms of promoting western dominance in mainly cultural and ideological domains. American's would like to believe their influence was democratic and embodies the cultural and ideological 'benefits' of liberalism. Joseph Nye, Jr. stresses the increasing importance of soft power, relative to more traditional forms of power that rely on coercion (Nye, 1999) which moves away from the realist school of thought that relates to Machiavelli's and Thucydides' ideas of power.

Accordingly, one of the distinctive aspects of the post-Cold War was American hegemony. Even within the constraints of the bipolar system the presence of the United States due to the Soviet Union’s support of some countries in the Middle East was limited.

In multi-polar theory, world order is achieved through the cooperation of multiple power systems. In this system powerful states counter-balance each other. It is mainly achieved through international law, international cooperation and economic coordination. The negative side of multi-polarity is that it leads to vulnerability and interdependence, modernization, national interests, multilateralism and problems with international

S is still a great power. Joffe treats these repeated failed prophecies to the merciless debunking they deserve. Envious foreigners and nervous Americans alike have predicted the imminent demise of American power due to an allegedly failed educational system, the superior performance of foreign rivals, budget and trade deficits. Joffe makes a strong case that a mix of Chinese vulnerabilities and American strengths means it is unlikely that China will replace the United States anytime soon as the center of the global

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

There are significant inhibiting factors keeping China from becoming today’s world power. One of the main arguments is that China’s economic success today is just a replica of the U.S.’ housing bubble before it crashed (Robinson). They are building faster than their expanding middle class can keep up with (Robinson), which was the exact problem the U.S. had right before the market crashed and they fell into a recession. China would have to slow their rapid expansion down in order to avoid crashing just like the U.S. did several years ago. Another argument against China’s candidacy as hegemon is that they act too much like a “bullied nation” (Ng). China feels the need to “react strongly” when negative remarks are directed at them, which

Snyder claims that realism failed to predict the Cold War. Given this, Mearsheimer states “China cannot rise peacefully.” Since realists describe the world as a self-help system, according to Posen, every country “must look to its own interests relative to those of others” and because “security is the preeminent issue in an anarchic world, the distribution of capabilities to attack and defend should matter.” Thus, because China’s strive for regional hegemony inevitably threatens the power dynamic of the global system, the U.S. will, according to Mearsheimer, take an offensive realist approach that will eventually lead to war. In addition, as seen in post-Cold War, economic stability greatly determines the distribution of power. Friedberg notes, that the projected “speed and magnitude of China’s growth in recent decades appears to be unprecedented” and as early as 2015, “China’s economy could overtake that of the United States.” Although the U.S. faces an unprecedented challenge to economic power, according to Ikenberry, China has signaled cooperation by “redoubling its participation in existing institutions, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit or working with the other great powers in the region to build new ones.” Nevertheless, following the actions of the U.S. post WWII, China strategically makes “itself more predictable and approachable” to reduce “the incentives for other

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

‘The Gathering Storm’ written by John Mearsheimer provides a critical analysis on the state of China’s rising power compared to the U.S in the current context. The United States has been the most powerful state for a long time in history and has led the way in terms of military forces since World War two, according to the Australian Government. But the next sentence in Australia’s White Paper details changes in the distribution of power. This arises the argument of the rise of China playing havoc on the balance of global power. The article also explores whether the rise of China will be peacefully, the drive for regional hegemony and also the concurrent rise of Australia and China.

Realism assumes that under a balance of power, the overriding aim of all states is to maximize power and become the only hegemony in the system. States only help themselves in the anarchic international system. Therefore, China’s rise is regarded as a disconcerting threat to the U.S.’s primacy of power in the present international stage. The power shift in East Asia is creating security dilemmas; the U.S. thus demands more security to its Asian allies including Philippines, Japan and South Korea. The rapidly-rising Chinese power would inevitably challenge the current international balance of power and appear aggressively in the eyes of weaker power such as the Philippines. Therefore it seeks help to its ally, the U.S., to counterbalance the power of China. China intends to gain more resources and to transform current international order to its favor according to its national interests. The 2010 Chinese White Paper on National Defence states that: “Contradictions continue to surface between developed and developing countries and between traditional

The contemporary international system is one of multipolarity, leaning towards non-polarity. The conclusion of the Cold War saw the international system shift from one motivated by ideology to one motivated by strategy — an underlying feature of multipolarity. A multipolar system exhibits a ‘balance of power’ mechanism, in which many states ally to maintain power, without a single force dominating. The current international system exhibits all of the key characteristics of a multipolar system — multiple nation-states of influence, alliances which shift on the basis of power and stability, and international decisions made primarily for strategic terms. Facilitated by the advent of globalisation, non-state actors possess an unprecedented level of economic, military, and cultural influence. Their expanded influence in the international system has helped shift it from the bipolarity of the Cold War era. The advent of globalisation has also introduced a real-time effect into international relations which has permanently altered the interactions between state and non-state actors, and the influence they have on the world.