China as a Potential Threat
I was most compelled by Kristol and
Kagan’s piece, “Introduction: National Interest and Global
Responsibility”. As a general
topic in International Relations, I am also intrigued with the potential threat
in China that the United States may face in decades to come. K&K’s piece, I
believe, gave a very acceptable critique of how the United States has dealt
with China and other nations in similar situations. The U.S’s approach has been to engage China in the past.
Such an approach is found with Liberal framework. The assumption here is said to be that China and the United
States’ economies are so interdependent that a fluctuation in either’s economy
will be reflected likewise in the other’s. If the United States, the most prosperous nation as of
today, engages China they would surely grow economically and so would the
United States as well. More importantly, because the two economies are
interdependent, China will be a status quo state who does not seek global
hegemony. In order to achieve
global hegemony, they would have to surpass the United States in power in the
International Community, which may result in damage to their economy.
Although the Liberal approach seems
to be very peaceful, as opposed to challenging China aggressively in the
present or near future, it may miss a point that is stressed by many realists
and is present in Kristol and Kagan’s text. The point is that challenging
aggressors who wish to alter the balance of power in the International
community, such as China, early on may be in our best interest in order to
avoid future conflicts that may be even more damaging. A China prior to engagement on the part
of the most prosperous nation in the world, the United States, would certainly
be easier to deal with than China after their proliferation due United States/Western
engagement.
Furthermore, the anarchic state of
the International Community can play a large role in China’s future
behavior. The main interest of
every state is their existence. In
order to best secure your nation’s safety and existence is to become a global
hegemony. When there is a single
global hegemon, a uni-polar power structure, the power of the hegemon is known
to all to be superior. As a result
you secure the prosperity of your state and your people. Why wouldn’t China want this security?
You make a very compelling argument in your post, but i have express some concern in challenging aggressors such as China early on. I agree with you when you say that if we challenge aggressors early on we can avoid any conflict that might occur once that country gains more power. My concern is that we might be able to avoid conflict in the future, but doing so now will certainly cause conflict in the present for the United States. The International community may start to speak out against the actions that the United States takes against countries that attempt to gain more power; which would cause more problems for the United States internationally.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, Roy. I also think that challenging China early on will have grave repercussions for our foreign policy and our image around the globe. Furthermore, it is important to consider that China is not the only rising power, as the other countries of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia and India) are also making unprecedented economic progress. Is the U.S. seriously going to consider engaging in preemptive action against all of these rising powers?
DeleteHave you ever read John Mearsheimer? If you have taken GVPT 241, the IR class you probably have. He makes pretty much your argument. His book is a rather easy read and you might find it interesting. However, I should say that Kristol and Kagan are certainly not realists but instead Neo-Conservatives.
ReplyDeleteAs for your post itself, I think that Roy has a good point. The best argument against going to war with China (other than this is no longer the beginning of the threat now that we are in 2012 as opposed to 1995) is that peace is possible and we should try our best to achieve it. I would look at John Ikenberry's arguments here.