Asian Politics Midterm : East Asian Nations

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

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.

It could, therefore, be argued that these increased political tensions may cause the US to lose key allies and in turn help China become the more favoured country. However, in recent times, China has proven to be arrogant, aggressive and rude when it comes to executing its foreign policy. Many countries, including Japan and India, claim to find it increasingly challenging to cooperate with China and this has done nothing but push said countries towards the US and cemented the US’s global power. Therefore, it is clear that even in terms of soft power, the US scores much higher than China and as a result there will be no shift in power which re-emphasizes the fact that the world order is not changing.

Throughout World War II, many atrocities and acts of inhumane treatment was felt throughout East Asia. Nations like China and Korea had felt the bitter sting of Imperial Japanese rule on many occasions throughout the war. Ranging from forced labor, massacres, and attempts to systematically wipe out national identities. The article (Upcoming Abe speeches seen as rehearsal for WWII anniversary statement, The Japan Times) talked of a possible outcome of how Prime Minister Abe presented his speeches for the 70th anniversary of World War II. It further elaborated on how modern day China and Korea were still waiting for a proper apology from Abe’s government for its past wartime transgressions. Even in the modern era, the dramatic events of World War II have had detrimental effects on East Asian diplomatic relations, ideals of governance and outlook on western society to this very day.

Some of you might remember when the years following the Chinese Revolution of 1911 the tensions between the United States and Japan were not as serious since a new republic was declared and both Japan and the United States had some problems. The Chinese had lost control over most of their country due to the fact that the local warlords had most of the power in China. So our great

An alternative explanation of North Korea’s behavior stems from the possible fear of a forced denuclearization by a new northeast Asian security regime. The separate alliances between the United States, South Korea, and Japan

In recent years, Asia has drawn plenty of attentions from the world, not only because of the rising great power China but also the increasingly unpredictable and unsettled North Korea. Based on the past history of German reunification in 1990 and enthusiasm for the reunification among citizens in both South Korea and North Korea, it seems to be a consensus in the world that the Korean Peninsula will eventually reunified. The remaining questions are when and how will the reunification take place. With the potential regional hegemon China continues to grow and the United States has set its pivot in Asia to restrain China’s rising, there is no doubt that the reunification will greatly change the power distribution in Asia. As the only country that has meaningful relationships with both South Korea and North Korea, China is commonly viewed as the main facilitator in the reunification. As a result, China’s attitudes and policies towards both countries are crucial to this issue. China has always been openly support the reunification of Korean Peninsula. However, on the other side, China continues to support Kim family’s authoritarian regime and prevents the regime from falling apart. Although North Korea has become increasingly outrageous by ignoring China’s advices and drags China into unnecessary international conflicts, there is no clear sign that China is going to abandon its

Japanese imperialism had taken flight and hoped to expand its influence and control over various parts of Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, over the course of a decade, Japan only taunted the world with their idea of self-sustainment and colonial expansion. The underlying principle to their failure was the theory of Imperial overstretch, as Hook explains, “a pattern in which great powers have consistently expanded their foreign commitments beyond their ability to remain economically solvent and militarily secure” (Hook 2014, 12). Throughout my analysis of the U.S.’s responses to Japanese actions prior to the U.S.’s involvement in World War two, we see Japan try to expand their empire in Southeast Asia, but sequentially results in failure. There are various theories that help explain the U.S. actions taken in response to Japan. These theories help explain the factors that lead Japan to imperial overstretch.

POLICY DECISION AND OBJECTIVES: President Trump expects a rules based order system in the Southeast Asian region. He also seeks to increase mutually beneficial trade relationships in the region and expects, “markets to be open on each side.” The objectives of the regional policy are: strengthening U.S. and Asian alliances, empowering countries in the region to be stronger contributors to their own peace and stability, strengthening the U.S. military capabilities in the region, and affirming efforts to contain or roll back North Korea's ballistic and nuclear missile programs. In a speech to Asian leaders in August 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson highlights the significance of increased U.S. and Asian interaction as a,

Since the beginning of its existence East Asia has been shaping its identity off of war, conquest, and diplomacy. China, Japan, and Korea are key countries that not only effect the region, but also have an impact at a global scale. In order to analyze the issue and propose a plan of action as a solution it is essential to first get an understanding of the history of how militarization has affected each of these countries’ economy, culture, and global image. It is critical that East Asia and the United Nations place more of an emphasis on diplomatic relations and less on militarization. History proves that the only thing increased militarization does is create a false sense of security.

China is rising in an international system that is accessible, united, norm-based, and most importantly easy to integrate. Its strong framework of rules, norms, and institutions is already starting to facilitate Chinese integration. So far, China has embraced certain rules and institutions for defensive purposes: protecting its sovereignty and economic interests while continuously reassuring states of its peaceful intentions (Ikenberry 2008, 31). China has situated itself in a position where it can thrive within the Western system. Therefore, the current international order has the potential to turn the coming power shift into a peaceful

It is undeniable that the mutual animosity between the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) played a significant role in characterising international relations during the latter half of the 20th Century. On the other hand, it appears that the economic and political interactions between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the USA will characterise international relations in the 21st Century. As a result, this essay asserts that the claim of a Sino-American ‘Cold War’ is true to a limited extent; as there has been hostility between the PRC and the USA in the past. However, to a much larger extent, Sino-American relations in the early 21st Century are significantly better than Russo-American relations in the mid-20th Century, thus countering the claim of a Sino-American Cold War significantly. To develop this claim, this essay will analyse a number of factors. First, this essay explores the ideological, political and economic facets of Russo-American relations in the Cold War’s earlier stages (1945 - 70). This will be done as to establish the nature of relations between the superpowers. Conversely, this essay will then analyse the ideological, political and economic facets of Sino-American relations during the early 21st Century (2000 - 16) as to establish a framework for comparison. Ultimately, this essay aims to affirm the claim that Sino-American relations are significantly better than Russo-American relations whilst

From an international relations perspective, the Taiwan Strait, one of the most likely conflict zones in the Asia-Pacific region, has been dubbed the “Balkan Peninsula of the East.” The status of Taiwan has been one of the most intricate issues in international relations arena for the past decades. The Taiwan question is essentially an extension of the “two Chinas” problem, which creates a dilemma for accommodating

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

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