India's Security Role Exercises Diplomatic leverage in Asia-Pacific Multilateral Organizations

China and India are two of the world’s fastest developing economies and most populous nations on the earth. The question is whether “Chindia” is a friend or a threat to the United States. Together these nations have attributed to prosperity, but are it beneficial or harming to others?

He focuses on China and how it has awakened from its nap and dormancy to challenge the United States. China has slowly modernized itself with gradual reforms and it gains its strength in the form of Confucian ideas of practicality, ethics, and rationality. China also has a non-combative style of foreign policy. Compared to the United States, it does not act as an interventionist demanding reforms. Zakaria also spends time discussing our ally, India. India has a strong regionalist political system placing high priority on regional interests rather than national interests. Some of India’s major advantages are its ability to protect private property, its established rule of law, private sector, and India is home to many smart English speaking businesspeople.

With India, a growing superpower, having a chance of maybe going against China, a superpower, India has reached out to other countries for help militarily. India is clear example that shows that Marshall’s claim are correct because since the Himalayas are dividing the two countries and making it hard to reach one another, their relationship has been lukewarm and no war has recently broken

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

While both countries have troubling history with foreigners, China appears to be less welcoming to outside influences than India. The Chinese often call their history a “century of humiliation” (23) and, unlike the Indians, show ideals to cover up the past hoping to prosper in the future. Unfortunately, China’s need to cover up their past, could potentially cause reluctance to collaborate or compromise with any other countries. The fear is that if tensions do rise, the U.S. would most likely ally with India due to common economic beliefs which could cost all countries excessive military expenses that should be spent in other places such as education and infrastructure. Moreover, in chapter two and three, Manuel writes about China and India’s kick off to their economic reign. China is still under rule of the communist party while India is attempting to run a British inspired democracy. The issue with China is that they seem so petrified by their history, that they are doing everything seemingly necessary to avoid a relapse, some of China’s leaders “argued that permitting free expression could result in chaos like the Cultural Revolution” (49). India, on the other hand, is still trying to perfect their democracy but often struggle to have enough time to look into long term issues. Many people fear that China’s economy is doomed because growth has decreased severely over the past few years and is projected in the same direction for years to come. Ultimately, chapter three ends with hopeful projections for the fate of the U.S., China, and India. However, concerns are that the U.S. and the British will lose the advantages in global governance they once had as China and India emerge as powerful

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.

Morrison, Bruce Vaughn, and William Kennedy; the evolution and rise of China’s strength through soft power were discussed. Beginning on Yiwei Wang’s piece, its focus point aims at the redefining of China from a hard power into a soft power by rebranding its international image to suit its goals. (Wang, 2005) In the piece, China’s difficulties in achieving a full rebranding began the piece, yet its transformation has seen its return in success by going “from soft power to soft rise” with its ambitions in achieving this power. Going into Thomas Lum, Wayne M. Morrison, and Bruce Vaughn’s piece, the means China had used to actually reach this point of soft power were discussed especially focussing on its focus in Southeast Asia by conducting non-military inducements including culture, diplomacy, foreign aid, trade, and investment throughout the region. Through these non-military acts throughout the region, negative imagery previously associated with China during the Mao era had begun to be forgotten, in order to think of China as their hero of sorts. (Lum, Morrison, Vaughn, 2008) Lastly, through Kennedy’s piece these goals are reiterated in both the means China has been using to boost its soft power as well as the benefits of economic and diplomatic gains through the success of their gains in soft power, as well as reiterating Nye’s point in the strengths achievable through successful soft power usage. (Kennedy, 2016)

Also, after joining together Arif states that during the 1850’s China and India joined together to form alliances and that ‘’It was due to the synergy between the cultures of India and China that the nationalists and revolutionaries of India and China developed deep mutual contact that turned into friendship amidst their anti-imperialist struggle’’. 8 This reinstates the collaboration agreement between these two empires goes back as for the 18th century.

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.

Years” states that the United States does not have any permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests”. The strategic interests of the United States in South Asia do lie in having a

The cold war was a large period of political tension between the two great powers of the time and its allies (United States of America and NATO, USSR and the communist states). It was a clash of ideologies as well as of Nations, with both countries trying to expand and consolidate their way of governing and living. The end of the cold war in 1991 signaled a victory for the USA and its allies, the Soviet Union fell and therefore so did communism. At the time the victory seemed final: The West was left unrivaled economically, politically and militarily. It seemed as if the new millennium was going to be an era of expansion and consolidation of western influence and values. The events of the last 25 years have, however, suggested otherwise. In particular, it’s the rise of China and India that has raised eyebrows. In 1991 their respective GDP’s were $415,603 million and $274,842 million, putting them 10th and 16th in the world at that time, since then their exponential growth has made them the world’s second and seventh largest economies (www.imf.org, 2016). This has led some to proclaim that we are now in the Asian Century.

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

Additionally, the author paddles Washington because of its unwillingness to get involved with China, he calls it “the wrong course.” However, later in the article he acknowledges that Washington’s involvement can stir some instability with Russia, India, Pakistan, and other countries in the region. What at first was a sweet deal, it becomes a possible lemon later in Luft’s essay. Nevertheless, even if the geo-strategic challenges previously mentioned do not represent a problem for the United States, assuming that China’s

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

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