Power Politics In America

In a political system where nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials, and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs?” (Dahl 88) From April of 1775 to September of 1783, the Patriots fought to alleviate the colonies from the oppressive rule of Great Britain. All those for independence, rallied together to bring about a freedom which was at the time inconceivable and formed the United States of America. American Government, with deep roots in Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic, The United States pioneered a Democratic- Republic which had the greatest changing demographic and ethnicity levels of any other country in the world, developed under the theory of a pluralistic

The newly gained economic and military strength in their respective regions is substantial enough to sway the North’s thought process, when constructing an effective foreign policy strategy. As China’s influence grows, the United States is fraught to come up with an effective counter response without debilitating economic repercussion from the Chinese government. Many analysts believe that an alliance between Washington and Beijing is the only sensible option, however, Indonesia’s emergence as a key actor on the South China Sea issue, shows that so-called “middle powers”, like Mexico or Australia, that aren’t permanent members of the United Nations Security Council or global giants like Japan, India and Germany, can play a vast role in outlining the proper response. Through proactive and impartial diplomacy, middle powers – Indonesia, South Korea and Philippines- may be able to contain the rise of China in ways that the United States or Japan cannot.

The circumstances of regional instability due to the veiled antagonism of countries such as North Korea, China, and Russia have resulted in dramatic contrasts between the methods Japan used to maintain a positive relationship with the United States in the 1990’s after the Cold War compared to in the years following the first decade of the 2000’s. However, these contrasts tend to be limited by the stipulations of past agreements that were part of Japan’s tremendous

North Korea’s geographic position is critical to the national security of the U.S., Japan, South, Korea and the South Pacific region as a whole. Armed with significant nuclear weapons and the fourth largest army in the world, the possibility of an unstable North Korea has been avoided for decades, therefore recent threats

In terms of global stability, due to the changes in international order from unipolar to multipolar and the absence of a hegemonic military leader, a clustering of nuclear armed states has emerged in regions that have serious potential on global instability. Pakistani, Iranian, Indian and North Korean nuclear abilities make the chances of conflicts more likely to occur in Asia. Equally important due to the difficulty of intervention and the absence of mutual deterrence, the nuclear armed states are ready to challenge the global order, expanding their regional hegemony with vast apatite of using

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.

In the United States, elections can be the deciding factor in ones political career. In recent times, congressional elections have not only become increasingly important, but also more expensive. The expense is often considered a result of modern times, however it results in many people being unable to run for a political position. This begs the question of who might be running for a political position if the price wasn 't so high, would it be a more common person who relates more to the people. Often incumbents, those currently in office, are able to edge out competitors because of money. The price of elections can also affect issues that are covered by politicians.

Led by a new group of conservative leadership, Japan is undergoing a rise in nationalism fueled by complex mixture of causes spanning from internal politics, economy, perception of new threat from China, and external influence know in Japan as Gaiatsu. Meanwhile, East Asia is experiencing a dramatic shift in regional dominance from Japan to China. Due to the rapid growth in China's economy, East Asian nations, having depended on Japan for regional leadership and economic aid, are now faced with a choice of adopting either a pro-China or pro-Japan policy. The rise in Japan's nationalism and its associated nationalistic actions are agitating many nations who have suffered

Chung (2012) declares how South Koreans’ perceive China’s rise is the policy position Beijing takes on North Korea. Chung supports his claim, noting Seoul’s disappointment in Beijing’s policy stance over North Korean aggression in 2010, which raises new security concerns over Seoul’s growing trade imbalance with China (Chung, 2012, 220). Chung reminds readers of how China used its economic leverage over “Japan’s heavy dependence on China-produced rare earth elements in the row over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands in 2010” (Chung 2012, 221). The failure of Bejing to denounce a North Korean lethal shelling of Yeonpyeong, and sinking of a South Korean ship, both in 2010, calls into question how much “a fair and honest broker” China might be in reunification negotiations (Chung 2012, 224). Chung concludes that 2010 marks a downward turn in Sino-South Korean relations. Bejing’s behavior over North Korean aggression brings to light Seoul’s economic dependence on, at “21 percent in 2010,” China, and as a new security threat to South Korea (Chung 2012, 220-233).

When given the opportunity to advise the president on how to interact with East Asian nations, he needs to understand that the present day relations between the three developed East Asian nations (China, Japan, and South Korea) is very complicated. The historic background is imperative to his understanding on how to diplomatically interact with these nations, otherwise any present day event will seem confusing. All three share a common ideology and instead of this creating a stronger alliance between these three countries, it creates competition and divide. Cumulatively, their economies have grown at such an unpredicted, exponential, and precedent rate that they are considered to become the next global super powers. On a global scale, these three countries can collectively get along with one another, but because of their intertwined self-righteous attitudes towards superiority, they have become brutal enemies. Although, these three countries do have two major binding principals: the first is the control Confucianism has over their cultures and governments and the second is wanting to become more modernized faster and more efficiently. Retrospectively, these countries are considered extremely modern, especially with their innovations in technology, but it is their deep-rooted respect for their past that is keeping them from being able to fully move on from their traditional

When looking at the Cold War in general or in relation to Asia, it is important to understand that a conflict lasting a long period may go through changes, especially in the case of the Cold War. With the Cold War, as “Hot Wars” broke out other states became more powerful, and others diminished. A bipolar conflict was evident during the Cold War in two ways. First the balance of power was divided between two coalitions headed by the United States and the Soviet Union, secondly the struggle over the conflicting ideologies of Capitalism and Communism. However when looking at the Cold War in specific relation to Asia, at different points in time China became an influential player tipping the balance of power. This would suggest that there were times when the conflict in Asia assumed tripolarity. The alliance patterns in Asia were more precarious than in Europe as indicated by the collapse of the Sino-Soviet alliance but still had bipolar characteristics , at least in the first half of the conflict.

Literature about China’s rise in East Asia varies along International Relations (IR) Theory methodologies, Think Tank papers, Government research, and media coverage. This literature review covers a period between 2000 and 2009 that establishes a baseline interaction, or ‘before’ (George and Bennett 2005, 166) outcome, among and between the key actors under investigation in this study. Use later in this predictive study, content post-2009 serves to judge a change in interaction. Many well-informed accounts exist on China’s rise. Aside from IR methodologies, research tools use in the subsequent literature includes scenario, structured, focus comparison, and counterfactual methods. For China’s rise, in general, the published studies agreed the outlook for trade was high, the ‘hub and spoke’ alliance purpose questioned, and a prospect of war was low.

China generally supports the world in maintaining peace and Beijing also want to present itself as a peace-loving nation which will encourage other nations to increase their business with China without fear. There are already some hard feeling between China and US in regards to Asian affairs. Moreover, the sensitive issue of North Korea always force China to take a proactive step which China avoids to restrict North Korea but encourage North Korea to grow without fear and business between both the nations are as usual. Freeman, Carla. (2015) argues that China pushes the North Korea and use it as a trump card against the USA. China has the ability to restrict North Korea against Militarization but North

Within the PRC there is a strong sentiment that now is China’s time to take its place as a major actor in a new multipolar world. This is a key aspect of Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” and a growing pillar of party legitimacy as the Chinese economy slows and matures. A key aspect for China to be perceived as a hub of power is to have the ability to assert its interest in the region. As such, Chinese policy towards the S.C.S has been described as developing a “sphere of influence” similar to the US in the Caribbean during the 19th and 20th century. The South East Asian region would be economically interconnected through Chinese investment and development, creating demand for Chinese goods and services. Politically, smaller states would have the PRC as an advocate and China would insulate itself with friendly neighbors. In an effort to project its growing role in the South-East Asia the PRC has adopted a renewed and more provocative approach to regional politics with more assertive stances on various disputed areas, including the nine dash line. By claiming the vast majority of the S.C.S., or the land features in it, Beijing is

For example, China has been politically active in neighboring Korea for two reasons. First, a war on the Korean peninsula has the potential to develop into a broader regional battle that might possibly draw the United States and China in. Such a conflict would obviously be detrimental for economic development and could possibly result in the United States retaining entire control over Korea (Yu p. 188). Therefore, China has pursued a policy of maintaining stability (Roy p. 207) and the current power equilibrium (Yu p. 188). This has been achieved by careful foreign policies and diplomatic maneuvering with both Koreas and the United States.