Relationship Between New Zealand And China

The Fraser government continued this policy direction with China, which was strengthened even further during the Hawke and Keating years (1983-96). The Howard government has continued this policy and has chosen to place economic and trade considerations above ideology. Pursuit of a strong bilateral relationship with China by Australian Labor governments might have been predicted on political grounds but, increasingly, as the world moves to embrace a global village profile governments of all political persuasion’s are shaping the foreign policies on the basis of national economic self interest.

China's record of human rights violations is long and mind-boggling. Atrocities such as purging tens of millions of people during the Cultural Revolution, its infamous one-child-per-couple Population Policy, persistent oppression of Tibet and the bloody June 4 massacre at Tienanmen Square in 1989 have given the Chinese government a reputation of having little respect for human life. And yet, despite its tarnished record, China maintains its Most Favoured Nation trade status with the US and is one of Canada's top ten recipients of bilateral trade. As supposed supporters of human rights, Canadian and US governments have developed hypocritical attitudes toward China, compromising ethical values for material gain. Instead, North American

Realism is one of the most dominant international relations theories in the academic world. But within Realism, Realists are split on a number of issues. A perfect example of which being the rise of China. Over the past 30 years China has increased not only in population and power, but has also achieved one of the strongest economies in the world. The rise of China is seen as problematic by many realists. Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has enjoyed a position of hegemony in the unipolar power structure of the world. Many fear that the rise of China could upset the current balance of power. One such individual is a prominent realist scholar, John Mearsheimer. He believes that war with China is inevitable and “calls for the US to do whatever it can to slow China’s rise.” Another political theorist Jonathan Kirshner wrote this paper to counter many of Mearsheimer’s claims, stating that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism “is wrong, and dangerous”. Kirshner suggests that instead of using offensive realism we should look instead to the theories roots in classical realism to analyse the rise of China.

Since the fall of communism in Russia and the end of the Cold War, China started to rise as a significant power and to this day holds the title as the world’s fastest growing economy. With that advancement, China has become an influential global player in international politics and the economy; moreover, causing many countries, developed and developing, to raise a serious level of concern and interest to the rapid development of China. In particular, Canada is now back to establishing to be on better terms with China, after Harper’s playing hard to get approach, we must work even harder in becoming a part of China’s inner circle of trade partners. Moreover, Mr. Harper at first tried an activist approach, criticizing and accusing China of poor

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

|Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that plagiarism or collusion has occurred, this will be reported to the Chief Examiner, who will disallow |

Australian foreign policy has undoubtedly been subject to vast changes over the past century, particularly as a response to the increasing role Asia has played in shaping the contemporary global market. Having identified the importance of multilateralism and regionalism, policy continue to be increasingly focused on our geographical position as part of the Asia-Pacific region, and the relationships with our immediate neighbours, as a means to better achieve stability. The word stability in this context does not simply refer one single aspect, but rather encompasses several different areas which are equally important if we are to continue advancing our country in both a domestic and international sense. There are several key areas of policy

In this article, “How to Deter China, The Case for Archipelagic Defense”, Andrew Krepinevich, includes various examples of China’s trait of bullying and how others, who are victim, may not be able to compete in the same way with other governments. He includes strategies that the United States may or may not be able to implement in order to aid in Asian peace. We are given information regarding our country’s planned action to address this issue. He gives examples of how China’s bullying and repression on other countries that are located within China’s reach occur. For example, Krepinevich writes, “China moved an oil rig into Vietnam's exclusive economic zone, clashing with Vietnamese fishing boats”. These actions would never lead to peace between Vietnam and China, however, it only proves who is the most powerful of the two. It is true that China is a world power that is very advanced and able to do the majority of what it wants, but this does not justify actions that cause problems among others. He brings up “Archipelagic Defense”, and this is just a country’s ability to stand firm and defend themselves with these issues. He explains how several countries like Vietnam and Japan in particular, are willing to put forth the efforts necessary for archipelagic defense. This defense is needed in responding to this

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

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

China and U.S. relations are complex, but it is important to attribute historical context when analyzing contemporary issues. Prior to China establishing their global role as a superpower, their nation endured nearly a century of humiliation which began in the 1800s and concluded in the mid-1900s. Although they’ve redeemed their nationalism, the intrusion of Western imperialism created tension and hostility which lasted for years after. Also, the United States’ response to local Chinese events, such as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, negatively impacted their relationship because it was an example of how American media and officials utilized knowledge about particular Chinese events and disseminated various rhetorical messages in response.

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

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

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

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