The Rise Of China Is Destroying The United States

For the last twenty eight years, China has been quickly growing into one of the largest economies in the world. China has accomplished this feat, in part, by radically changing their policies on trade and free market interactions with other countries. During this process, China has bought approximately one hundred trillion dollars of United States debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and Inflation Protected Securities (Amadeo). This debt has given China leverage against the United States which has enabled China to keep the value of the United States dollar high, while keeping the value of the Chinese yuan low. As the inflation of the dollar continues to negatively affect the

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

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.

This essay argues that 1991 was the peak of American power. The Berlin wall had fallen in 1989, and then the USSR had disbanded in 1991, making the US the only superpower in the world. In 1991 America had military and financial power of that other nations could only dream of. Cox then argues that American power declined from that point because nations have a finite lifespan. As a realist he argued that all great nations go into decline and no matter how “singular and exceptional a powerful nations qualities might be, it cannot, for ever, determine the way in which the international system operates”. Williams reviewed Cox and almost instantly argued against his theory. Cox states the traditional realist view of a rise and fall of national power, but Williams argues a more liberal view, that American power, while not being as dominant, is still a

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

Although Athenian's did claim hegemony through honour which was brought about through their defeat of the Persian empire in the name of freedom, the Melian slaughter discussed by Thucydides, showed that their influence over their allies was non-democratic and ultimately shows leadership through arkhe. Lebow and Kelly suggest that currently, 'hegemonia is even more important than it was in the Cold War' (Lebow, pg605, 2001) for the US. Wohlforth states that the US is the 'first state in modern history...with decisive preponderance in all the underlying components of power' (Wohlforth, pg7, 1999). When discussing power it is important to think about America's possession of 'soft power...which is increasingly important in influencing international behaviour' (Lebow, pg605, 2001) in terms of promoting western dominance in mainly cultural and ideological domains. American's would like to believe their influence was democratic and embodies the cultural and ideological 'benefits' of liberalism. Joseph Nye, Jr. stresses the increasing importance of soft power, relative to more traditional forms of power that rely on coercion (Nye, 1999) which moves away from the realist school of thought that relates to Machiavelli's and Thucydides' ideas of power.

In multi-polar theory, world order is achieved through the cooperation of multiple power systems. In this system powerful states counter-balance each other. It is mainly achieved through international law, international cooperation and economic coordination. The negative side of multi-polarity is that it leads to vulnerability and interdependence, modernization, national interests, multilateralism and problems with international

Even in attempting to show the political and economic characteristics of hegemony, the term does not provide a contribution in understanding a more stable international system. The US during the post war period in maintaining their status as a hegemon has been problematic. There are contradictions to the maintenance of hegemony that has it made it very difficult for the US to keep their status. First, the privileges enjoyed by the hegemon are abnormal in the context where there are supposed to be specific and universal rules and principles. Second, “The hegemon may weary of the special burdens necessary to sustain” (Skidmore 26). The hegemon being the dominant power is going to have to define interest in broader terms, which can lead to

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

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

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them