‘Today’s China Is Both a “Status-Quo Power” and a “Revisionist Power”’

Wang points to Deng Xiaoping’s “Four Modernizations” of agriculture, industry, science and technology, and the military as the foundation of the reforms that led to China becoming the world’s second largest economy in 2011 . Many of these reforms became reality when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, after which trade with the U.S. exploded. Also in this section, the author talks about a number of issues that have strained the relationship since 1970, including the Tiananmen Square incident, Tibet, China’s human rights record, the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade, Taiwan, and U.S. anxieties over the trade imbalance. Both sides have been able to weather these setbacks and Wang optimistically concludes “with the conviction that political cooperation […] is in the interests of the United States, China and indeed the world in the twenty first century.” Wang stitches together a very thoughtful, well-researched and relatively cohesive piece of work.

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

On the international level, China had unfortunately found itself relatively isolated. The United States considered the Maoist government a threat to stability in the Far East, and conflicts in aims had marred the country’s relations with the Soviet Union. So, rather than

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

China’s history continues to shape its contemporary thinking, foreign policy and diplomacy with the West. In order to understand China’s politics and its civilization in general, it is important to look into its history and its traditional philosophy. This book examined many key events in Chinese foreign policy from the classical era to the present day, with an emphasis on the decades after the rise of Mao Zedong. The Chinese’s response and its approach to diplomacy and foreign policy were seen

There are three theoretical perspectives in which world leaders identify themselves with one theory or all, based in the decision they must make. To better understand the international politics comparison of the three theoretical approaches are conducted. Realism has been viewed as the dominant perspective in International Relation theory for many years. Realist view survival as the means to “create and enforce laws to protect citizens” (6). The assumption in Realism can be made that “the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “lack of central government to enforce rules” and protect states” (6). Realism can also be assumed as the theory that used by nation leaders to rule and govern with an “iron Fist”.

In time, China was hoped to find that social and political freedom is the only basis of that greatness. The United States has helped nurture this change by cooperating with China where possible, without allowing the differences that do exist, such as human rights, and nonproliferation commitments to interfere.

One of the largest communicational issues between China and the United States is due to the severe lack of transparency, creating enormous trust issues which has fueled national differences. A few of the ways that lack of trust has proven to be detrimental to China and U.S. affairs is analyzed in Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jishi’s, Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust. It states, “China views the U.S. as taking advantage of the dollar as the reserve currency and adoption various projectionist measure to disadvantage the People’s Republic of China (PRC) economically”. Additionally, the United States disapproves of China’s mercantilist policies because they fear it will cause their efforts in economic recovery

These institutions are not central governments that rule above the states and it will not stop states to wage war against one another. Cheating and relative gains prevents states from cooperation and it will be the cause of the downfall of the neo-liberal order (Grieco, 1988).

enrollment that was just 51 in 1945 has ascended to 155. This demonstrates that there is almost a triple augmentation in the number of States. Every one of the States are anxious to affirm their enthusiasm for international relations. Along these lines, worldwide relations of today are truly international in character since every one of the States demand taking an interest actively. Hence, the extension and nature of international politics has totally changed. It has turned out to be profoundly perplexing and entangled.

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.

Application of differences in viewpoints analytical captured in figure 2.1 for theories as much as the internal politics of those international relations . ( 86 ) Thus, in their analysis of domestic politics , and national security studies Orthodox tend to stick to the same physical and rational perspective that distinguishes realism at the international level . This work has taken two main forms : Checking individual decision-makers , it was observed more often in times of crisis , and bureaucratic organizations to participate in the process of policy formulation and implementation . State theory implicit in the former state model is rational , as he and the actor, and the theory of politics implicit in the latter is the plurality of bureaucratic red tape or bureaucracy.

Before addressing this question, it is essential to establish what is meant by a status quo or revisionist power. Hans Morgenthau described a status quo power as one that favours and aims to maintain “the distribution of power as it exists at a particular moment in history”,. Similarly, proponents of power transition theory use the concept of the “rules of the game” regarding nations’ power relations to define status quo and revisionist states, the latter desiring to “redraft the rules” out of a “general dissatisfaction” with their share

Therefore, according to institutionalists, the core objective is to promote cooperation in anarchic and competitive international system. While realists assume that the core objective is how to survive in this system. However, institutionalists focus on the role that institutions play in international collective actions. In order to define international cooperation, institutionalists looked at the state-centric perspective, which is similar with neorealism, which regards state as rational, unitary, and utility maximizing actor to survive in global arena. Therefore, states are considered as the most relevant actors with specific goals. As pursuing specific goals, states are assumed to make decision-making based on rational strategy in order to prioritize themselves and maximizing benefits from all possible choices, reactions and