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

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”.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

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

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

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

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

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.

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.

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

And with this strong role China has been assuming, so has it been getting stronger by building military equipment competitive with those of the U.S. and drawing narrower a military gap it once possessed when compared to America’s armed forces. Furthermore, China has “displaced the United States as the world’s leading manufacturing nation” in 2010 (US Foreign Policy, pg. 414). Not a surprise since a majority of products purchased in the U.S. carry a label stating, “Made in China.” And predictions hold China as the world’s largest economy by year 2041 (US Foreign Policy, pg. 415). Thus, the fact that China has become an emergence matters. Since the dismantled of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was not challenged, when it came to power by any other competitor, however now, the U.S. dominance in international politics has to deal with a China that has the capabilities to lead the world’s economy.

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).

The necessity for an East Asian Community has never been greater. Globalization of the world economy and trends towards regional trading blocs brings new challenges. Global standards need to be defined and regulations harmonized. Regional cooperation and coordination are required to advance the region’s common interests. The region is endowed with an abundance of skilled labor, entrepreneurs, natural resources, capital and advanced technology. These common challenges and complementary resources call for mutually beneficial cooperation and exchanges, not only in the economic realm, but also in the political, security, environmental, social, cultural and educational arenas. The rapid rise of China and its increasing influence in the region has been a source of friction and concern for its neighbors but has also raised the possibility of imagining an Asia that is less centered on the U.S. China’s growing economy could entail a rebalancing of the economic center for Asia. Unquestionably, China’s role and attitude will be crucial to the success or failure of an East Asian

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.

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.