What Is The Role Of China's Role In South Asia?

China does not hesitate to work with corrupt or authoritarian governments if it’s in the country’s economic interest. Thus, China’s investment is bad for the world’s long-term political climate.

While both countries have troubling history with foreigners, China appears to be less welcoming to outside influences than India. The Chinese often call their history a “century of humiliation” (23) and, unlike the Indians, show ideals to cover up the past hoping to prosper in the future. Unfortunately, China’s need to cover up their past, could potentially cause reluctance to collaborate or compromise with any other countries. The fear is that if tensions do rise, the U.S. would most likely ally with India due to common economic beliefs which could cost all countries excessive military expenses that should be spent in other places such as education and infrastructure. Moreover, in chapter two and three, Manuel writes about China and India’s kick off to their economic reign. China is still under rule of the communist party while India is attempting to run a British inspired democracy. The issue with China is that they seem so petrified by their history, that they are doing everything seemingly necessary to avoid a relapse, some of China’s leaders “argued that permitting free expression could result in chaos like the Cultural Revolution” (49). India, on the other hand, is still trying to perfect their democracy but often struggle to have enough time to look into long term issues. Many people fear that China’s economy is doomed because growth has decreased severely over the past few years and is projected in the same direction for years to come. Ultimately, chapter three ends with hopeful projections for the fate of the U.S., China, and India. However, concerns are that the U.S. and the British will lose the advantages in global governance they once had as China and India emerge as powerful

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.

China’s ‘peaceful rise’ policy defined China’s foreign relations strategy since Deng Xiaoping promote the ‘opening up’ philosophy since 1979. China acknowledges the significance of international cooperation and global governance to its economic development, as Barry Buzan observed, ‘China put its own economic development as top priority, and deduced from that the need for stability in its international relations both regionally and globally’. What is more, in 2005, Zheng Bijian wrote that ‘China’s peaceful rise will further open its economy so that its population can serve as a growing market for the rest of the world, thus providing increased opportunities for – rather than posing a threat to – the international

Let us start with Afghanistan. Yes, both countries have issues dating back to 1947. The former was the only UN member to oppose the latter’s entry into the world body, a result of misplaced anger at the British Raj’s exit plan. Later, Republican Afghanistan fueled Pashtun nationalist fervor inside Pakistan as payback, tacitly supporting a secessional movement. Islamabad had no choice then but to use Islamists as a counterweight, especially when Kabul cozied up to New Delhi for similar

In the book “on China” the author examines the main episodes in China foreign policy with the United States from classical day to modern day. Kissinger argues that, the American policies toward China are one, setting in the motion about the normalizations of relations with the citizen of China. Two, new diplomatic and negotiations should start in order to extend further arms and control powers. Three, engagement policy. This will be a shifting focus of America administrators alternating between the realism and liberation. Four, Cautious engagement with China. This will ensure there will be no military expansion of China. Since cooperation with China would encourage China to become Benign. It will also become a helpful partner in terms of security and political issues. Last policy was adopting G-2 to solve foreign affairs issues.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush reached out to the world to back the U.S. in a war to eradicate terrorism. One of the more surprising participants in this coalition, China, had until that point been at odds with U.S. policy but seemed to find sufficient common ground with the U.S. to support the war. In recent months however, China has not been lauded for unprecedented cooperation with its “strategic competitor” but has instead been criticized for using the war on terror as carte blanche to step up its “Strike Hard” campaign in the Uigher Xinjiang Autonomous Region in the northwest, resulting in

The Chinese expansion and territorial claims in the South China Sea is escalating tensions with surrounding countries and the United States. As the National Security Council summons to discuss this matter, I embrace the role of the Secretary of Defense. A brief explanation of this job is, “Under the President, who is also Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department, which includes the separately organized military departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff providing military advice, the unified and specified combatant commands, and various defense agencies established for specific purposes” (unt.edu). Furthermore, it is important to understand that persons in the position of Secretary Defense are a member of the cabinet, appointed by the president. This piece of information is pivotal in order to fathom the idea that the Secretary of Defense is subject to modification with every transformation of administration, hence sanctioning only a small amount of continuity in military strategy. The responsibility coveted by the Secretary of Defense at this conference that can be inferred from the duties outlined above is, collaboration with all constituents of the Department of the Defense in the direction of providing the best recommendation regarding resolution of the tensions over the South China Sea. The focal point of this recommendation will be a military strategy and the manner in which to

Campbell (2014) indicate that the Asia-Pacific region exert an inevitable gravitation pull. It comprise 67% of the world 's population, contains the world 's largest democracy (India), the second and third-largest economies (China and Japan), the most populous Muslim-majority country (Indonesia), and 1/3 of the global economy (Xi, 2014). Asia is an important and irrefutable interest of the United States. Since the second world war, America has been actively and deeply engaged with the region militarily, economically and diplomatically (Betts, 1993). For half a century, the East Asian region has been built around American- led mutual strategies, and has stayed remarkably stable under its regional security order (Ikeneberry, 2004). America has five defense treaty allies in Asia, including Australia, Japan, Philippines, South Koreas and Thailand; as well as strategically important partnership with India, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan and etc. (Campbell, 2014).

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

The general consensus among academics and experts in the field of politics concludes that China is assertive. The assertive conduct of China can have an impact on the regional order and stability in South China Sea. The academics and experts in politics have different perspective on the assertive behaviour of Chinese foreign policy. The argument in favour of implementing assertive foreign policies affirms that China has good intentions regarding the South China Sea. China is required to have an assertive behaviour to bring regional stability and solve the territorial disputes on the South China Sea. The opposing argument on assertive foreign policies displays concerns with the aggressive and provocative behaviour of China (Chen, Pu &

Since the mid 20th century an unlikely formidable alliance had slowly began to flourish in South Asia. China and Pakistan’s alliance began in the early 1960’s through the early 1970’s when conflicts between India vs. China and Pakistan had intensified. The Sino-Indian war that took place in 1962 ended as fast as it began. Along with the war that had taken place between India and Pakistan in 1965 and in 1971 when another indo-Pakistani war erupted and East Pakistan claimed independence and is known today as Bangladesh (Hagerty, 2002). In this comparison China and Pakistan had identified their similar interests with their historical and geographical concerns in maintaining “India’s power and influence” within Southeast Asia (Federal China Security Affairs Group [FCSAG], 2010). These are known as Geo-Political interests. There are many definitions of geopolitics but this one more specifically entails “the competition over the control of territory and extraction of resources” (Jonatan, 2012) China and Pakistan have built a friendship that is, “higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel” (Tharoor, 2015), they are collaborating on military technologies and supporting one another’s economic interests. Although the contrasts of these two countries greatly outweigh this entente, with concerns over insurgencies in Pakistan such as it being a safe haven for the Afghani Taliban, said United States President Barack Obama in

The general consensus among scholars concludes that China is assertive (Chen, Pu & Johnston, 2014, 176). The assertive conduct of China can have an impact on the regional order and stability in South China Sea. The scholars have different views on the assertiveness of Chinese foreign policy (Chen et al., 2014, 176). The argument in favour of implementing assertive foreign policy affirms that China has good intentions regarding the South China Sea (Chen et al., 2014, 181). China is required to have an assertive conduct because a moderate approach would not bring regional stability (Fangyin, 2016, 877). The opposing argument on assertive foreign policy is concerned with the aggressive and provocative behaviour of China (Chen et al., 2014,

The politics of South Eastern Asia in respect to the conflicts of India-Pakistan Kashmir dispute and the Korean Peninsula dispute, are really leftover cleavages by greater powers that occupied/supported the respective regions. Hence like all leftover problems of the ages past, it is complicated by nature. However as all actors seek to win the favor of great powers once more, the regional power, China is facing a complicated problem, the problem of having to supporting an ungrateful ally and supporting an ally that won’t win, all involved in conflicts that can’t be solved in the foreseeable future. China, despite having a personal benefit and loss in both, really has no idea what she is doing.