China and India rising to power makes us think of a world where it will not just look less American, it will also look less liberal. Not only is the United States' prominence will pass away, but so, too, its open and rule-based international order that the country has adopted since the 1940s. In this view, newly powerful states are beginning to advance their own ideas and agendas for global order, and a weakened United States will find it harder to defend the old system. Here we are taking as a given that the liberal world order gets modified and not completely dissolved. Imagine a world where China is the hegemon and pushes the world order towards a more autocratic world order, both politically and economically. Completely rejecting the old model thus putting a cluster of liberal ideas such as faith in democratization, confidence in free markets, and the acceptability of U.S. military power all being called into question. In my opinion this is a panicked narrative of the scenario. Even with America losing its supremacy, will leave the liberal world order behind, resulting in the growth of economic and security interdependence between nations like China, India, Brazil, Russia. Liberal world order will adapt itself in order to survive. This adaptation will make it economically more feasible, which is what both nations aim at. So China and India wouldn’t contest the current order at all but would like to gain authority within it. Both the nations will benefit from the norms, practices and institutions like the WTO and G20. Their economic prosperity is often linked to the liberal organization of world politics. The liberal world order is not only a collection of liberal democracies but also more of a political club, which offers... ... middle of paper ... ...dress, namely insecurity and conflict. With regard to India-China relations, Nehruvians argue that other areas of interaction must not be held hostage to the border issue as economic dependence transcends them. In sum, Power is a zero-sum game, and any attempts to upgrade the standing of China and India would cost others some of their influence. Though offensive realism couched in zero-sum terms would argue that one power will inevitably rise at the cost of another, interdependency theory buttressed by liberal institutionalism indicates that great power relations can be managed without breaking out in devastating war. What is important in the end is that we do not have a singular way of managing great power relations; engagement, bandwagon and balance go hand in hand, and are necessary policy tools for states to deal with an ever more anarchic international order.
On the other hand, hard-core realists predict that since China’s economy is on the rise, and United States economy is declining, it may create conflict. During World War I, a war occurred between England, a declining dominant hegemony, and Germany, a dissatisfied challenger on the rise (Wong, The Rise of Great Powers, Nov.18). However, war will not spark between China and...
Fallows article was compelling and insightful as he presented the issues regarding America’s apparently impending collapse. His ability to compare the United States to China introduced a unique perspective to the analysis as he showed that the nation might be falling behind its Asian counterpart. However, an analysis of the US with the European Union reveals that America is still not as badly off. If the right changes are made within the governance system and perhaps the constitution, the United States will successfully stave off their assumed decline and reinstate its position as a global hegemony.
Ikenberry’s main argument is that the liberal world order is “alive and well” (Ikenberry J. 2011) and that rising powers such as China do not want to overthrow the USA at the top of the liberal order, but rather join them there. To Ikenberry the liberal world order is organized around an open market, free trade, collective security and democratic norms. He claims that the liberal world order is not being challenged itself, but rather who is in charge. From his point of view, there is no reason for China to overthrow the liberal world order because it is this exacts world order that is allowing China to rise to the top. Ikenberry states that the current international world order is “the product of two
The author’s reasons for this are that the United States is the most powerful nation economically and technologically, in addition to having the most powerful army. This makes it difficult for one to argue with the unipolarity of the U.S. I believe that unipolarity exists, but I disagree with the suggestion that it is stable, as the stability of a system largely depends on the leadership, and within a unipolar system leadership will be all the more integral to the existence of the system. This is especially in a country such as the United States, as the leadership changes every four to eight years and the tactics used to deal with hegemony will change with those leaders, thus creating an unstable
Mahbubani argues that global dominance is moving to the east primarily due to the United States incompetence (weakness) and growing capability of Asian nations. He furthers this notion by strongly indicating that the West is inhibiting Asian progress. Mahbubani further indicates that the west has lost its legitimacy due to violating international protocol. Mahbabani recommends a return to domestic good governance and specifies that some Asian countries are now ready to join the west in becoming “responsible custodian” (pp. 4) of the global order.
is more closing and China will be more capable power to take the role. And U.S. can not constrained power any longer especially after Iraq war, they lost a lot of money and more. From Waltzian neorealist perspectives here is the main problems between China- U.S. relation. First, the balance of power by arguing that true security can only be found atop the international system and that states will not be satisfied until they reach that point. From Waltz, his opinion is the world should be divide to bipolar so, this polar can decrease possibility of war because when two countries hold the great power and can avoid and concerned more about the effect if they make a war. But the main question is How much power is enough to maintain the bipolar? — He answered with defensive realism that state should not seek to be hegemon which is relative with peaceful architecture. Survival of the state is the point of purpose not to seek hegemony.But for China and U.S., the problem is nowadays both are trying to build many cooperations with many countries. For example,in Asia region, China and U.S. try to establish organizations such as TPP which U.S. is the main actor in this organization and China try to do bilateral relations especially with economic cooperations. The first problem is how China- U.S. weigh the balance of power between each other. China can rise peacefully or not in Waltzian indicate problem—both of China and U.S.’s intentions obvious reveal many dimension to the world of politics and this caused make many fear of them as the threats. In other hand, President Xi just visited U.S. to cool down the hot political situations. This can infer bipolar as Waltz said but in the ends no one knows and can not predicts what will
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
The awakening of China, as was predicted by Napoleon centuries ago, is gradually causing ripples across the world. This is contradictive in that even after engaging the UN militarily in the 1950s conflict with Korea, it later came to be a key factor in Cold War politics, a solid member of the UN Security Council, and today, it is one of the most-evaluated nations on earth as it greatly impacts on global politics.
When Fareed describes the post American world, he doesn’t mean that America has become irrelevant or that it’s been overtaken. Instead, Zakaria discusses what he calls “the rise of the rest.” It is that other countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China have developed and become a lot more independent not that America has become less competitive. He thinks that America will remain the most powerful country
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
With the end of the Cold War emerged two superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union. The international system then was considered bipolar, a system where power is distributed in which two states have the majority of military, economic, and cultural influence both internationally and regionally. In this case, spheres of influence developed, meaning Western and democratic states fell under the influence of U.S. while most communist states were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Today, the international system is no longer bipolar, since only one superpower can exist, and indisputably that nation is the United States. However China is encroaching on this title with their rapid growth educationally, economically, and militaristically.
A country’s struggle to power is much like that of two rivalling siblings. They are locked in a constant competition as they attempt to one-up the other. Countries do the same as they race against each other to produce better exports, and to attract more money into their economy. They are constantly vying against each other for the center of attention so that they are the main focal point of the international world. This competition continues until one finally relents, or blatantly falls, and allows the other to shine; much like how China is slowly managing to overtake the U.S. in terms of international influence. The success of one individual cannot remain forever, and eventually they will begin to fall. This is the current situation where the U.S. and China stand today as China is beginning to overtake the U.S. in terms of economic capability. With a superior economy, it is possible for China to overcome the challenges it faces as it moves into position as the next world power. Though, just like the pair of siblings, despite China’s recent successes, the other won’t disappear completely. The U.S. will not disappear into the background and allow China to take complete control as hegemon, or world power, and establish something akin to a uni-mulipolar system. A system where there is one main power and many already established rising powers. This uni-multipolar system allows for other countries to continuously compete for the position at the top.