"What made the war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta," spoken centuries ago, Thucydides’ idea still reverberates in the minds of young scholars today. This bold statement serves as the basis of one of our modern day theories of international relations. Realism, the embodiment of fear, greed, and self preservation, has become the contemporary model of “power politics”. By prioritizing a states’ interest in security and its own personal ideology, to the extent where morality has lost influence, a state has decided to utilize a realists’ view to handle their foreign relations. In the realist theory a state prides itself on the tactful maneuvers exploited to shift foreign relations towards their own favor. Currently there are many states that utilize this method; however China has become that rising nation that has captured the eyes of the world.
For years there has been a conflict between China and Taiwan, and like all good stories, it has only once again become another top article in the recent issue of The New York Times. The people of China have always and still to this day believe that Taiwan is still under the sovereignty of China. Although China has fought to maintain an integral part of their nation, the United States in the past has provided aid to Taiwan in the name of democracy and support of their freedom. Despite threats China has issued in the past, the United States has usually supported their policy with Taiwan, fearless of what their relationship with China may become. Recently, however the United States has been placed in a very difficult predicament. The current Obama administration was in the process of sending new fighter jets and submarines to Taiwan, when China issued the usual threat of cutting Sino-American relations. Unlike the many times in the past the United States has refused to be the naïve savior once more. Why is it now that we fear the repercussions?
China has not created any policies detrimental to US safety, nor has there been a shift in their international conduct. So why is it now that the United States must take a moment to plan the next step of action? Years ago one could describe the world as experiencing the most ideal aspect of the Realism theory; a uni-polar hegemony. The United States was at the top of this hegemony, and served as a quasi advisor for world action. With a “tree” of nations ranked at varying levels below the United States, Americans lacked fear. Scholars acknowledged China as a growing nation; however it was not seen as a threat to the American “power”. With the recent downward slop of the US economy within the last decade, citizens of the world began to witness a shift in hegemony. China saw an advantage point in purchasing our national debt; it provided benefits for both parties. Our society had transitioned into a bi-polar world, with powers centralizing in China and the USA.
Although our world can currently be described as bi-polar, this still does not yet fully explain the sudden fear of China’s foreign policy. China is a realist state. Realism is a theory that suggests survival of the fittest. For example in a two country only world, when Country A forms an army, Country B becomes fearful of their safety and establishes their own army. This insecurity and fear is the key source of realism. It causes a continuous attempt to balance out the scale and to remain on top forms a rather dangerous lifestyle. Scholars can then transfer this strand of thought to refer to a bi-polar world, a new constant hungry and drive to be on top we can understand the hesitation the US has when negotiating with China now.
“China's growing strength, most realists argue, will lead it to pursue its interests more assertively, which will in turn lead the United States and other countries to balance against it. This cycle will generate at the least a parallel to the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, and perhaps even a hegemonic war. Adherents of this view point to China's recent harder line on its maritime claims in the East China and South China seas and to the increasingly close relations between the United States and India as signs that the cycle of assertiveness and balancing has already begun.”( Charles Glaser)
China has become the next growing super power, and the problem is not that it has entered the map with new potential. The problem that a realist would identify is the possible threat the United States may face. If China continues to utilize realism as their primary form of international relations, fellow states will react similarly. Realism, the theory based on human nature, suggests when China responds harshly to the United States attempting to aid Taiwan, the USA will react accordingly. A threat suggests that a power exists where China can damage the United States. This possibility heavily influences one’s fear, throwing the second nation into a frantic state of defense.
A frantic nation, forced into a condition by being frightened of the possible damage to a nation is not acceptable. If every sovereign power responded to international relations in this manner, a World War would be inevitable. The bullying experienced through the realism theory, can only be quelled when the power shifts to a single hegemony once more. Although the United States would like to act morally and provide Taiwan with assistance, we must step back view this picture from a different position. If the US were to act swiftly and rashly there could be a power shift only dropping its’ position in international power. There are times when acting in one’s own self-interest is appropriate, and this situation is a time where the US can benefit through the realism theory. By responding in fear to China, and protected their own world interest by not morally helping Taiwan the USA has successfully utilized the realist theory.
Realism should be utilized in the dealings of the world, however it should not be the forerunner for the policy is to be conducted. In moderation a theory that has been based on human nature can serve best as a defensive maneuver. The moment that realism becomes the primary reaction to the happenings of the world, we all face a new issue. That state has become too responsive rather than logical, and forces other world powers to do just that to remain on par. This action only serves one purpose, and that is to ensure that war has broken lose by the end of the day. President Obama and his administration must be aware of the eminent danger to our Sino-American relations by supporting Taiwan; however we must not rally into another “arms race” to prove to China we are on top. Instead let us try to respond to this through a novel way; instead of the usual harsh rash reactions of realism, let us turn to the other theories of international relations to prevent the fear that inevitably produces war among states!
Works Cited
"China." U.S. Department of State. 6 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
Glaser, Charles. "Will China's Rise Lead to War? | Foreign Affairs." Home | Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Mar.-Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
Locke, Gary. "U.S. Ambassador Locke on U.S.-China Relations | USPolicy." USPolicy | Explaining US Foreign Policy to Europe. US Policy, 9 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
News, Cindy Sui BBC. "BBC News - Taiwan Sweats on US Arms Sales Decision." BBC - Homepage. BBC News, Taipei, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
Today, I read the article, One world, rival theories by Jack Snyder that Professor Craig posted on Blackboard. This article lays out the definitions of “Realism,” “Liberalism,” and “Idealism/Constructivism.” After reading your blog post, I found an interesting connection between China’s growing power and liberalism, rather than realism.
ReplyDeleteRealism argues, that because of China’s growing power, the U.S. and China will inevitably end up at war or with a highly distraught relationship. However, liberalism points out the question of progress. The general idea behind liberalism is that countries do not necessarily have to go to war, and there is always the potential for betterment and a transition to democracy.
In order for China to remain a growing dominance in the world, would it have to become more democratic? And if China were to transition to a more democratic government, could China and the U.S. foster a peaceful relationship rather than a relationship bent on war?
I can never understand why would U.S. hold on to the Taiwan problem and never try to develop the relationship between itself and China. China is a growing power as we know, wouldn't U.S. benefit more from China if both countries have a good relationship with each other. What can Taiwan on earth do for U.S.? why do both countries have to use Taiwan to limit each others' strength. It's unlikely that it's going to be a superpower dominate the whole world. Why can't China and U.S. work together with other countries to make a peaceful world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from Hannah's questions, I came up with another question, why does the dominance have to be a democratic country? Soviet Union was a dominance and it was communist. China is a country in between Socialism and Communism. I grew up in China, I don't see any problems of being a citizen in a Socialist/Communist country. We don't have dictator in the country and the whole country is peaceful even though we cannot access to some of the information in the world. I think the government is trying to protect its own country and this is understandable from my point of view.
I agree with you Kimmy, that Taiwan does not offer the United States any benefit, and that ideally China and the United States should work together but we get into a point of conflict. Hannah I do not believe that by the United States acting in a realist role will only result in a traditional concept of war. I mean we can say that we are already in a education war, or in an economic war. We are constantly against each other in hopes of remaining at the top. It is kinda like the space race, which were actions through the realist theory. In order for China and the United States to gain a strong relationship, I feel they both need to change each others view on culture and the way government is run. Which essential means the way to achieve peace is through constructivism. Once this happens I feel these two states will be able to foster a very powerful relationship.
ReplyDelete