Theories in Inr

Theories in International Relations

1.

Today and for the past several decades the Unites States has been the undoubted hegemonic power on the planet. However, China is increasingly becoming a world power and along with its economic and population growths, has the capacity to possibly challenge the US for future hegemonic power. The People's Republic of China is currently seeing its economy grow at the amazing rate of 8% yearly. It is today the 7th largest economy in the world and the conjunction of it having the highest population in the world and such a high economic growth rate, projections estimate it to become the 2nd largest economy in the coming decades. It is an accepted fact among scholars that China's potential for becoming a world power is nearly certain if China continues to grow and develop at its current speed.

According to Morgenthau all states, like men, strive for power. Morgenthau claims that, "it is sufficient to state that the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience. It cannot be denied that throughout historic time, regardless of social, economic, and political conditions, states have met each other in contests for power." (Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Pg. 30) Logically, China's rise to power is inevitable due to its resources and its thirst for power is natural. It is without a doubt that the US should be worried about China since the US has a lot to lose as the sole hegemon of the currently unipolar world. If such a change were to occur, states would have to play by China's rules and not by the American rules which are currently in place.

Although the US has been courting China politically and economically, they are coordinating their policies and relations in Asia in order to counter the Chinese ascension as a world power. I believe that the US is struggling to decide whether it is more important to check Chinese economic growth or benefit from it. Many people allow greed to blur the big picture for the US and they are making money at the expense of strengthening China against the decline of US power. An excellent defense of this belief is provided by Ostrogorsky who states that, "the passions of the American people are not of a political, but of a commercial, nature. In that world, awaiting cultivation, the love of power aims less at men than at things." (Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Pg. 31) It is a major problem for the US as a country if their businesses are too focused on profiting in China to stop themselves from improving China's economy and technology. On the other hand, this form of courting and working with China may be in the mind set of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." It is possible that the US may see China as a huge market and that by capturing this market they can maintain themselves as the economic power of the world. China and the US may not be direct enemies but in the global system they are major rivals. It is difficult to say whether the US is misguided in its direct policy with China and only time will answer this question. China is also cooperating with the US in many senses. China has adopted the policy of bandwagoning. As expressed by Waltz, "in a competition for the position of leader, bandwagoning is sensible behavior where gains are possible even for the losers and where losing does not place their security in jeopardy." (Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Pg. 126) For China, bandwagoning is a very safe way of maintaining their ascendancy in the international system while keeping their costs low. Even though, China is working against the US in its attempts to establish itself as the leader in Asia, they are both beneficiaries of the structure of the world market today. They both have an interest in maintaining the current status quo because the US is the global leader while China is strengthening with every passing year. This position may be a very comfortable position for China who is not forced to cope with the responsibility of maintaining the world order as the US is but is benefiting as much as any other country. If the global structure is not maintained it could be possible that China would not grow as it has economically and militarily.

Eventually China and the US will be at a phase of change. China will someday reach the US in economic terms and honestly if a country is powerful economically the political power is sure to follow. The pressure that this will cause on the international system could lead to a war for world hegemon. However, as Jack Levy contends, Ð''the increasing destructiveness of military technology has weakened the link between economic strength and military power, and the decline of mercantilist economic philosophies and the growth of complex interdependence further undermine the traditional belief that military force might be a useful instrument of state policy to advance the economic interests of society." (Levy, Jack. Contending Theories of International Conduct. Pg.9) The costs of a military conflict are rapidly increasing and with nuclear weapons a nuclear conflict seems too much to risk. I believe that China and the USA would not fight a direct war because the consequences of a nuclear war are consequences that neither state would be willing to suffer.

2.

The stability of a unipolar world is a major question among scholars of the international systems theories. First of all it has to be understood that stability in the international system is somewhat contradictory to the beliefs of the "struggle for power" and survival of states. Waltz claims that "international-political systems are thought of as being more or less anarchic."(Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Pg. 114) It is difficult to determine that any state of being of the international system could be stable when all states in the system are naturally struggling for a limited amount of resources for their survival and there is no world government or institution to oversee these problems. It is important to keep in mind that "the expectation is not that a balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that a balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another." (Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Pg. 128) I believe this to be a very important fact about the international system. Stability, meaning the lack of conflict between states, is only a part of the natural cycle of the world. Of course admitting this isn't to say that stability cannot be maintained more effectively in different circumstances of the international system. Keohane