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...
China is an economic power and the U.S. behaves with china because of security reason and China has the biggest U.S debt. If China decides to call it in it will have a huge impact in the U.S. economy and it will destroy its own economy as well. China is the second largest importer and exporter of the U.S. trade deals. The U.S sees china as a security concern because it has become very powerful and its economy is really big which can start investing in its military and increase threat and destabilize region and to U.S. allies such as Japan and South Korea. Furthermore, U.S sees china as a security because it has invested a lot in Africa because of its continental natural resources, and around 2007 the Congolese Government announced that China would bullied and refurbish rail ways, roads and mines in Congo at about $12 billion and china would benefit by mining copper ore and shows that it is dedicated to investing no matter how big the price tag would be in war torn countries. China has also invest in Nigeria by rebuilding its railroad system and is building a new railroad system. In Gabon it has paved almost 80 percent of its roads and Chinese firms are exploring for Oil and natural gas. The U.S and behaves negatively towards China as well because of currency manipulation and devaluing its currency to get and advantage in trade, as well as violations of Human Rights,
Since the 15th century the world has been through three major power shifting, as Fareed Zakaria describe in his book “The Post-American World”. Zakaria analyze that the first power shifting began in the 15th century and took place in most of European countries, this was the era of the development of modern science and technology, it is also produced such a long history of political dominance of the nations of the west. . The second shift was the rise of the United States in end of 19th century, right after it industrialized the United States emerged as the most developed and strongest country in the world, and for the last century the United States has dominated the global economics, politics, sciences and cultures. What we are facing right
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
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.
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
To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and most importantly republican constitutionalism.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
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.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
With power widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of the elite, pluralism complements democracy and ensures that those in charge respect the concerns and interests of the individual. In conclusion, it can be seen that pluralism and toleration are widely supported by liberals since they promote individual sovereignty whilst benefiting society at the same time.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
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.