John Ikenberry’s article “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, examines the past, present, and future of the liberal world order; he informs the reader of his thoughts and opinions on its current state. Ikenberry is very adamant in his position, and he does invoke some good arguments overall, but in the end he falls short. He is a neoliberal institutionalist, therefore his view is needless to say optimistic. His view and the article are both outdated. Since the publication of his article in 2011, many things have changed that contradict his view. For example, China’s position in the world order, the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East and the increase of armed conflict throughout the Arab world, and his obsolete “west vs the rest” (Evin …show more content…
These will make up the root of my argument. I will take a realist stance, and I will argue that Ikenberry’s view of the liberal world order is both outdated and incorrect. 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 …show more content…
Lanxin Xiang, a professor of international politics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of Geneva, claims there are two main theories in his article “China and the International ‘Liberal’ (Western) Order”: the one that Ikenberry follows which is that China will join the USA at the top, and the theory that China will “pose destructive challenges to the international order” (Xiang L. 2014). However, Xiang believes a third theory is more accurate. His believes that China will follow neither of these theories, but rather one in between. Xiang says that China has no reason to destroy the current world order, and also that it would “most certainly be prepared to alter some of the rules… according to Chinese tradition, culture and national interests” and “It’s totally unrealistic to expect China to stay at the receiving end of west dominated order, without making its own contributions to improve the rules of the game” (Xiang). This completely contradicts Ikenberry’s theory that “China and other emerging powers do not want to contest the basic rules and principles of the liberal international order” (Ikenberry). Xiang states that in a recent meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and US president Barack Obama, Jinping proposed an agreement that would
What were the major impacts on American foreign policy during the H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations? How did Bush & Clinton define the post-Cold War world for the United States?
The American political economy of freedom seemingly was at risk. Thus, the Truman administration switched to an “adversarial relationship”. However, the foreign policy challenge, as Dean Acheson stresses, “was to foster an environment in which our national life and individual freedom can survive and prosper (Leffler, The Specter of Communism, 63).
In the 21st century, there have been plenty of examples of potential competition to liberalism as seen by the emergence of social democracy and the push for welfare states as well as varying degrees of fundamentalism and nationalism all throughout the world. Fukuyama believed that all societies where converging towards democracy and capitalism and that the world was beginning to embrace the ideas and principles of western liberalism, capitalism and materialism. He argued that “liberal democracy remains the only coherent political aspiration that spans different regions and cultures across the globe.” (Mapping the political landscape p.323). Although Fukuyama believes that with the fall of communism and fascism, liberal democracy had finally assumed it rightful place as that right ideology in the world, he seems to have overlooked the overall flexibility of liberal ideologies as well as capitalism and materialism.
In his book Resurgence of the West, Rosecrance claims that after centuries of success, the United States is facing an economic and political decline due to the rise of China. He suggests that the United States can fix this problem by one of two ways. The first is isolationism, but that means the United States will have to completely remove itself from international affairs. On the other hand, Rosecrance proposes that the United States form an economic coalition with Europe, to stand up against rising China and ‘non-western’ countries. Eventually, both regions will witness an economic prosperity through this merger. As a result, this will prompt China and other ‘non-western’ nations to join this alliance.
middle of paper ... ... This comment suggests that the current idea, liberalism, may just be a phase in human ideology that has spread worldwide. Though he made a compelling argument and posed thought provoking questions that supported his argument, the flaws in his argument, after stringent analysis, contradict his main points. Works Cited Ferguson, C. (Director).
Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington are two of the most controversial and influential modern political theorists of our times. Fukuyama’s book, The End of History and the Last Man, and Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, pose two very conflicting theories on international relations. In this paper I will summarize and compare/contrast the two theories. Both theories, written since the fall of communism and updated since the first gulf war, have been widely read, taught, praised and criticized
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
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
Walt, Stephen. "Top 10 Warning Signs of Liberal Imperialism." Foreign Policy. N.P, 20 May 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. .
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
The Instability of China–US Relations", The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3, no. 3 (2010): 263-292, http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/3/263.
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Liberalism has contributed to the understanding of International Relations as an academic discipline and through organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the League of Arab States, and others in what many consider to be a very influential manner.
Malo, E. (2014). What should Marxism propose to International Relations?. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 10, pp.131-169.
In the race to be the best, China is clearly outperforming the United States. China has strong economic fundamentals¬ such as “a high savings rate, huge labor pool, and powerful work ethic” (Rachman, Gideon. "Think Again: American Decline). Their economy has grown an astonishing 9-10% over the past thirty years; almost double of what it used to be decades ago. China is also the “world’s greatest manufacturer and its greatest market” (Rachman). The continuing growth of China's economy is a source of concern for not only the U.S. but surrounding nations as well. One could argue that the U.S. need not worry about China’s growth because of the spread of globalization and that western ideologies would influence China to turn to democracy. Yet China has still managed to “incorporate censorship and one party rule with continuing economic success” (Rachman) and remains a communist country. Hypothetically, even if China does resort to a democratic state, this does not gua...