Ma Politics Coursework Sample

''Ultimately, hegemonic order is established and maintained by the preponderance of power of the leading state, and when that power declines or passes to another state, the order will break apart or at least change to reflect the interests of the newly powerful state'' (Ikenberry, 2004:615-616). This essay will be discussing whether US hegemony is in anyway threatened by a rising China; using international relations theories to try and give a clearer understanding as to why China would be considered a threat to US hegemony in the first place. Once this topic has been tackled one would have to explain the different meanings of hegemony in order to understand if and how China is threatening US hegemony. Once we have a clearer understanding of hegemony this essay will then explain both the US and China's position across the world, and more specifically their position within the Asia-Pacific region; and will be arguing the case that China does not threaten US global hegemony but is undermining it, whereas in the Asia-Pacific region it may possibly become a threat to US regional hegemony. The rise of China has been viewed from different lenses by international relations theory scholars. From the liberal perspective, the rise of China is viewed in a cautiously optimistic light. Liberals stress the importance of trade among states and are happy to see China becoming more economically interdependent with other states; giving the impression, from their perspective, that a state is less likely to engage in a war if it has greater economic interdependence with the other states involved. Another positive aspect that is noted by liberals is that China is integrating into the existing international order, especially with regards to international institutions. However, liberals have also linked China's rise with caution due to the fact that China holds a lack of respect over human, political and property rights (Lecture on Rise of China). From the liberal perspective, it can be deduced that due to China's integration into the system and its economic interdependence, China is not likely a threat to US hegemony. From the realist perspective China's rise has been viewed with pessimism. China is regarded as part of a balancing strategy against the US which is linked to the power transition theory that when there is a declining hegemon and a rising challenger conflict is likely. There are two different viewpoints one from offensive and the other from defensive realists. For Offensive realists, China is seen to have expansionary motives due to its economic power. Waltz reinforces this point stating that, ''countries with great power economics have become great military powers, whether or not reluctantly'' (Kang, 2003:74). Offensive realists would view China's problem with Taiwan as a potential trigger for this expansionary agenda. Defensive realists, on the other hand, view China's relationship with the US as a potential conflict of interests especially because of China's recent commitments to the East Asian region which may interfere with US interests in the region; which will likely lead to an intensification of the security dilemma between the two nations. However, both forms of realism agree on the fact that the US-China relation has become a zero-sum game, in terms of the distribution of power, whereby one would have to lose in order for the other to gain; thus making conflict between the two nations inevitable (Lecture on Rise of China). Unlike liberals, realists do perceive China as a possible threat to US hegemony. From the social constructivist perspective, which focuses on the construction of identity, the US-China relationship is viewed as a way to stabilise one's self. In order to have a stable sense of one's identity the state would need to differentiate by contrasting in a negative way with another state. It could even be argued that the Western perspective of a threatening China is only replaying Cold War logics (Lecture on Rise of China). The need for an enemy to justify foreign policy is a plausible reason to create an 'enemy'. This is reinforced by the idea of 'China's rise' which has been exaggerated by the West in order to make China's potential position in the international system more noticeable. In June 2004 Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly stated that China was ''challenging the status quo aggressively'', using a very bad example that should actually place China in a positive light. He states that Beijing is ''expanding its influence in Southeast Asia by enhancing its diplomatic representation, increasing foreign assistance, and signing new bilateral and regional agreements'' (Goh, 2008:114). However, it could also be said that repeatedly making China out to be a threat may possibly become a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby China would be in a position that would necessitate the use of force due to the rhetoric enforced on China. Moving on from international relations theory perspectives, hegemony is the next issue that will be discussed. A clear definition of hegemony is given by John Agnew; he states that ''Hegemony is the enrolment of others in the exercise of your power by convincing, cajoling, and coercing them that they should want what you want. Though never complete and often resisted, it represents the binding together of people, objects, and institutions around cultural norms and standards that emanate over time and space from seats of power occupied by authoritative actors'' (Agnew, 2005:1-2). Agnew's definition fits quite well with US hegemony that revolves around us through norms and institutions, but it does not give a clear understanding of US hegemony when linked to China's rise. Alternatively, John Ikenberry describes hegemony as ''the rule and regime-based order created by a leading state'' (Ikenberry, 2004:615-616). This is quite a vague definition of hegemony despite its truthfulness. His explanation of hegemonic order (quoted at the beginning), on the other hand, is worth noting; he mentions that the hegemonic order changes or breaks apart if there is a decline or substitution in power. Using this explanation one could relate it back to US hegemony and see that presently China's rise is not threatening US global hegemony for there would have been a notable decline in US influence in the world. However, this does not mean that China's rise is not undermining US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. This essay will now move onto explain the US's position across the world and will try to contrast it with China's position. The United States benefitted greatly from World War II being the most successful state in comparison to the other victors. It was able to help develop the United Nations as an institution which would help sustain its long-term goals, and was also able to create the Bretton Wood system that we still use through the IMF and the World Bank. Its struggle during the Cold War with the Soviet Union only helped further entrench it as a hegemon through the various numbers of military bases across the world that were developed during the Cold War. It was clear that with the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States would become the undisputed world hegemon. One significant factor that has become associated with China's rise is its rapidly improving military capabilities and more specifically its technological advancement in military capabilities. China has recently developed its own aircraft-carrier. The Pentagon has said that China is steadily closing its technological gap with modern armed forces (www.economist.com, 2011). Despite this, the US's position in terms of military power is still unrivalled across the world. A survey done in 2006 showed that the US's military expenditure was at a total of $528.6 billion, whereas China's military expenditure in 2006 was $49.5 billion (Brooks and Wohlforth, World Out of Balance, 2008 [Lecture on American Empire]). The empirical data suggests that despite China's rise and its rapid growth it is still very far behind in relation to the United States in terms of military power. Additionally to this, the United States military power is overwhelming mainly because of the vast amount of military bases that have been strategically placed across the world, evidently showing that the United States military power can reach everywhere in the world. In 2005 the United States had 737 military bases worldwide (Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis:2006 [Lecture on American Empire]). This point suggests that with regards to military power China does not pose a threat to US global hegemony. Another significant factor, if not the most significant, that has been associated with China's rise is its economic power. China has had sustainable rapid growth for over a decade and is at present the third largest economy in the world. Moreover, due to its rapid growth - which according to an article written in 2005 has been at an average of 9.4% annual GDP since it first opened its economy in 1978 (Bijian, 2005:18) - China is predicted to overtake Japan's economy and the United States' economy within the next few decades, which would make it the largest economy in the world. If US hegemony is based on economic power, all other things being equal, than this could be seen as a threat to US hegemony, however, despite China's potential capabilities of becoming the world largest economy it still works from within the market system, a system developed through institutions with US interests in mind. International institutions are yet another significant factor that portrays US hegemony around the world. Power in the financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank is undemocratically distributed which is mainly because the US dominates the constitutions of these organisations (Mann, 2004:637). Despite this, the US would find it difficult to steer these organisations towards an unexpected direction. Michael Mann uses the example of the US as ''a back-seat driver, nagging the real driver, the sovereign state, sometimes administering sharp blows to his head.'' Additionally, the US would not be able to force these institutions to work a certain way for ''the US does not steer the automobile and hitting the driver makes a crash more likely'' (Mann, 2004:638). This gives the impression that despite the US's contribution to the development of such institutions, it is the multilateral action of the sovereign states that steer these institutions towards an end, whilst the US helps regulate it for its own interests. One crucial aspect that is linked to hegemony is prestige. The hegemon is perceived by others as a 'world leader' and needs to keep up its reputation by acting responsibly in the international system. Despite the established international institutions' affiliation to US long-term interests, China has been very efficient in working its way within these institutions. China's engagement with the East Asian region as well as its readiness to participate in multilateral institutions and agreements such as the Six-Party talks regarding North Korea, has portrayed China as a 'responsible international actor' (Beeson, 2009:104). In contrast to the US's eagerness to take unilateral action such as the US led war on Iraq in 2003 which was seen, from the very beginning, in a negative light by the United Nations. This gives the impression that a responsible China in the international system undermines the US's reputation as a 'world leader', especially because of the unilateral action taken by the US. Additionally to this, China acting as a responsible international actor only makes it more difficult for the US to 'contain' China if the need arises (Beeson, 2009:104). It could be argued that US hegemony may not be as threatened by China's rise as it may be perceived to be. The United States has engaged in bilateral agreement with many of the states that are in the Asia-Pacific region who would rather bandwagon behind the United States in order to pursue their own interests. US-India relations are strong especially after the bilateral agreements that recognise India as a nuclear weapons state and allows for trade on civil nuclear programmes (BBC News, 2006). It would be in India's interest to balance against China for fear of losing its relationship with the US. Taiwan is another example of a state within the Asia-Pacific region that has strong bilateral relations with the United States and is balancing against China using a relatively unambiguous strategy (Kastner, 2008:787).