The purpose of this project is to argue the global decline of hegemonic power from a United States of America perspective. This will be presented by a variety of different school of thought, ranging from economist to international school of thought, with special reference to the rise of People’s Republic of China. This project involves three main research aims: Firstly, to provide insight on U.S hegemony in East Asia. Secondly, demonstrate how the U.S gained their hegemonic status prior World War Two. Lastly, to give an explanation on why China has challenged U.S hegemony in East Asia. Thus, why these factors can be a formula of conflict in 21st century politics.
Before entering any valuation of China vs U.S in terms of security objectives and strategy. It is essential to offer a definition of hegemony. According to Zhang (2012, p.321.) “A state will be granted the status of hegemon when it is the single great power in its region. When a region contains more than one great power, there cannot be a hegemon”. Likewise, similarly to Zhang’s view, Hickey (2005) infers that a valuation of Beijing’s security objectives also increases the query of China as a likely hegemon. “A probable hegemon is a state that has the ability to control a region by overpowering its great-power neighbours”.
However, John Mearsheimer (1990 p, 13) comprehends that, hegemony is uncommon because ‘the costs of expansion usually outrun the benefits before domination is achieved ‘. Therefore, potential hegemons only pursue to attain authority when the expected costs are low. Hence, why China’s economic development and military modernisation agendas could in the forthcoming could award it the position of a potential hegemon, the choice to become the region’s hegemon does not directly originate from capacity to control. The costs and risks of achieving control is supposed to be as lower than the benefits derived from hegemony.
Core Argument:
According to Foot (2006) “China has emerged as a challenge to U.S hegemony in East Asia” (p,77). This statement by Foot examines that China has been notable as a major threat to the U.S in a global context. Therefore, this core argument will enable to demonstrate how China is challenging U.S hegemony. However other commentators suggest that China does not pose a serious threat to U.S hegemony in East Asia. In order to consider the decline of U.S hegemony, it must be first considered how the U.S become the dominant world super power. This next paragraph will demonstrate that. By showing this comparison, it will provide a deeper insight on between the rise of China as well as the dominant super power of the U.S and how it’s a conflict in day to day decision making.
History of U.S Hegemony/ the rise of China as a superpower
During the 20th Century, after the Second World War, the U.S emerged as a super power. Not to mention that after Germany’s second loss in a world war in 1945, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R opposed for global hegemony even though the U.S was the dominant power in economic and military terms throughout the four decades of the Cold War (Mearsheimer 1990). Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S has attempted to use its unrivalled military supremacy as a deterrent to conserve a deteriorating hegemony. Nonetheless, given extensive interior and exterior conflicts, the U.S Empire has failed global competition and realignment, especially, but not exclusively, as a consequence of the rise of Chinese Power.
Contrary to Western and neo liberal Chinese economists, according to Petras (2012) he notes throughout his journal ‘China: Rise, fall and re-emergence as a global power, suggests that China’s growth did not start in the 1980’s instead it began in 1950. As the agrarian reform provided them with human capital, infrastructure such as roads, airfields and rail roads. As well as industries such as steel, iron and coal to reform the modern Chinese economy. Another key point to remember is that Communist China helped prepare its rise as a super power by allocating free education as well as health systems which allowed them to create a healthy literate/motivated work force (Xuetong 2001, p.36).
Starting from the 1980’s the Chinese government commenced a thrilling shift in its economic approach. Over the next three decades, Naughton (1996) infers that China opened its economy largely for foreign direct investment; it privatised a numerous amount of industries then it processed income concentration constructed on a measured approach of reconstructing a dominant economic class of billionaires linked to overseas capitalists. China’s ruling political class embraced the idea of “borrowing” technical know-how and accessing overseas markets from foreign firms in exchange for providing cheap, plentiful labour at the lowest cost.
The rise of China has been an anticipated debate throughout 21st century politics. This rise has given the public an ambiguous perspective into the future of global politics. According to Reddy, (2007, p.49) “China’s foreseeable economic growth due to Deng Xiaoping’s market orientated reform in 1978-2005 has seen the annual growth rate of national income averaging and surpassing 9.7% annually”. This demonstrates how China is perceived as a ‘rising power’ as it uses anarchy in its international system as well as its economic power to expand its military. Which has created a formula of conflict globally especially against the United States as they are competing for the elite global power superpower status. Having provided an insight on the U.S and Chinese history, it will help understand how they are now labelled as the two largest superpowers competing for global status, which is a reason why there is conflict in today’s politics in the 21st century.
Realist/Liberal viewpoints on the rise of China
According to Rosecrance (1999 p,155.) from a realist perspective notes that the incorporation of China in the global economy diminishes the threat of an antagonistic China. As China has increased its integration with the rest of the globe. Hence, China’s social structure will also under go reform, aiming for a western style democracy and liberalism. Liberals, believe a plan of economic engagement in regard to China. Through by growing it’s trade and tying China’s economy more closely to that of the world. So China will think about to initiate war for panic of the economic consequences. The enlargement of economic ties with the United States will in turn decrease political development (Friedman 1999, p.155). This illustrates that Liberal thinkers perceive that China is now applying western style democracy and is now focusing on making allies with the rest of the world because of integration. This goes against the statement that the rise of China is a formula of conflict in 21st century politics. As Liberal thinkers indicate that China will ‘hesitate to initiate war’.
However, in contrast to liberal thinkers such as Yang note that western states such as the U.S remain sceptical about the rise of China as a super power. Thus, the U.S. have been monitoring the Chinese in the international system keeping a close eye on their actions in the international system. Realists argue that a rich China will overturn any balance of power. However Meirsheimer (2005, p 47) argues that ‘China’ cannot rise peacefully as most of China’s neighbours such as India,Japan,Singapore,South Korea and Russia will likely join the US to contain China’s power. Furthermore, the military with the use of its nuclear weapons and geography militate may create an inevitable shutdown between China and the US which will cause major conflicts (Goldstein 2005). Ross also supports Goldstein’s view as geography plays a role since there is an ocean between the US and China and because China is continental power where the US a maritime power may mitigate the influence of the security dilemma (Ross 1999).
Whereas, Realist thinkers believe that the international system is anarchic where great powers compete for dominance. Therefore this goes against the liberal views of peace and interdependence as from a Realist perspective China and the U.S. competing will create a formula of conflict as the Chinese have increased the size of their military across East Asia to become a main actor in the region and are wary of U.S. presence.
Hegemony and East Asia:
Within the context of East Asia, there has been a noticeable rise of balance of power in the region. The emergence of China provide a threat to U.S and its allies such as Japanese domination (Dent 2008 p.121). Likewise, in comparison to Dent’s views (Ikenberry 2006 p,353) highlights that for half a century East Asian regional order has been built around the mutual strategic embrace of America and its East Asian partners. Ikenberry also implies that the region of East Asia has undergone dramatic transformation over the decades marked by war, crisis, democratisation and economic boom. This is due to the fact that China is rising in importance and is itself embarked on a surprisingly systematic foreign policy of engagement and reassurement. Leaders in the region are looking for wider and more inclusive multilateral mechanisms to manage increasingly complex political and economic challenges. This is a formula of conflict, as rising competition could mean greater territorial control and rising levels of distrusts among the competitive nations.
However, East Asian states and the U.S have attempted to secure strong ties with one another. For instance, Japan has slowly diversified its security contacts and expanded in trade and societal ties with China. The United States itself has encouraged a multilateral approach to North Korea. Nevertheless, Chiang (2015) illustrates that despite the U.S. intermittently lost its various functions in the global governance, does not necessarily mean there is a decline of U.S. hegemony. Furthermore, unless China can act as a consumption engine and a security provider, the centre- periphery connections between the U.S and Asia can hardly be broken off. Therefore, showing that the emergence of China has evidently benefitted the U.S, rather than resulting in conflict.
One key point in this debate is the reason why U.S hegemony has not been in decline. Thus scholars have to take into consideration China’s capabilities. Although China’s economic prospects have been flourishing for the last three decades. Analysts such as Cohen (2010) demonstrate that internally and externally of China approve that there is still a massive gap between China and the U.S. in terms of wide-ranging capabilities, predominantly when the U.S. is distantly ahead of China in military and technological realms. Even though China’s economy has already surpassed the U.S. economy as the largest one in 2014, but the Chinese economy still remains a major flaw for Beijing. For example Magnier (2016) illustrates throughout his article that there is a major weakness in Beijing due to China’s industrial production and investment was below expectation in April 2016. Thus, this led to a rising debt level as demand for Coal consumption, steel production and exports were weaker in April due to overcapacity. Therefore, it would be a major setback for China to challenge the U.S. directly assuming the extensive range of capabilities between the two. Even in the long run if China’s comprehensive capabilities catch up with the United States, it will still be regarded as a huge loss for China to challenge the U.S. because Magnier states that “by then the two economies would be much more closely interconnected, creating a situation of mutual dependence benefiting both countries”.
Additionally, another important aspect in this debate is to see U.S. East Asian domination from the Chinese perspective. For instance, according to Bonnie S. Glover (2009) American Power is consequential, and the structure of power is a significant factor in Chinese foreign policy decision making. In terms of economics, U.S hegemony is apparent. Layne (2008) adds that the leadership in Beijing understands the link between economic strength and geo political load. It realises that if China can continue to sustain high levels of GDP rates in the early decades of this century, then it will surpass the United States as the world’s biggest economy which is measured by GDP. Not to mention Shambaugh (2006) notes that China’s relationship with its neighbouring states, as well as recently it’s in depth discussions with Chinese foreign policy planners. Has successfully shown that Chinese leadership seems more confident of China’s influence and power in the past. However, Funabashi (2006) points out that the Chinese are still aware of the continued geo-political pre dominance of the U.S. in China’s territories may continue for the foreseeable future. This illustrates how China understands that the U.S may be in hegemonic decline, but are still a major force in its shores, which is a formula of conflict in today’s 21st century politics.
What’s more is that China’s relationship with its neighbours with the exception of Taiwan and Japan have relatively improved in recent years. However, it is hard to measure how much this influence allows Beijing to exert power in Asia. Moreover, especially because China’s current strategy emphasises seeking common ground with neighbours. The U.S. strategy to include China into U.S dominated regional economy had backfired after China has grown in economic strength and influence in region affairs (Beeson 2006). Moreover, his views state that the U.S shaped a possible challenger that may encounter its dominance. This relates back to the question that the rise of China has created a formula of conflict between them and the U.S. due to competition. Although many forecast that throughout the oncoming decades, the U.S. hegemonic power will still be unassailable in East Asia. Coupled with the literacy evidence, Khoo and Smith reiterate that China does not want to Encounter the U.S. military presence in the region expect for the Taiwan issue. Thus, they believe that the U.S. would help the PRC to keep an eye on any prospective Japanese or Russian adventurism (Khoo&Smith 2002).
Nonetheless, China’s economic growth and greater economic liberalisation have greatly increased links with the US. Such as an increase in the percentage of American investment in China as well as the increase in Chinese exports towards the U.S market. For over 20 years, China has unrestricted the Maoist economic approach of self-reliance and has chosen to be reliant on the trading capitalist country. Without the requirement on the U.S for its economic growth, the communist party of China cannot assure its lasting legitimacy claims. Thus, it is argued that China would be reluctant to seek to balance American Power in the region (Van ness 2001).However, in contrast to Van Ness’s views, Glater reiterates that the closer economic relations did not lead to political trust instead it turned into a formula of conflict. China is now aware of its emergence on the U.S (Glaser 2012). Nonetheless, the U.S did not seem to fully embrace China’s proposal of a “new model”. For the U.S to meet China’s demands for mutual respect would be a major challenge. China also stated that “sovereignty” refers not only to China but also Taiwan and disputed maritime territories in the East and South of China’s seas. Thus, the U.S could hardly stand neutral if its allies national security was under threat of China’s aggression.
Idealists about the rise of China predicted that it will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in the next two decades. Thus, this is an indication that the U.S may face an increase in competition regarding its economic position in the long run. But the size of an economy is not a good measurement of overall power within an international system and is flawed, because if it was early in the 19th century. With what was then the largest economy they would have been the predominant power, instead of the prostate victims of smaller European nations. Even if China reach that economical pinnacle again, the Chinese will eventually face significant obstacles to sustain the country’s growth indefinitely. Moreover, it will still remain far behind the U.S. in terms of GDP. However, military capacity also needs to be considered when taking into account a dominant super power. As Xuetong states that “military strength underpins hegemony”.
To conclude, having considered numerous viewpoints from different school of thoughts, ranging from economists to international school of thought. Thus, methodological approaches have been apparent throughout this project. For instance, Liberalism and Realism gives an insight to viewpoints such as U.S growth or whether the United States is in terminal decline. Furthermore, from a Chinese perspective it gives an understanding how they have risen as a competitor to U.S dominance in East Asia and more importantly globally influencing 21st century politics.
Throughout the ongoing crisis in Taiwan, as well as the South Chinese seas shows that China is ready to compete with the United States in economic, military, technological realms. However, on the other hand many scholars above have suggested that the U.S may be in decline, but it still remains a key actor in global politics as it’s still the largest military in the world currently, as well as spending a lot of its budgets on its military/Navy. In relevance to contemporary politics, applying the Chinese and United States conflict in Taiwan. As the U.S have been providing the Taiwanese with arms since 1990, Kan (2014) throughout his journal of “Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990”.
Coupled with the literacy evidence, the statistics paint a compelling view that the United States has provided Taiwan with a total of $46 billion. Which has triggered tensions between Washington and Beijing; as there has been an ongoing conflict since 1979 , as the United States recognised formal diplomatic relations with Beijing by stating that “the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”However, U.S. President Jimmy Carter dismissed diplomatic relations with the Chinese government in Taiwan. Lastly, this shows how the rise of China and the decline of U.S hegemony has created a formula of conflict in 21st century politics. Many scholars have asked whether the election of Donald Trump as the new president of the United States whether he will implement a change on conflicts revolving around China, as well as how the Chinese will react to his election and what will the future hold.
2017-1-12-1484185075