Is there anything someone can do to stop the inevitable conflict between China and other countries? (Question Two)
China’s economy is among the fastest-growing economies in the world right now. The advancement in the economy comes with advancement in political power and military ability. As realists believe, this increase in political power and military ability of China poses a significant threat to its neighbors who do not want to be subdued and to the currently existent superpowers like the USA, which are wary of competition. Therefore, a conflict between China and its neighbors and the USA is something that is cooking. This paper is an in-depth analysis of whether this inevitable conflict can be controlled or not.
The coming conflict cannot be stopped. First, China is heavily dependent on petroleum from the Middle East. This petroleum is transported to China via sea. As China’s power increases, they might want to dominate these seaways to ensure they do not run out of fuel because of seaway conflicts (Mearsheimer 391). In fact, currently, there are signs of Chinese military spreading southwards in the Indian Ocean. The fact that Singapore is a close associate of the USA means that China may not have domination over the Malacca seaway – the Malacca dilemma – hence their tendency to move southwards. Indonesia and Australia are the most likely victims of this southern encroachment of a much powerful Chinese military (Mearsheimer 391). The rights to control seaways will definitely cause conflicts between China and its neighbors who have access to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The good relationship between some of these countries and the USA will definitely protract the conflict to involve China and USA. Indeed, the conflict will come and cannot be prevented.
Secondly, China has been very assertive and aggressive in terms of international trade and foreign policy. The rising power of China threatens the USA. As Wang concluded, local incentives play a role in this heightened assertiveness. The assertiveness and the aggressiveness in China’s foreign policy will see the country challenge the USA’s hegemony, especially in Asia (Friedberg 17). It is possible that the USA will be unwilling to drop their current hegemony and dominance over the Asian continent hence causing a massive conflict. Further, the fear of China subduing its neighbors will trigger China’s neighbors to ask for diplomatic and military help from Washington hence bringing the USA and China in a head-to-head conflict.
Moreover, China and Russia, the USA’s chief competitors, have been on record for favoring a multipolar rather than a unipolar world. The Russian president is on record for flatly suggesting that the unipolar system has failed while one time Chinese president Xi has also noted that the world should be moving towards multi-polarity (Friedberg 17). This confirms China’s interest in joining the league of superpowers, which is obviously not good news for the USA. A conflict is the most likely result of the USA’s attempt to steer China away from achieving multi-polarity.
Fourth, recent events have tended towards an increasing conflict between China and USA. The USA’s attempt to attenuate South Korea’s nuclear plan is an excellent example of such events. In these negotiations, many observers thought that China did not show commitment to the USA’s course of ensuring the proliferation of heavily armed nations did not occur since it posed a security threat to the rest of the world. Alarms were raised when there was a mention of possible lift on European embargo of arms on Asian nations. Such a move would lead to the rapid transformation of the now great economic strength of China into great military strength, which would increase the threat that Chinese possess. Moreover, reports have continued to reveal increasing Chinese hegemony and reducing dominance by the USA in East Asia. Further, reports suggesting that China is making sensational and extraordinary demands on the world’s fuel prices and are planning to purchase American companies have surfaced. If there is truth in these reports, then it clearly means that China is out to weaken and destabilize the USA; hence a looming conflict that cannot be stopped.
The conflict can also be stopped. First, the times when realism as a theory of international relations was incepted differ significantly from current times. Then, having economic strength meant that one’s military strength was high as it was easy for a country to invest their money into the military as much as they wanted. In the current world, it is not easy for China to change its high economic power to military ability. There are laws and restrictions that China has signed to and has to respect hence the slow increase of military power. This gives the USA time to come up with mechanisms that can avoid conflict between the two countries. Therefore, despite the few differences that exist, a conflict will not creep into the relationship between China and the USA.
Secondly, the two countries interdepend on each other economically. A great volume of goods and services is exchanged between the two countries. Chinese reforms of the 1970s dramatically increased the volume of trade between the two countries (Friedberg 12). The great volume of trade gives the countries common interests hence fewer differences. Among these common interests in that of peace in the Pacific region which happens to be a hotbed of business partners for both countries. Continued working together thwarts any possibility that a conflict can arise between China and USA despite the slight differences that exist between the two countries.
Arguably, the USA and China share many international institutions and many of their agencies work together. These institutions tend to increase communication between the states and reduce uncertainty in one state about the real intentions of the other state. The higher levels of trust that are achieved will definitely counteract a looming state of anarchy. Furthermore, there have been increased bilateral military talks between the two parties and many other quasi-official military cooperation. In fact, there has been a move to institutionalize military co-operation and exchange at all levels between the two sides. Military camps that coordinate more, are less likely to be pulled into conflict against one another. Additionally, China’s has joined important international organizations like WTO and the nuclear non-proliferation regime and has started to play a far more important role in United Nations (Friedberg 14). These moves from China inevitably bring then to the USA and cause China to work more closely with the USA hence totally nullifying any looming conflict.
Additionally, China’s embracing of democracy is an indicator that China’s are becoming a nation whose intentions are clear and are for peace and not war (Friedberg 15). Liberal optimists see democratic leaders as leaders who are less likely to engage into potentially catastrophic military expeditions. China’s economic development and their increasing openness in trade are the main forces behind the increasing democratization of the Chinese system. The rising per capita income is effectively expanding the middle class who are a political force to reckon as they can afford to do more than just fight for their daily survival. The rule of law and political liberalization are key catalysts for the achievement of economic prowess. Additionally, sanctions and conditions in the international markets put additional pressure for China to move towards democracy. A democratic nation is a peaceful nation with sensible military expeditions hence nullifying the possibility of a heightening conflict between China and its partners including the USA.
Lastly, China’s rate of economic and military growth is limited and may not get so close to that the USA in the near future. China still faces many constraints which they will have to overcome before coming close to the USA (Friedberg 34). Moreover, the security dilemma which has been much hyped by realist pessimists is somewhat muted (Friedberg 35). In fact, the rising bipolarity in the east is likely to mute this security dilemma more. An Asian continent dominated by two powers who both own nuclear equipment and are wary of each other is much more stable than a unipolar Asia. Additionally, geography favors peace and coexistence between China and the USA rather than war. The USA’s power in Asia is mainly meant to control maritime trade and seaways while China is a force to reckon on dry land thus limiting the number of times the two sides are likely to brush shoulders.
As such, the much-hyped looming conflict between China and its neighbors and the USA is something that may never happen. Despite the rising economic and military strength of China and the assertiveness of China’s foreign policy, the power of collaboration between the two sides and democratization of China keeps the conflict dormant. There are many things that people have already done and are still doing to ensure that this conflict is never turned into reality.
Works Cited
Friedberg, Aaron L. “The future of US-China relations: Is conflict inevitable?” International security 30.2 (2005): 7-45.
Mearsheimer, John J. “The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3.4 (2010): 381-396.
Is there anything someone could do to stop the conflict between Japan and the West? (Question One)
Japan is a country that underwent a stage of rapid economic development immediately after the Second World War. With their increasing wealth, their military strength and desire to dominate the East Asian region grew. The fact that Japan had colonized some of their neighbors before the war proved their intrinsic desire to dominate the region thus posing a security threat to their neighbors and the western countries, which partnered with some of Japan’s neighbors. Among the countries involved were the USA. An investable conflict that led to the rigorous containment of Japan by the west erupted as a result. This paper examines the possibility that the conflict could have been prevented.
The conflict could not be stopped. First, the political environment set by Japan’s historical expeditions set the tone for the conflict. Japan had been known for their incorrigible aggressive foreign policy, which had them trying to overrule everyone they could overrule (Miyashita 103). It becomes scarier when one realizes that Japan’s military expeditions in neighboring states in the past were not meant for development of the Japanese economy but to punish those states. With this in mind, the West and Japan’s neighbors needed to be scared of what Japan could do. This weariness set the precedence for a conflict. Japan’s culture, which is closely knit to their desire to overrule other states, informs their defense policy hence attracting constant conflict with other nations.
Japan’s virtual nuclear capability has also been a cause of extreme fear in East Asia. Countries like China have been and are still wary of Japan’s nuclear capabilities. Moreover, it is these virtual nuclear capabilities that forced the west to try and contain Japan as much as possible. Japan’s intrinsic aggressiveness and reckless foreign policy and high nuclear ability set a risky precedence for the security situation in East Asia. The West’s inevitable move to contain japan resulted in the conflict hence the inevitability of the conflict.
In addition, Japan’s unforgivable moves meant that the conflict was inevitable. Japan dared the USA and other western countries to attack them when they attacked the Pearl Harbor – an important harbor under American control in the Pacific region. This was a move that forced America to retaliate. At the same time, racialist exclusion laws in America tended to segregate Japanese immigrants this angering the Japanese who attempted to punish the USA by destroying their power bases in the Pacific region. This was unforgivable and Japan had to be attacked.
Nonetheless, Japan had their own security concerns moved to secure their nation. For instance, Japan suspected North Korea of nuclear development and had to move to ensure this did not happen (Soeya 206). The actions of Japan in this regard could only culminate into a conflict.
However, Japan was quickly progressing from a totalitarian nation governed by military generals and emperors to a democratic state. In fact, Japan had their first proper constitution after the war. The constitution bars Japan from sending their troops in external combat missions in the name of self-defense. If this would have been done much faster, the conflict would have never been started.
The discussion above proves that indeed the conflict between Japan and Western countries over control of the East Asia could not be avoided. Japan as a country was too aggressive and non-democratic and they were known for their reckless foreign policy. They had to be contained and containing them meant war.
Works Cited
Miyashita, Akitoshi. “Where do norms come from? Foundations of Japan’s postwar pacifism.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7.1 (2007): 99-120.
Soeya, Yoshihide. “Japan: normative constraints versus structural imperatives.” Asian security practice: material and ideational influences (1998): 198-233.
