Monday, September 23, 2013


Shiran Zecharya
GVPT 200 Shirk
Mearsheimer p.29-54

In John Mearsheimer’s scathing depiction of the fear and lack of trust that have long dominated international politics, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Mearsheimer asserts that when states exist in anarchy, one state cannot gain power and security without decreasing those of other states. Based on this realist assumption, one would conclude that China’s recent rise in power threatens the future of global peace and the US’ status as the only existing regional hegemon. This perspective, however, fails to take into account the proliferating influence of interdependence in global politics. The United States and China have become increasingly interdependent since the two reestablished diplomatic and trade relations in the 1970’s and the success of their economies rests on the prosperity of their respective markets. This interdependence will prevent tension from ensuing between the two as China’s influence on the world continues to grow. Furthermore, as globalization continues to alter the nature of international relations, interdependence will prevent future violence from occurring among states as polarity and regional hegemony continue to shift unpredictably.
Realists, such as Mearsheimer, often argue that since it is impossible to know other nations’ intentions, they constantly fear when other states make relative gains. This fear in conjunction with the security dilemma concept lead most realists to conclude that China’s growing strength could have negative implications for not only the US, but the world as a whole. As China’s power and influence continue to grow, many see the nation as becoming a regional hegemon in the east, as the US is in the west. Furthermore, many would assert that China will soon begin to promote its desires abroad more aggressively and could potentially reignite Cold War-era divisiveness and tension or, to the extreme, war. While this logic holds a great deal of validity when looking at the causes of and conflicts within the Cold War, it is unlikely that a similar situation would occur now between the US and China because of globalization and their improved economic relations.
                 These changes became apparent in the 1970’s when President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, visited China in an attempt to reestablish diplomatic and economic relations. As China’s economy opened up to trade with the west, Chinese leaders such as Deng Xiaoping began to institute a series of reforms intended to modernize its economy. Economic changes within China and the new found relationship with the US brought the two to be principle trade partners. Additionally, it is widely accepted that China’s economy would suffer without American demand, and vice versa. Now, about a decade into the 21st century, there is minimal evidence that China’s growth may threaten the US or lead to conflict in the future because the two are economically interdependent. Furthermore, this economic interdependence facilitates cooperation and mitigates tension between the two. Therefore, although it is unlikely that China’s growth will slow in the near future, it is also unlikely that this growth will bring about conflict.
Interdependence is undoubtedly changing the way world leaders conduct foreign policy, acting as a glue that forces states to rely on others to ensure their own prosperity. In a globalizing world, states must depart from their self help ideas of conducting foreign relations and embrace the new found interconnectedness that is altering the way states perceive each other. As a result, leaders will begin to lean toward cooperation and diplomacy as solutions to conflicts that seem to previously have been only resolvable through military might. 

7 comments:

  1. I agree with your belief that U.S. and China relations will not escalade into a Cold War like era due to interdependence and the effects of globalization. Also, I support your argument that economics and financial well being are the main influencing powers in todays relationships between states. Without a doubt, if the U.S. and China were to cease their trading, both economies would suffer a great deal. I also agree that since China is both a major producer and market for American goods, it would not be ideal for them to wage war on the United States. Just like it would not make sense for the U.S. to attack its major supplier of goods.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Using China and the United States as a way to support interdependence was a great example and I agree with you completely when you say that it is unlikely for them to go into war anytime soon because they are both benefitting from their trading agreements. You mention that it is unlikely for China's growth to cause conflict in the future and I think that this is mostly true except that there is still some realist theories that state still follow and I can't help but wonder what the United States would do if China became a much larger hegemon. I hope that if this were to happen that the two states will do as you predict which is to try and work towards diplomacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be very interested to know what would happen if China became a regional hegemon as well but according to Mearsheimer, the most fear in the international system is when it is unbalanced and multipolar like the US is now. If China was to become a hegemon, the international system would be balanced multipolar which, by Mearsheimer's theory, would bring about less fear among states.

      Delete
  3. I open this question up to everyone...

    What might be a realist response to this paper? How do you think that realists react when liberals like yourself make these arguments? Thinking through this can help to make your argument even better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would assume that a realist would argue that interdependence and globalization do not change the fact that states do not trust each other and never can so long as there is anarchy. So even as states economies and interests become more interconnected, they will still be skeptical of one another's true intentions which will cause tension and conflict to ensue regardless.

      Delete
    2. I would still probably stand to my argument that globalization has the power to change these old approaches to international relations because as states become more interdependent they will learn to trust each other more because their prosperity in a globalizing world depends on it.

      Delete
  4. I completely agree with your argument on the security dilemma and that relative gains are in fact very important because the gains of one state induces fear in another causing tension. I also like how you used China as a reoccurring example throughout your argument to emphasize your point. I also like how you framed your argument for interdependence taking positions from both sides and combining them. You are so right that China and the U.S. are so interdependent that there is little to no threat present for a war in the near future.

    ReplyDelete