Can China Rise Peacefully in an Anarchic International System?

This essay aims to discuss whether China can rise peacefully in an anarchic international system. An anarchic international system is one with no world government that can decide whether to use force or not. Because of the absence of a world government, each state is responsible for its own survival. The notion of rising peacefully could be a contested one. For the purposes of this essay the term ‘peacefully’ will mean a rise without war, proxy war or direct death of a group of people because of a state’s actions in relation to China’s rise. The essay will begin with a brief look at the relationship between China and one of the world’s most prominent super powers, the United States. It will then move on to its first area of debate, China and the United Sates’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Finally, the issue of natural resources will be considered. The areas of discussion will be viewed from both a realist and liberalist perspective. The essay will finish with a conclusion as to whether china will be able to rise peacefully in an anarchic international system.

The term multiordinate means that states can all interact directly with one another. Throughout history we can see that there have been periods of both conflict and cooperation between China, the United States and other nations in a multiordinate fashion. For example, during the 1950’s and 60s, various United States presidents saw China as a communist threat (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014). This created tensions with the United States and its capitalist western system.

China also has a history of conflict between other nations such as Japan and South Korea. During the Korean War (1950-1953) the United States and Chinese forces fought directly against each other.

In 1972, United States-China relations saw an improvement when President Richard Nixon visited China and took part in negotiations with the then Chinese Communist Leader Chairman Mao. Later, during 1978, China began to make the move from a relatively closed economy. It took steps to open its economy and become more market based (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014).

From this brief analysis of history, we can see that China’s relationship with the United States and other nations has fluctuated through periods of cooperation and conflict. These historical factors may give each state a sceptical or reserved approach when dealing with the other. Even in the present day there are aspects which could be potential sources of tension or conflict between the United States and China, such as human rights issues and territorial disputes in areas such as the South China Seas, the Spratly Islands and Taiwan (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014).

The core beliefs from Realists such as John Mearsheimer are that states are the most important actors in the international system, that anarchy is a fundamental aspect of the international system and that because of anarchy states must rely on their own capabilities or ‘self-help’ to ensure security. They also believe that while the international system remains anarchic, states will inherently seek to maximise national security, in the form of state power and that this will remain a source of conflict (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014).

Structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz would also argue that the only change that may occur in the structure of an anarchistic international system would be a shift in the polarity between states, meaning movement in the distribution of power between nations. The most important shifts being between the great powers; as these changes will be the most influential on the world stage.

The liberalist school of thought varies somewhat from that of the realist. Andrew Moravcsik’s liberal model believes that individuals and groups are the major actors within the international system. He also says that these actors propose their desires and needs to the state and the state then acts on their behalf on the global stage. (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014). Liberals advocate democracy and freer trade. Contrary to the realist school of thought, liberals see a displacement of the balance of power a positive aspect, that will allow shared sovereignty, collective decision making through international institutions such as the European Union and therefore a greater chance of cooperation (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014).

China is beginning to show itself as one of the world’s great powers. According to Mearsheimer, to be a superpower a state fundamentally needs a large population and extreme wealth (The Open University a, 2015). China has a very large population and a rapidly growing economy. If, as per the realist school of thought, China is seeking to maximise its power and therefore its security, its aim will be to continue economic growth and strengthen its military might. These two features will enable it to increase its presence on the world stage and potentially overtake the United States in terms of power, especially coercive power.

A comparative analysis of annual GDP increase for China and the United States would suggest, from a realist perspective, that there is a definite potential for a power shift and therefore conflict between the two states. In 1990, China’s annual GDP increase was 3.8%, while the United States saw an increase of 1.9%. In 2010 these figures were 10.4% and 3.0% percent respectively (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014). China had a higher increase in GDP at each five-year interval between 1990 and 2010 than the United States. According to certain predictions China’s annual GDP will overtake the United States’ by 2018 (The Economist, 2012). If the United States views this information from the realist perspective, that relative gains, where a state would judge its performance comparatively to other states performance (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014), are the measures that a state would use. They would therefore be extremely concerned about the potential of a power shift.

From a realist perspective, the United States will go to great lengths to prevent China from becoming more powerful. China will also fear United States protectionism. According to a realist, neither side will aim for symmetrical power, as this could lead to potential dependence or vulnerability (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014). With both sides vying for the most power, there is a large potential for conflict between the two nations.

However, a liberalists position on analysing United States/China GDP would draw a different conclusion. For a liberalist, the United States would want China to increase its GDP. This would then lead to China becoming a richer, more educated and agreeable nation (The Open University b, 2016).

As the liberalist school of thought sees state preferences vary over time, rather than solely a preference for power, the increased trade with China and China’s opening up to the world, including the ‘democratic’ west, would see the potential for cooperation and building of economic ties and sharing of knowledge.

Another aspect to consider would be the need for natural resources. China and the United States are two of the top importers of oil (Eia, 2015). Competition for oil and natural resources is high and at present, both nations rely heavily on these resources to keep their economies functioning.

Again, from a realist perspective, the fundamental aim of both China and the United States will be to have the most power. For this reason, it will be imperative that they secure the best, most cost effective access to those resources. If a state cannot maintain the running of its economy due to a lack of fuel, it will most definitely lose power and become vulnerable to other states coercion. To secure these natural resources, there will be much strategy involved. This could potentially include the very unpeaceful and conflictual act of destabilising nations and proxy wars in the resource rich regions.

However, it must be remembered that both states are interdependent on each other in the forms of finance, imports and exports. Although it is very important to both the United States and China to have access to natural resources, they are also dependent on the other having access to those resources. For example, the United States is China’s top import and export partner (WITS, 2016). This trade is fundamental to both sides. To a liberal this would mean that both sides would be reluctant to secure so much of the natural resources that it impeded the functioning ability of the other. If this were to happen, and one state could not continue its supply and demand for the other, it could potentially lead to a zero-sum game, where the total sum of ‘gains of both parties added together is zero’ (Brown, Corry and Czajka, 2014), which would not be desirable for either side.

To conclude, this essay has discussed historical patterns, China and the United States GDP and the need for natural resources, to analyse whether China can rise peacefully in an anarchic international system. It analysed these issues from both a realist and liberalist perspective to provide a balanced debate. The outcome of these debates suggests that it is possible that China could rise peacefully. The liberalist argument suggests that if states aligned their thinking - that democracy, free trade and organisations that bring together actors are the best policy, then cooperation and a peaceful rise is possible. However, a realist would argue that a state’s only preference is for that of power. So, any cooperative behaviour that may be displayed during China’s bid for its rise to power is merely an action to secure power and security in the long run. The summation as to whether China can rise peacefully in an anarchic international system is, ‘potentially’ but it is also ‘unlikely’.

Word count: 1604.

References

· Brown, W. Corry, O. and Czajka, A. (2014) International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press/Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp 13, 17, 19, 28, 29, 30, 37, 98, 112, 115.

· Eia (2015) U.S Energy Administration, ‘What countries are the top net importers of oil?’ 18 June [online]. Available at http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=709&t=6 (Accessed on 30th October 2016)

· The Economist (2012), ‘China’s Military Rise, The Dragon’s New Teeth’, 7 April [online]. Available at: www.economist.com/node/21552193 (Accessed 3 August 2007).

· WITS (2016) World Integrated Trade Solution, 31 October [online]. Available at: http://wits.worldbank.org/default.aspx?llang=en (Accessed 31st October 2016).

· The Open University a, (2016) ‘Theory bites video 1: John Mearsheimer’ [video], DD313 International relations: continuity and change in global politics. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=846039&section=3.1.1 (Accessed 30th October 2016).

· The Open University b, (2016) ‘Theory bites video 2: Andrew Moravcsik’ [video], DD313 International relations: continuity and change in global politics. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=846039&section=3.2.1 (Accessed 30th October 2016).

#China #USA #IR #InternationalRelations #US #geopolitics