Reality Check: China and USA

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SouthAmerica, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. June 11, 2012

    SouthAmerica: Here is a Reality Check for China and USA.

    Garfield Institute for Public Leadership – March 18, 2012

    "Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully"

    <iframe src="" width="596" height="334" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="" style="display:none"></embed>

    A interesting dicussion with John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science & co-director of the Program for International Security Policy, University of Chicago, author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

  2. Jai


    I have been with the think-tank on China and have written a lot of research papers on Chinese affairs. Had been the student of International Politics and now pursuing PhD in this arena, thy post tempted me to reply on this intriguing topic. Not similarly, I have discussed on China in this forum from other dimensions. Link :

    To begin with, Prof. John Mearsheimer belonging to 'Offensive Realism' school of thought and have tremendously debated, argued and presented on his concerned subject; which is not 'optimistic' to the Global Economy as the views tend to be biased and in favor of US strategies.

    I've attach a .pdf file on this topic with this reply as I were not able to access the video. My analysis; probably critic of Offensive Realism, quoted from his paper are presented below:

    I disagree with this proposition. If the so-called 'impressive economic growth over the next few decades' will likely enable 'intense security competition with considerable potential for war' then wouldn't the economic liberalism as contemporarily beholden would mitigate any such tension. Though the military spendings from both are on escalation mode but over the next few decades I view more of trade cooperation/competition. Cannot ignore the G2 forum wherein track-I diplomacy do diffuse the conflictual potentiality.

    Indirectly, he's conveying here for the structural-cum-theoretical establishment of hegemonic stability theory & long cycle theory between the International Politics of USA and China. I state that determinism of such furniture the foundationalism of 'potential conflict'.

    My interactions with Mexicans and Canada have now led me to generalizely believe that the Anti-Americanism sentiment is relevant in Mexico and Canada. Thanks to US and NATO with Canada that pushed Canada to structurally cooperate in this juncture. Wherein Mexico cannot anymore believe to conflict with Uncle Sam as it's the 'land of employable opportunities'. Power alone cannot be the sole determining factor here as propounded by Prof. John.

    I have read Joshua Joshua Kurlantzick paper on China and South East Asia few years back where I came across the term as predicted by Prof. John ''Chinese Monroe Doctrine'' of which China's foreign policy behavior have not asserted it officially.

    China does act differently as the Structural-Functionalism of it is 'exceptional' of which Prof. John's proposition have underestimated it. China have termed its attributing factors ''Socialism with Chinese characteristics'' as the mode of Socialism is 'comparativistically' different than that of understandings of West. Words like 'principled', 'ethics', 'nationalism' are characteristically relative, therefore, the argument of Prof. John tend to dissolve here. However, Uncle Sam gained consciousness in 1783 or say in 1823 or to add more ... say in 1899 ...but the Chinese civilization and its regional hegemony was relevant before Jesus was born. However that then the such regional hegemony had no conflict with India who is now a 'big brother' in South Asia. South Asia region is a podium for China's containment policy whereas South East Asia and North East Asia for 'little NATO' (Japan, South Korea, Australia, can include India) against China. Indirect hand of US, no doubt for me to say, is overt.

    Normatively speaking, his views depress due to 'extreme' reliance over Hard Power diplomacy. I don't know which genre of his self-depression belong to but however the so-called 'peaceful rise' of China that is enabling harmonious development is good for the global economy but not at the regional level. I am not in the mood, to conclude, talking about the plight of Human Rights in China and of the Human Rights as globally 'promoted' by the bombing democracy USA.

  3. June 13, 2012

    SouthAmerica: Reply to Jai

    I just posted here at ET this interesting discussion with prof. John Mearsheimer about China.

    The title "Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully" was the title of his lecture.

    It is an interesting lecture, but I am a little more realist about the future than prof. John Mearsheimer, since we have reached a major turning point regarding the global economy; we already reached the second leg of the first Great Depression of the 21st century – this is where the shit really hits the fan.

    What is in the horizon is not a military confrontation between China and the United States – it is how these countries are going to handle what is left of their financial and economic system after the coming massive meltdown in the global financial markets and economic system.

    The mother of all financial meltdowns.....

    Jai, see what I mean at:

    The Crumbling of America

  4. Jai


    Reply to South America:

    Rising economic tensions are backed up with the escalation in diplomatic tensions or possibly the military conflict. In this so-called 21st century, a plate of rice costs more than a video call; indeed this is an illustration of the crony version of neo-liberal globalization where the internal conflicts have overtaken external conflicts. In this case (US & China), both are complacent with 'resource diplomacy' in Africa and gun boat diplomacy in East Asian region but neither would afford direct confrontation. And the shit which are thee referring to will happen to occur 'again and again' (might be this time in State-controlled-Capitalist China, before 2020, as the red rights have been largely underestimated by the Chinese authoritarianism leading to wide endogenous imperfect equality within China).

    Reply to 4thaugust1932:

    'Survival', in your case as mentioned, I think its the matter of 'dependency theory' in one case and in another where the so-called core nations keep the semi-peripheries at periphery level; concluding with irrationalism over 'National Security & Interests'.
  5. Jai