In the lecture from this week there was a comment about how history is written by the victors in today's international system and it often fails to recall the time when Asian countries, like China, were dominate world powers, and Europe was the minority at the time. This connected well with the Beeson article that discussed the rise of China and its influence on the international system. It's true that often US domination manages to keep us from remembering that there was a time before the US that there were other world leaders. In the international system there have been many leaders, and the United States is just one of them.
While reading the Beeson article about the China's threat to US hegemony, and also learning the history of the US' role in developing the region, it resonated with the professor's lecture where it talked about how we are focused so much on prediction, knowing exactly what will happen (which is impossible) and instead should be focusing on forecasting. Learning from history, something that is again and again overlooked. The United States was a key strategist in helping with the rise of Japan in the region, and setting up a system that often contains or disadvantages China. And yet, there is constant talk of how the US is going to "lose out" as the dominating world power to China. And behind this notion is that we have a unipolar international system, which I believe to be untrue. Although Beeson points out the differences between China and the United States, often how the US is a stronger force from military to per capita income, there is still this underlying idea that they are connected whether they want to be or not. We have seen that China has experienced great economic growth, and are majorly involved in development. And they are connected economically, whether good or bad, to the United States, and other world leaders.
We have talked a lot in class about the interconnectivity of the international system, especially with the increase in technology, and I think this is often forgotten when discussing whether or not there is a unipolar or multipolar international system. The reality is that many of the world powers are involved in each other's economies and politics and due to this there must be more cooperation and compromise. Such as China's policy of "soft-balancing" which has proved to be successful in its increased involvement in the international system.
I enjoyed the Beeson article as well and its perspective on China and the US's history in Asia is fascinating. Your final comment regarding the need for cooperation and compromise is something that I also think is a necessity in today's world. Our world can no longer be kept wholly apart and technology is a huge reason for this interconnectedness.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we can argue that more 'interconnected' countries have tended to become more powerful, influential or generally successful than those that try to remain independent.
Jessica, Like you and Katherine, I also enjoyed the Beeson article. The attention to interconnectedness was certainly a part of that (also a great excuse for my inter-blog group commenter visit). And, his inclusion of the role of the environment and its potential influence on economic and political transformations was particularly notable. As he states, the impact of rapid economic growth on the natural environment may very well create destabilizing influences we could never have foreseen. While he emphasizes this in reference to East Asia and to make a point about "transcending hegemonic aspirations," given our own potential now for eschewing the very environmental concerns we had finally embraced as critical to economic, politics and global security, the point becomes even more broadly salient.
ReplyDeleteJessica,
ReplyDeleteI liked the Beeson article as well (much more than the Ikenberry article). You make some very good points in your post. I like that you brought up China's soft power strategy in your post. Soft power has proven to be a very good strategy in many instances because of the interconnectivity in today's world. China wants to be a big player (and already is), the best way to do that is to gain economic strength and get involved in other countries' economies, so that they have no chance but respect China's strength (if they like it or not) and increase their cooperation with China. The strategy works. The US economy, for example, is already dependent on China's economy. Beeson mentions the trade deficit in his article, for example. Because of that, the US has to increase cooperation with China, if the US like it or not.
Jessica, I along with the others really enjoyed the Beeson article. The readings this week presented many different perspectives and challenged some of the ideas we have read in the previous weeks. Your post and reflections on connectedness make me think of the ways that we fail, and put ourselves at risk, when states think of themselves as hard and impermeable. The points you make about the US connections to China make me think of a sort of economic "mutually assured destruction" wherein China and the US both have the power to destroy the other's economy if they so choose. It behooves us to be honest about this dynamic and to interact with this in mind.
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone for commenting! This class has definitely taught us a lot about the complicated international system and we've seen how delicate these relationships between countries truly are. It's definitely helped me understand more now when I hear the news talking about US-China relations, among many other important issues.
ReplyDelete