If you’ve been reading my posts about my time at university you may be familiar that I am to present a very short seminar for my Political Science class. We were all assigned an article from a book by my professor and the article I got was by John J. Mearsheimer. What I have to do for the seminar is talk about what ideology the author of thee article has (Mearsheimer is a realist) and summarize the article (which I have done), then I have to do a critical assessment discussing the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. As of now I’m a little stuck on the assessment part, I know some of what he says is accurate when comparing it to actions taken recently by nations he mentions, but others I’m not so sure. I wont share the full article but I can give you my summarization of it (this will be the script I use when presenting, though it will be edited further):

China’s Unpeaceful Rise

John J. Mearsheimer

The author of this article is John J. Mearsheimer, and he is a Realist. He starts off the piece answering his own question “will China rise peacefully?” Absolutely not. He claims his theory of international politics is the best way to explain why that is — “the mightiest states attempt to establish hegemony in their region of the world while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region.” The main antagonist to China will be the United States.

The Contest for Power

The international system has three characteristics: all states operate in anarchy, all the great powers must have destructive military capabilities, and finally you cannot trust one another because you never know what their true intentions are (current and future). Under a system like this states are constantly uncertain of each other and thus fearful which leads to the conclusion that the best way to survive under these conditions is to become as powerful as possible, hopefully the MOST powerful. Establish a hegemony. Like how the United States has a regional hegemony in the western hemisphere. When one state dominates a region they will seek to prevent others from duplicating their results in another.

The American Hegemon

Over the next 115 years since its independence, American policy makers would work incredibly hard to make it a regional hegemon. “Manifest Destiny” and many wars were fought to make this a reality. He quotes Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who says the United States had a “record of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by a people in the nineteenth century.” So much so that by 1898 they had effectively pushed out the European powers. By becoming a regional hegemon that meant they would have to prevent other nations from doing the same on another continent. Other “formidable foes” cropped up in which the United States worked very hard to dismantle: Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. After their defeat in WWII American policy prevented Germany and Japan from having strong militaries, and the Cold War proved the US would never tolerate competition. With how the United States behaved towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, this will most likely be repeated towards China in the near future. With all these talks about Cold War 2 and Taiwan I have little doubt that this isn’t the case.

Predicting China’s Future

He believes that China will attempt to establish its own hegemony unchallenged like the United States has done in the Western hemisphere, mainly going head to head with Russia and Japan. Unlike the US, China most likely will not use military power to do this, though it’s not an impossible scenario. He believes that the only way China will get Taiwan back is through regional hegemony. China will push the US out of Asia, making reference to when the US pushed Europe way back when. So China will probably come up with their own “Monroe Doctrine” like Japan did in the 30s. Like how the US appreciates a militarily weak Canada and Mexico, China will want the same for Russia and Japan. No self respecting superpower would ever allow others in its vicinity. American policy makers are enraged when foreign militaries are sent into the western hemisphere, why would China afford the US with any amount of grace? They wont, US military presence in Asia will not be tolerated. In the end China will just imitate the US.

Trouble Ahead

Based on America’s track record it is obvious what the reaction will be towards China if it tries to establish a hegemony in Asia, no “peer competitors” will be tolerated. The only hegemony that is allowed to exist is the United States, and therefore China must be contained and weakened. As said before, China will be treated as the Soviet Union was. Neighbouring nations will also join the US in preventing China’s regional rise, this includes: India, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. Taiwan will be used as a pawn to better control China and gain the upper hand, which will cause further security issues between Beijing and Washington. He ends his article with this: “The picture I have painted of what is likely to happen if China continues its rise is not a pretty one. I actually find it categorically depressing and wish that I could tell a more optimistic story about the future. But the fact is that international politics is a nasty and dangerous business, and no amount of goodwill can ameliorate the intense security competition that sets in when an aspiring hege-mon appears in Eurasia. That is the tragedy of great power politics.”

I will compile this information into PowerPoint slides, obviously trimmed down, and speak for around 10 minutes. Half dedicated to summary hike the last bit has to be critical assessment: strengths and weaknesses. So far I know with rising tensions in Taiwan with the US and Canada sending ships over as provocation that fits in as a strength, the Cold War references are also a strength as many have been talking about it (are there any actions that reflect the past? As in, is what the US is doing now with China also similar to actions taken against the Soviet Union?). I have to tread lightly here, as even though I can be comfortable expressing myself to my professor I cannot do the same in front of my classmates, they are a lot more hostile and I don’t want to be yelled at or ridiculed (I’m not strong enough yet lol). One criticism I feel I could make against his article is how China will behave, he says China will be the same as the US but I’m not so sure about that. Theres also the reference to how other Asian countries will follow the US in muzzling China but I don’t believe Russia is completely interested in that considering how their trading and cooperation is going right now. Is there anything about Chinese foreign policy I could make reference to? Any little bit helps, hopefully my summary is good enough but if you need more information I can go back to the article and write some more!

  • loathsome dongeaterA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    You are gonna have to tone down the language I use below and make it normie-appropriate.

    Assessing this article should be very easy. It was published in 2006 so we have 18 years of world events to cross check its claims.

    First thing you should notice is that even though the title mentions China, China is secondary in the article. The article instead talks about the USA all the time. For reference, PRC was officially created in 1949, USSR collapsed in 1991, and China joined the WTO in 2001 (roughly marking the start of market reforms and opening up). That gives plenty of time to look at what China’s attitude and policies has been towards its neighbours.

    The article does not do any of that though. It just talks about the American history, presuming the universality of its policies using examples from WW1, WW2, and Cold War without explanation, and projects them upon China. A better title would have been “America’s Unpeaceful Rise and Maybe Possibly China’s”.

    The thesis kinda falls apart if you look at the facts. China should have been vying for regional hegemony by weakening its neighbours but it has been largely peaceful. The most serious “conflict” China has been a part of are the border disputes and skirmishes with India which have not escalated and, in the realm of geopolitics, are of a paltry scale. There are tensions with Taiwan but they pertain to US involvement rather than a raw will to subjugate. The pro-US trio of Japan, South Korea and India have relationships with China that are not amicable but peaceful with the small exception of the aforementioned border skirmishes. Apart from these, China is on amicable and peaceful terms with neighbours like Vietnam and Laos. You will want to find examples of good relations to substantiate this argument if you decide to use it. For example, Xi recently had a trip to Vietnam and China has helped Laos with infrastructure projects.

    The credibility of the article hinges on the only substantial prediction it makes about China’s attitude towards another superpower, Russia, and it couldn’t get it any more wrong. Not only does China does not seem to want Russia to be “militarily weak”, its relationship with Russia seems to be getting stronger by the day. Trade between the two is at a record high. Meanwhile US-led NATO is trying to render it militarily weak through a proxy war and economic sanctions (and failing miserably).

    To be perfectly frank, the article is entirely Eurocentricism and projection. It is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is more of an insight into the author and the nation he represents rather than what the article claims to be about. “Realists” are genocidal maniacs. But you will have to be charitable when addressing these points because apparently this is the best that Western academia has to offer.

    • starkillerfish (she)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      i was going to type the same thing. the article just focuses on USA and assumes that every country follows that model. I would also argue that realism exists to justify US intervention as ‘competition between powers’ the same way liberalism justifies free market competition.

      this part specifically makes me question the author’s analysis:

      Why should we expect China to act differently from how the United States did? is Beijing more principled than Washington? More ethical? Less nationalistic? Less concerned about survival? China is none of those things, of course, which is why it is likely to imitate the United States and attempt to become a regional hegemon.

      Like excuse me but what??? There is no argumentation for any of these claims, how I am supposed to take this seriously. For context, Mearsheimer is one of those realists who thinks that US should stop wasting time on Ukraine to focus on preparing to go to war with China.

      • loathsome dongeaterA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        “Realists” want you to believe that any country would, for example, drop 260 million bombs on a neutral country thousands of miles away like Laos if they could and therefore the US would be stupid to not do that.

        • starkillerfish (she)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well you see, Laos threatened the continued survival of the United States! All actions are merely self defense!!!

        • redtea
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          The realism seems to justify the action:

          If we didn’t, we’d be eaten by another hegemon and everyone else is a potential hegemon (just look at what we did to Europe!).

      • 小莱卡
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        What no understanding of political economy does to a mfer lmao

      • SpaceDogsOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is the first time I’ve encounter Mearsheimer and I’m not super impressed. I feel bad for saying it but it’s true. This article is incredibly US-centric, he emphasizes looking at a country’s history to determine how they will act but he fails to analyze China’s track record, only assuming it will act the same way as the US. I will have to soften my language considerably but mentioning historical and cultural differences is a must for me.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      China joined the WTO in 2001 (roughly marking the start of market reforms and opening up)

      I just noticed the correlation about this date and roughly start of western media publishing articles about “immediate fall of China”. In other words, they all know what liberalisation of economy does to a state and were expecting it.

      • loathsome dongeaterA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s the year when The Coming Collapse of China by Gordon Nostradamus Soothsayer Chang was published. I guess the transition was pereceived as a slow motion version of the car crash that was the Soviet shock therapy.

    • SpaceDogsOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is great, thank you so much! I did find it odd how there was no insight into China at all, just assumptions that it and other countries will act like the US has. The only thing I think he’s right about is the issues with Taiwan but thats really it. I worry about the analysis section because student are going to ask questions that I don’t want to answer…