Mr. Bame's dialogue concerning the workings of the State Department was actually really interesting, he was a well-prepared and affable speaker. It's not every day where we hear an official currently working in the US government, and his views on the major hotspots in the world. It was especially insightful when Mr. Bame discussed the notion of "hard" and "soft" power, and how those two have recently formed together into a general hybrid of "smart" power. He seemed to stress that a lot of tentative discussions in the world, regarding major foreign policy issues such as North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation, all seem to depend on China. Mr. Bame said that the State Department regarded the Chinese as those who "do smart power in a very smart way," and that the Chinese are reluctant to act on major issues pressing securities of many nations until they feel they need to. As the US has no embassy in North Korea, we rely on the Chinese to convey and return information between the US and the PRK. Bame also mentioned that where and when the US and the Chinese have differences, they must try to address them transparently, for the sake of stability. This relation between the US and China is better than it used to be, according to Bame, but when the US has to finally make a stand on economic issues such as the devaluation of the Chinese currency or human rights violations in China, the current Chinese policy of acquiescence only in dire situations will not seem so noble.
Which brings me to my second point, regarding liberalism. Looking at our definitions of political liberalism, we see that China is the strongest nation-state in the world that does not practice the liberalism doctrine. And looking at our readings on IR liberalism, we see that it is in the interest of a liberal state to go to war with a non-liberal state. Does this mean a conflict with China is inevitable? Liberal states value wealth more than security, so it wouldn't appear to me that the US would be eager to threaten the nation that they are most economically interdependent on, and likewise China will not want to go to war with its biggest consumer base. Liberalism theory has warned against the "mutual vulnerabilities" that arise from interdependent relationships, particularly with an illiberal state. In a sense my question is this: Has liberalism become a partially defunct system due to globalization?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI don’t even know where to begin to comment . . . very interesting points.
1. “Smart power” is a funny concept. After learning about realism and liberalism, it almost seems to be a compromise between the two. However, I think its term as “smart” is justified. Because the world has changed/is changing so much, it may take more than exclusive militarily and diplomatic measures alone to pacify the international system. Thus, China is “smart.”
2. You noted, “Bame also mentioned that where and when the US and the Chinese have differences, they must try to address them transparently, for the sake of stability.” This really seems to point to the fact that both the US and China are major world powers. They have responsibilities for not only their own nations, but the well-being (or at least, in terms of economy and security) of the world.
3. Your last question, “Does this mean a conflict with China is inevitable? Liberal states value wealth more than security, so it wouldn't appear to me that the US would be eager to threaten the nation that they are most economically interdependent on, and likewise China will not want to go to war with its biggest consumer base. . . . Has liberalism become a partially defunct system due to globalization?” made me think about the interdependence of states. Despite the power of both countries, each relies on others for support. Through communication and economies, globalization has furthered IR. Although I have not read the full article (it would be far too ambitious, for the document is about 60 pages), a professor noted five points about the current state of things: there is a “limited” balance of power, China is not a “revisionist” state, “economic interdependence” has lessened conflicts, international organizations have pacified China, and America feels threatened out of “shared identity” rather than “raw material balance of power.” The last point seems to be especially true. Even on a consumer level, Americans are used to seeing the label, “Made in China.” However, we would not be used to major Chinese political decisions.
Based on “smart power,” I wonder what actions China will take in the future? I also wonder what Constructivism would say . . .
~Rachael W.
** Prof. Rousseau’s article, Rise of China through Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist Lenses, mentions various scenarios in accordance with IR theory as well: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/4/5/4/pages64547/p64547-2.php