Hahahahaha
So, sometimes I pretend to be smart. When really I'm not. Check out the BS essay I wrote for my foreign policy class. Also, I never spell check or copy edit any of my work because that's just how I roll....
America's position as the hegemonic power of the late 20th and early 21st centuries has remained relatively unquestioned. Economically, it is the richest country in the world. Its budget alloted to military strength alone equals more than many small countries' entire GDP. However, the rise of China in the international marketplace has put the US on high alert. Historically, the rise of one power has always led to the fall of another; and while the world's countries today are linked more closely than ever because of economic globalization, there is no sound evidence that this will prevent hostile Sino-American relations.
According to Christopher Layne, author of China's Challenge to U.S. Hegemony, the US has two distinct ways in which it can deal with China. Engagement or Containment.
With engagement, he believes that China will become more involved in with the rest of the world, it will by necessity become more acquainted with western culture and adopt western policies. The assumption is that since China will become so involved in the economics of other countries that it will no longer be in its best interest to challenge the power of those nations-specifically the US. However, as Layne states, though the 21st century has brought with it incredible changes in foreign policy there is no set precedence that indicates economic interdependence leads to peace. In fact, evidence to the opposite is apparent. Europe was at it's closest right before WWI, so close in fact that many people believed that “Europe's great powers had ushered in an era in which was among them was unthinkable.” However, as Layne notes, currently it appears that China “recognizes its strategic interests in preserving peace in Eastern Asia.” Nevertheless, this does not mean that China is not merely biding its time, waiting for a moment when it can “openly balance against the United States” and become the second world superpower.
Layne's second suggestion for a foreign policy strategy with China is the same as that used for Russia during the Cold War. Containment. However, much unlike the Cold War (Excluding Vietnam and the Korean War), a proxy war over Taiwan would become inevitable. In order to ensure it'd economic, military and cultural dominance in East Asia, the US would need to adopt “harsher measures”and “be prepared to engage in a preventative war against China.”
All theory aside, the more realistic strategy-and the one currently implemented by the US-is actually a blend of both containment and engagement. This strategy requires that China accept that the United States is the current hegemonic power and that it is here to stay. While the goal of the US is to “prevent the emergence of new great powers” thus, while China is growing economically and militarily and the US continues trade with it, the US will still be attempting to prevent China's ability to surpass the United States. A way in which the US has the ability to control the economic movement of the Chinese government is to require that they join the WTO-A US controlled, international organization-and become more involved in the “free market” thus allowing American countries to buy up China's natural resources. While the US is supportive of China's economic growth-both because it supports the current capitalist dogma and because the US currently has the biggest influence in international marketplace-it is not supportive of China's military growth. According to Layne any moved by China to improve its military capabilities “are signals of aggressive intent” because “no nation threatens China.”
While international institutions like the UN, NATO, WTO, and IMF have brought the world together economically and politically in an unprecedented manner, forever connecting then the US is still worried by the rising power of China. This is because “ascending powers have always challenged the position of the hegemonic power in the international system.” Such challenges usually end in war, and the inevitability of a Sino-American was is almost certain when the US has “incorporated the logic of anticipatory violence as an instrument for maintaining American primacy.”
Currently, the US has the ability to engage in a fourth policy with China, “off-shore balancing.” Like the aforementioned policy, it is a mixture of both containment and engagement. However, it states that America should change to an international policy based not a trade, but on strategy. According to this theory, the US is much better off only deploying it's military power in other countries only in the “face of direct threats.” This means that the United States must abandon it's current policy for the economic and political liberalization of China and “drastically reduce the bilateral trade deficit.” This means that because it isn't in the best interests of the Unites States, a preventative war against China over Taiwan would be too risky and too costly an endeavor. This policy also suggests that it is wiser for the US to remain in it's sphere of influence-the Western hemisphere-and allow the nations of East Asia-who have a much higher interest in the rise of China-to deal with it.
Regardless of the what course the US takes, it is an undeniable fact that though the US is indeed the current superpower, its strength in Asia has been waning for quite some time. Allowing the countries of East Asia to directly deal with the Chinese threat allows the US to stay out of a costly war while, if not retaining all, most of it's regional hegemonic power.
An evaluation of Layne's article leads to several both positive and negative conclusions. According to prominent US political author, Noam Chomsky, regardless of any policies taken by the United States, its status as the world's only hegemonic power has been falling since the 1970s. A readily apparent example of this, according to Chomsky is Latin-America's rise to power. “For the first time since European colonization 500 years ago, South America is making significant progress towards integration and independence, and is also establishing South-South relations independent of the US, specifically with China, but elsewhere as well.”
This means, that if the US government is going to maintain the current course its on, its going to run in to more problems than merely China. Its incredibly short-sited to only see the rise of China when powers like Venezuela, Chile and Brazil-those which are in our hemisphere, and according to the Monroe Doctrine, America's traditional power sphere(McCormick, 18-21)-are rising, though not quite as precipitously, right along with China.
A major downfall of his argument, Layne fails to take in to account the power of the WTO over the current world powers. Because the WTO is lead by the US and is the only international institution capable of implementing and enforcing its rules, it may be the only actor-state or non-state-with the ability to control the growth of China. However, that isn't to say that it should. Typically, when the WTO(along with the IMF and World Bank) become involved in the policies of underdeveloped countries under the guise of free-trade and capitalism it ends up demolishing their local infrastructure to make way for the privatization of their natural resources. (To some extent, this has already begun to happen in China.)
However, regardless of what policies the US and/or China begin to implement and follow, perhaps it could be beneficial for the US to allow another country to take over the role and superpower. The US military is already over stretching its military power(Chomsky) in small wars scattered around the middle east. In a time where America's deficit is growing and the majority of its GDP is spent on the military, perhaps it is time to go back to those first ideas of isolationism established by Washington on the Eve of America's birth. Perhaps allowing China to surpass the US would allow the US to begin focusing on the current domestic crises facing the current and future administrations.