Is China Really A “Great Power”?

As China’s economy continues to rise and its military spending increases, many political theorists presume that China will soon surpass the United States as the primary economic and political “great power.” High GDP and military strength contribute to the formation of great powers, and they have undoubtedly contributed to China’s current position in the international political sphere. However, although China is most certainly a strong power with a great deal of global influence, there are many reforms that must occur before it can achieve the status of a truly “great,” hegemonic power. Forms of hard power, such as economic and military power, are far from the only types of power that matter when predicting the trajectory of a state such as China.

One cannot deny that China’s strong economy has helped it rise above many other world powers.  For example, a high GDP allows China to maintain a leading position in the international energy production industry through the maximization of both internal and external natural resources. In recent years, China has become the world’s top producer of coal, and has become a key player in world oil markets by acquiring billions of dollars worth of overseas oil and gas assets. China’s wealth also allows for the creation of a large and well-equipped military, which gives China more flexibility when taking political action as weaker states often submit to China’s demands in order to avoid a potentially destructive conflict.

However, a broad scope of influence is simply not enough to make a state into a great power. Forms of soft power are extremely significant in establishing a state’s presence – and subsequently, its influence - on a global scale. In order to become a truly great power, a state must express an interest in areas other than economic growth, such as social reforms, environmental protection, and a desire for international collaboration. For example, a state that focuses on promoting human rights and resolving domestic concerns will receive more attention, support, and cooperation from other international political actors. This in turn will effectively increase its global influence in a beneficial manner and further cement its status as a great power.

The Chinese government has not followed such a path, as shown by its often-oppressive political decisions. By focusing almost entirely on GDP growth, the Chinese government has created a system that ignores the needs of its people for the sake of its economy. While the Chinese leaders may view the rapid economic growth as a sign of success, the vulnerability of the Chinese people tells a very different story. Many Chinese citizens live in areas where the air is so polluted from the coal factories that they cannot see a few feet ahead of them, and the serious illnesses that result from such severe pollution have become the norm. Many citizens, such as those in Hong Kong, feel so oppressed and controlled by their leaders that protesting seems to be the only route to political and social reforms.

However, this path is often met with violence at the hands of government officials who seek to stop the cries for change. Silencing the voices of its people and censoring their words is not the way in which China will reach “Great Power” status. Continuing on a path that violates the civil liberties and basic rights of the Chinese people will only undermine the influence that China has on the global community, despite any rapid economic growth it may experience. A strong military and an overflowing bank vault will only go so far if the decisions of China’s leaders incur rejection and mistrust from the international community of political actors.

Sources:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ch

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29054196

The importance of humanitarian intervention

As one of the strongest nations in the country, the United States should always be cognizant of humanitarian issues. The United States has been given the title of the “world police,” which entails the responsibility of addressing humanitarian issues across the world. I believe it is already established that many institutions, including and especially, the United Nations, are a manifestation of the United States’ power and influence. Part of the responsibility of the United Nations is to take care and addressing humanitarian violations across the world whether it is genocide, natural disasters or civil war. The United States cannot turn a blind eye to an issue when it is the priority of the United Nations and the rest of the world. As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has an unspoken duty of making sure that citizens of other nations have the ability to enjoy the fundamental rights that Americans have. Now, this, of course, can’t be perfect for every nation across the world and it does not mean that the United States has to inundate every nation with western, liberal democratic ideology and norms.  This means that human rights violations must be paramount when it comes to international relations. As another caveat, this also does not mean the United States must involve themselves with every international conflict that arises. Many situations, especially when it comes to civil war, are extremely complicated and nuanced and involvement in the issue could further complicate it, like Syria, for example. In Syria, there are major geo-political complications and entanglements that direct involvement would bring about. However, the issue should never fall by the way side and be ignored. If direct involvement is not a wise solution, diplomacy is almost always an option.  The reason I say almost is because of extreme cases like North Korea where it’s more difficult to have a “rational” conversation. There’s something valuable in having as much influence and power as the United States has and to let go to waste when there are potential humanitarian crises in the world. The U.S. has the power to set the agenda and decide what is important and what gets addressed. Additionally, having the strong power in the form of military might and economic stability also helps when wanting to address humanitarian issues. Ulterior motives are spoken of usually in a negative context. I see this for good reason when the humanitarian issue is not of importance to the country. I conceptualize this concept when looking at the United States motivation for entering Iraq. Although I do not think it was the only reason, oil was of great importance to the country when deciding to invade Iraq. The pessimist in me says that a person is fairly naïve if they do not believe acquisition of oil was not a motivation to invade Iraq. Despite Iraq, I do not think humanitarian intervention is no longer valid if the country has other intentions. If, hypothetically, the United States wanted to help a nation that is going through a crisis, which in turn, makes the United States look better on the world stage, I see no issue with that. Just as long as the humanitarian aspect is the primary goal and that the country, as a government and as a whole, truly values the upholding of humanitarian rights.   And that is something that has to be an intrinsic part of our identity as a country.

Humanitarian Intervention and Ulterior Motives

When discussing the subject of humanitarian intervention in foreign states, I think one very interesting aspect is that of motivating factors for intervening in a state that seems to need help. More specifically, I think that the presence and influence of ulterior motives is thought provoking. Although ulterior motives may have more influence in certain scenarios than in others, I believe that they are always present when humanitarian intervention is present.

Humanitarian intervention is the use or threat of force to stop a “mass atrocity” in another state. However, I believe that this is never done without one’s own state’s self-interest in mind. For example, why did the United States not intervene in Rwanda? Simply because we stood to gain nothing significant enough to warrant intervening. This concept hearkens back to the old philosophical thought that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. This meaning, when one helps others they are always doing so as it is in someway advantageous or beneficial to themselves. For example, if you donate money to charity, you too are benefiting. This benefit could be as blatant as writing off part of your taxes or something more subconscious, like feeling good about yourself for donating. In the realm of international relations, this same concept can be applied to reasons behind humanitarian intervention.

One of the more obvious ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention is personal gains or natural resources. A prime example of this is the recent intervention against ISIS. From the point of view of the United States, humanitarian intervention in the area occupied by ISIS was/is necessary to prevent the organization from becoming more powerful. Additionally, it was imperative to take this measure against the terrorist group to protect American assets. From this it can be seen that the intervention was not only done to help citizens of Iraq and Syria who have been terrorized by ISIS, but also to protect the United States and our interests overseas. This is how the intervention would result in personal gains for the United States.

One of the more subconscious, less obvious ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention is the good reputation that it will build for the state. If one state aids those in need for the sake of doing so, this can foster the creation of alliances or even just make the state’s form of government seem more appealing. This goes back to the concept of a state’s soft power. A democratic system of government could become appealing to a non-democracy if a democratic state is viewed as humanitarian or benevolent in the realms of the global community. In this way a frequently present ulterior motive is the desire to garner more soft power.

Humanitarian intervention is a noble concept that can be very effective at saving millions of lives around the world. However, the state that is intervening can also stand to benefit from helping out. Although it is a cynical view of the world, humanitarian intervention is done in such a way that the helping state is benefiting as well.

A Critique of Humanitarian Intervention

A Critique of Humanitarian Intervention

            Recently there has been debate over whether or not the U.S. should get involved in Syria. Many argue against intervention for fear that the United States will get stuck in another prolonged war, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Others argue that intervention is necessary because Bashar al-Assad has barely cooperated in negotiation and has continued killing the opposition. The question: “Should we intervene?” has become popular over the past two years, however, I think a better question we should be asking is: “Why should we intervene?” and, “If we intervene, will it actually be on the grounds of humanitarian intervention?”

            Humanitarian intervention is “the use of force to stop a mass atrocity.” (McCulloch Lecture) Healthy states use this foreign policy tactic in order to help weaker states combat their sources of instability. Although this aid may seem generous on one states part, the harsh reality of it all is that these powerful states only intervene because of ulterior motives. Every state is selfish and will always put their survival before that of anyone else’s—this is rational. States will only offer a helping hand to a fallen neighbor, when they know they will receive some form of gain in the end. Two instances that clearly demonstrate this argument are the United State’s involvement in Greece/ Turkey in 1948 and lack of involvement in Rwanda in 1994.

             As WWII came to an end, the Soviet Union quickly began spreading their communist ideology throughout Eastern Europe. Noting this threat to their power and interest, the United States quickly responded by enacting the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and the Marshall plan in 1948. The Truman doctrine was specifically aimed at supplying Greece and Turkey with economic and military assistance in effort to combat communism. The U.S. government spent millions of dollars in order to reconstruct post-war European countries and to protect their democratic interests overseas. If it hadn’t been for the threat of communism, the United States would not have intervened in Europe after the war, and they definitely would not have gotten involved in proxy-wars, such as Vietnam and the Korean War.

            In 1994, the Rwandan genocide killed about one million people. Despite this clear mass atrocity, the U.S. did not intervene. Why not? Some argue that the U.S. was weary of getting involved because of the losses suffered in Somalia not long before. Although Somalia’s fate was a big factor, it was not the only factor that explained the Clinton’s admirations refusal to act. Rwanda held no important interests to the U.S.; therefore they felt no need to respond. The U.S. did recognize their failure to act through the establishment of the Clinton Doctrine, however this policy only came after the U.S. received immense critique from the public.

            In his blog post, Ty Solomon poses an interesting question: “Why is it only now, with the use of chemical weapons – and not the use of “conventional” bombs and guns – have the US and UK governments seriously debated intervening [in Syria]?” Now that more threatening weapons are being used in Syria, the U.S., as well as other nations, feel that their security is more at risk. Thus, intervention becomes more prevalent when taking into consideration the nations interests. Solomon even notes that, “The conflict has not necessarily taken a turn for the worse.”

Humanitarian intervention is great in that suffering states do receive aid from their neighbors; however, these weak states are not receiving aid because others feel generous or sympathetic. Strong states merely want to demonstrate their power and uphold their interests and will put on the façade of humanitarian in order to get what they want.   

Sources:

http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/10/words-of-mass-destruction-in-the-syria-debate.html

Some thoughts on “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate”.

For this blog post I’ve decided to respond to the class reading we had for discussion the week of October 20^th. The tittle is “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate”. I would like to discuss about chemical weapons and how realism is at the root of politicians’ decision, even though they might lead their state with liberal beliefs.  

 Ever since the Cold War everyone has been scared and worried about chemical weapons. Everyone should be scared and concerned about chemical weapons. We don’t need to search for “atomic bomb consequences’ on Google images to be reminded of what chemical weapons do when they are used. The vivid print of the pictures will forever be carved into my memories and I am sure I am not along on this one. However,  I do agree with the writer, or author of the post? Why is it that conventional weapons such as guns, and bombs are not considered serious or as serious as chemical weapons anymore? Why is it that whenever we hear ‘ they have weapons of mass destruction”, there is a panic? Yet, in countries like Syria, kids walk around with guns and grenades, as if they were holding Tonka trucks and lollipops.

I agree with the idea of traditional weapons holding a criteria objective; in this case, we can see the damage that guns, grenades and other weapons considered to be traditional, have when they are used. Meanwhile, chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction are at another level of perspective, the objective one. For me chemical weapons are held on an objective view because we do not really know the potential or extend of the power. We technically objectively do, unless the use of biological weapons is used, then we probably don’t know the measure of the damages or the toll that weapons would do. 

Untimely, I think it boils down to power; who has the most power? Who is the most powerful? Who has the most chemical weapons? Like I mentioned before since the  Cold War the US has struggled to be the one in charge of the world and act as a mediator and world police. The struggle for power is a relists believe that I am pretty sure every country aims to follow whether democrat or otherwise. How far does power go? And why will not use it to end issues such as the one in Syria, China and Ukraine?

All that power is just wasted on self image and portraying an ideal of what it means to be powerful.