‘Today’s China Is Both a “Status-Quo Power” and a “Revisionist Power”’
‘Today’s China is both a “status-quo power” and a “revisionist power”’
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended progressively that China has not shown adequately that it will play by the so-called international rules.
Recently many of the policy debates in the U.S. have been about whether it is even conceivable to mingle a dictatorial, nationalistic, and discontented China inside this supposed international community. Analysts claim that China is becoming more and more part of the international community mostly in the area of economic rules. For example, free trade and domestic marketisation. Sceptics either think that this is not the case because of the nature of the government. For instance, China is still Red China to some; others say that China is playing with fascism, or that it might not perhaps occur since China as a rising power by meaning is discontented with the United States controlled global command. A rational conclusion is that both groups see the matter of China’s rising power as the main basis of unpredictability in Sino-U.S. relationship and in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the U.S., in the past decade numerous scholars, experts and politicians have branded China as a state working outside of, or only partially inside, the so-called international community on a sphere of international rules. The then Defence Secretary William
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended progressively that China has not shown adequately that it will play by the so-called international rules.
Recently many of the policy debates in the U.S. have been about whether it is even conceivable to mingle a dictatorial, nationalistic, and discontented China inside this supposed international community. Analysts claim that China is becoming more and more part of the international community mostly in the area of economic rules. For example, free trade and domestic marketisation. Sceptics either think that this is not the case because of the nature of the government. For instance, China is still Red China to some; others say that China is playing with fascism, or that it might not perhaps occur since China as a rising power by meaning is discontented with the United States controlled global command. A rational conclusion is that both groups see the matter of China’s rising power as the main basis of unpredictability in Sino-U.S. relationship and in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the U.S., in the past decade numerous scholars, experts and politicians have branded China as a state working outside of, or only partially inside, the so-called international community on a sphere of international rules. The then Defence Secretary William
References: A.F.K Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980), pp. 19–20, 23. Condoleezza Rice, “Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January/February 2000), p. 56. E.H. Carr refers to “status quo”, The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan, 1940) Fan Shaojun, “Canyu he peiyu guoji guanxi de zhidu jianshe”, Guoji guanxi xueyuan xuebao [School of International Studies journal] (Shenzhen), No Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p Thomas Christensen, ‘Chinese Realpolitik’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 5 (1996), pp. 37–52; Karl W Ye Zicheng and Feng Yin, “ZhongMei guanxi shilun” [Ten points about Sino-U.S. relations], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi, No. 5 (2002), p. 3. Yan, Zhongguojueqi—guoji huanjing pingu [An assessment of the international environment for China’s rise](Tianjin: People’s Publishing House, 1999), pp. 349–355. Zhu Feng, “Zai lishi gui yi zhong bawo ZhongMei guanxi” [Understand Sino-U.S. relations from the legacy of history], Huanqiu Shibao Guoji Luntan [Global Times international forum], February 28, 2002, http://interforum.xilubbs.com/.