12/20/13
International Politics
Final Paper
A Contest for Supremacy Over the past several decades the relationship between the US and China had its share of ups and downs. This can largely be attributed to the shift in strategic policies and thinking that occurred within both countries over this period. The thinking and policies that occur in both countries can be explained by the application of both liberalism and realism. Realism is a way of thinking that believes the state is the principle actor in international relations and that it acts as a single unit with one voice. Liberalism on the other hand states that individuals are rational by nature and if a just society is not created, fault lies with inadequate institutions. In my view I believe that the realist theory provides the best explanation of past relations and predictions for future ones. The way Friedberg explains it in his book the US policy towards China went through three phases which include Containment, Alignment, and Congagement. The first period of Containment spanned from 1949-69 which began with a new policy to deal with China after it became evident that the Communist would win the civil war. This new policy stated “the fundamental aim of American strategy must remain what it had been since the turn of the twentieth century and the days of the Open Door policy” (Friedberg, 61). This was supposed to be a means of assuring that US interest in Asia would be secure despite the rising power of the Soviet Union. The US soon considered China and the Soviet Union as partners and began to try and contain China in a similar fashion as the Soviet Union. The US refused to recognize Communist China which meant there was little to no communication between the two countries. Other countries followed the example set by the US and all but ignored any delegation attempts by Red China. Through the end of the 1960’s the US continued to wage and economic war against China by cutting off trade and trying to contain China from the rest of Asia. The US feared that China was close to obtaining nuclear weapons and debated whether to use military action to destroy known nuclear sites. Ultimately the US under President Johnson chose to do nothing due to the lack of provocation by the Chinese. Once it was confirmed that China was indeed in possession of nuclear weapons the US changed its policy to one of alignment which spanned 1969-89. The US slowly began to recognize the People Republic of China and formal diplomatic meetings soon began. The relationship between the US and China grew stronger due to the fear that the growing Soviet Union was looking to expand influence into the third world. It was a classic case of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and their common enemy was the Soviets. Whereas much of the policies towards China during this period were based on Realism it seems to me the there was also a bit of liberalism behind it was well. The US had begun to realize that a positive relation with China was good for everybody and that by securing power between the two of them it would prevent a large war with the Soviet Union. If the US was to not offer some armaments to China at this time there could have very well been a conflict with Russia. If the US didn’t offer arms to China and the Soviet Union did get aggressive then as Friedberg said “The US would have no choice but to live with the consequences Sino-Soviet war, whatever they might turn out to be” (Friedberg, 77). The third policy of the Us towards China was a mix between Realist and Liberalist ideas in the form of Congagement. While still engaging China in trade and diplomacy the US also tried to strengthen its capabilities in Asia as well as trying to slow the growth of the Chinese military. While in the past the US wanted to strengthen China and make it an ally, China has grown to the position where they now pose a threat to the US. This has bought back a bit of realism in thinking that China may one day act aggressively towards the US and the best way to combat this is through keeping their growth at bay while beefing up its own military in the area. Friedberg says “The resilience of congagement due to both the essential soundness of its logic and the sturdiness of its domestic political foundation” (Friedberg, 115). Meaning that this policy makes a case for itself in terms of why it is necessary. The Chinese way of thinking differs greatly from that of the US in that they place more importance on wisdom and insight as opposed to strength and decisiveness. China had seen the importance of how a nation sits in regards to its power compared to other countries. They knew that the conduct of international relations was heavily influenced by the current and likely future of the distribution of power. China saw that the US was to be their main obstacle for global stability because the US would try to stop them from being equally powerful. Additionally China sees the US a possible being aggressive based on their different ideology and the fact that the US does not understand their views. At this point in time china’s polices came from more a a realist point of view because they feared that the US would naturally want to keep power to themselves. The way the US would try to accomplish this would be by stooping the growth of China by any means necessary. As mentioned by Friedberg “: Chinas strategic weight has markedly increased” (Friedberg, 140). The main reason behind this is that over recent years china has grown very wealthier and more influential all while being less influenced by other countries. The US needs Chinas wealth to helps finance its own debt and would not risk damaging relations by boycotts or other means of containment. This allows China to be less concerned with interference from the UD and focus on its domestic problem such as the environment and infrastructure/ The US and China can remain peaceful as long as they both know they are a major threat to each other. Liberalist theory helps to explain this because it says that collective security helps to avoid war. As long as each country remains strong their power will balance out and the threat of war is minimal. Although the policies and strategies of the US and China can be explained by both liberalism and Realism it’s my opinion that the realist theory provides the best explanation for past and future actions of each country. Everybody has some realism in them whether they know it or not and in politics it all comes to play. Powerful counties always have to expect the worst in order to protect themselves. If they take a relaxed attitude toward international policies then it leaves them open for attack. By expecting China to rise and spread its power across the globe it it allows the US to prepare for just such an event. Chinas policies are also best explained by realism because they know that the US does not want them to expand because they fear strong China. As a result, China has been quietly growing a stronger military as well as increasing its soft power as a deterrent for the US to become involved in its affairs. Only time will tell if these two great power will come to a point of active violence towards each other. However, if they continue on their current path they will each be kept at bay by the fear of the aftermath of a large scale war as well as the increased economic prosperity of staying in reach others relatively good graces.

Works Cited
Friedberg, Aaron. A Contest for Supremacy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. Print.