The Chinese Balance – a new International order

THE RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

“The Chinese Balance – a new International order”

Term Paper for IR 6001- The Study of International Relations

Student ID: G1301777L

17-Oct-13

This essay suggests the idea that China’s gradual rise to power would result in the advent of a bipolar International

system. It challenges the claim that a rising China poses a significant threat to international security and disagrees with

the claim that a security dilemma would arise. This paper concludes that through interaction and increased inter -

dependence, the peaceful balance of power between the U.S and China is possible.




Introduction China’s subsequent increase in military spending; as well as its commitment to modernizing military

capabilities; is clear evidence of its growing potential to be the next superpower. Similarly, the onslaught of

the recent economic crisis and the federal shutdown has left The United States of America’s future as the

hegemon of the international system uncertain. Based on the Neorealist theory by Kenneth Waltz, it is

understood that in the advent of a bipolar world order between the two nations; long-term peace is

achievable.

This essay suggests the idea that China’s gradual rise to power would result in the advent of a bipolar

International system. It challenges the claim that a rising China poses a significant threat to international

security and disagrees with the claim that a security dilemma would arise. This paper concludes that through

interaction and increased inter-dependence, the peaceful balance of power between the U.S and China is

possible.

I begin by briefly talking about the current scenario between the two great powers and address the eminent

questions of anxiety in the international system. I then go on to talk about Kenneth Waltz’s Neorealist theory

which is an ideal explanation to my stand. I lay out the propositions of the theory and refer Walt to bring out

the theory behind balancing and bandwagoning. I proceed to provide insight as to why a bi-polar

international order is more favored. Referencing Art, Jervis and Waltz, I falsify the other possible outcomes

of the Sino-American relationship and reiterate as to why I think bi-polarity will prevail most. I then proceed

to talk about the future of Sino-American relations and the nuclear deterrence possessed by both the nations.

I reference Mearshimer here on the difficulty of projecting power over water bodies. Finally, I conclude with

stating as to how the Sino-American interaction is different from that of the Soviet Union’s and how China

does not present the type of security threat to the U.S that the Soviet Union did before the WWII.

Acknowledging the possibility of war due to miscalculation; which is strongly possible in a bi-polar world

order; I conclude by saying that the possession of nuclear arsenal by both the states has a restraining effect.

Thereby, this raises the incentives to not fall prey to miscalculation. I refer Art and argue that nuclear

deterrence would work to dramatically lower the possibility of war either through miscalculation or through

deliberate decision.

Kenneth Waltz’s theory of Neorealism

During the last few decades, China’s exponential growth of both its military and economy has generated

anxiety in the international system. Some contend that as China grows, its contention with the U.S. for

hegemonic status may escalate into a situation of political unrest. This concern stems from the fear that an

increase in parity between China and the U.S. will trigger an accelerated security dilemma between the two

states. Will the U.S regain its title as the hegemon or will China tilt the world order in its favor?

Alternatively, is the international system going to witness a bi-polar order?




The Neorealist theory by Kenneth Waltz is an ideal explanation as to why a bi-polar world would lead to

long-term peace. Waltz took realist ideas of various thinkers and made it testable in the form of an actual

theory- Neo Realism. Waltz believed that the international political system was characterized by anarchy and

the domestic politic system was characterized by hierarchy. This is because the domestic political

government has a monopoly which is sovereign and possesses military force, which not only makes laws but

also enforces them. His theory is one more of greater power politics.

This theory which is originally based on Hans Morgenthau’s classical realist ideas was altered by Waltz to

tailor-fit the international political system. Waltz differs from Morgenthau on two bases. Firstly, he argues

that not all the states are power maximizes, but that they just want to maximize on security at the minimum.

In crucial situations, however, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security.1 Secondly, he

argues that not all the understanding of international political stems from the understanding of individual

human being but on focused on understanding the anarchy of the international system. Neorealism “shows

that it is not necessary to assume an innate lust for power in order to account for the sometimes fierce

competition that marks the international arena”.2 The international system is characterized by anarchy which

causes actors to react. The theory focuses on three main propositions-

1. States emulate each other and thus, that helps enforce Anarchy in the international political system

perennially. 2. States tend to balance.

3. Anarchy is so pernicious because it threatens the other states through the security dilemma. Hence, Bipolarity is better than multi-polarity.

Since the international system is anarchic, states will always want to possess absolute power or at least be

comparable to other nations. This mindset evolves out of the fear of being left behind in the international

system and being unable to defend oneself - “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in

power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.3 Therefore, according to

neorealists, states will emulate other states in terms of military intelligence, defense strategies, technological

developments and communications. By saying this, we can further infer that since states are constantly

competing with one another, no one state can move ahead enough to create a hierarchical structure. Thus, we

can argue that Anarchy has never transformed into a hierarchical system.

1 Waltz (1988), ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 18, no.4, pp. 616. 2 Waltz, K. (1988), ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 18, no.4, pp. 615.

3 Thyucydides. “The Melian Dialogue”, Art/Jervis eds. Pp. 8-13.




Waltz also propounded that most of the time states preferred to balance against the hegemon, rather

bandwagon with them. Balancing is the act of allying with others against the prevailing threat while

bandwagoning is the act of aligning with the source of threat. According to Neorealism, because balancing is

more common than bandwagoning, states can me more secure. This is because aggressors in the international

system will face combined opposition. States alternatively chose to balance as their survival at risk if they

fail to curb a potential hegemon before it becomes too strong. In their opinion, it is safer to join with those

who cannot readily dominate their allies in order to prevent being dominated by those who can. Joining the

weaker side increases the new member's influence within the alliance because the weaker side has greater

need for assistance.4

There are two kinds of balancing: internal and external. External balancing is when nations form alliances

with each other to balance their combined resources against another more powerful nation. Internal balancing

is when nations increase their own defense and military power. States prefer to balance internally because, in

an anarchic system the lack of trust and the self-help nature of the international system as well as the lack of

punishment can advantageous defectors that do not abide by the alliance. States in an anarchic order must

provide for their own security, and threats or seeming threats to their security abound. 5

Bandwagoning is argued to only occur with weak states that have no other alternative but joining a great

power. Some are entitled to command; others are required to obey. 6 Excessive weakness may invite an attack

that greater strength would have dissuaded an adversary from launching. 7 Bandwagoning is not preferable

because the weaker countries have to trust that the great power that it bandwagons with will adhere to the

terms agreed to and that they will not renege on their agreement. Thus, the Neorealists argue that anarchy

will always be preserved because of the balance power phenomenon.

Lastly, the theory of Neorealism propounds that the security dilemma is so high in the international system

that rationality leads to irrationality. Neorealism argues that a bipolar world will always be more peaceful

than a multi-polar world. An international-political system in which three or more great powers have split

4 Walt, S. ‘Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning’, Art/Jervis, eds. Pp. 132-135.

5 Waltz (1988), ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History , vol. 18, no.4, p. 619 6 Waltz, K. (2013), ‘The Anarchic Structure of World Politics,’ in Art, R. & Jervis, R. (Eds.), International Politics: Endu ring Concepts

and Contemporary Issues, pp. 38. 7 Waltz (1988), p. 616




into two alliances remains a multi-polar system- structurally distinct from a bipolar system, a system in

which no third power is able to challenge the top two.8 Neorealists like Ken Waltz argue that in a bipolar

world, there will be a higher propensity for peace than in a multi-polar world.

Why favor a Bi-polar world?

There are many reasons attributed to why a bi-polar world would yield a more peaceful international system

when compared to a multi-polar one. First, scholars argue that a bipolar world is more peaceful is that in a

bipolar world, because in such a world order one is always aware of whom their enemy is. In the great-power

politics of a bipolar world, which nation is a danger to another is never questioned. 9 In a bipolar world, it is

not unclear who the other significant power is and where the biggest threat lies. Thus, the two great powers

are bound to focus their respective fears on the other, to distrust its motives, and to impute offensive

intentions to defensive measures.10 In a multi-polar world on the other hand, there can be many more sources

of threat to one’s own country. Not only do states have to worry about the countries that are also great

sources of power, but also of those that are rising powers.

Second, the levels of uncertainty in a bi-polar world are much lesser than compared to those of a multi-polar

world. As mentioned above, in a bipolar system the knowledge that you know where your greatest threat is

from offers a sense of security. Waltz argues that in a bipolar world, because there are only two great powers,

ones’ loss is the others gain and therefore the two great powers are much more responsive to any events that

may result in destabilizing the current balance. The security dilemma in a multi-polar world is much higher

as compared to the bi-polar world.

Third, in a bipolar world the advent of two strong nations enables them to be largely independent and

thereby, balance against each other internally. The significance of allies is very low in a bi-polar world order

and the comparative difference can be made up by means of increasing one’s military expenditure. In a

bipolar world, alliance leaders can design strategies primarily to advance their own interests and to cope with

8 Waltz (2013), p. 45

9 Waltz (1988), p. 622

10 Ibid, p. 628




their main adversary and less to satisfy their own allies.11 Parallel to this thought, we can also infer that a

multi-polar world is less safe because chain ganging is more common. There exist more dyads in multi-

polarity giving rise to more probabilities of war between different combinations of states. Hence, this gives

rise to a more uncertain and instable world order.

Fourth, a bi-polar world is characterized by overreaction while a multi-polar world is characterized by

miscalculation between the states. Miscalculation is the greater evil because it is more likely to permit an

unfolding of events that finally threatens the status quo and brings the powers to war. Overreaction is the

lesser evil because at worst it costs only money for unnecessary arms and possibly the fighting of lim ited

wars. The dynamics of a bipolar system, moreover, provide a measure of correction. In a world in which two

states united in their mutual antagonism overshadow any others, the benefits of a calculated response stand

out most clearly, and the sanctions against irresponsible behavior achieve their greatest force. Thus two

states, isolationist by tradition, untutored in the ways of international politics, and famed for impulsive

behavior, have shown themselves-not always and everywhere, but always in crucial cases-to be wary, alert,

cautious, flexible, and for-bearing.12

Art also argues saying that it is the degree of security enjoyed by the pair of states and the severity of the

threat to its security that the dominant state perceives from the rising power which constitutes the most

important variable to predict whether a hegemonic struggle will result in war. 13 Waltz finally helps us

conclude in thought that great-power politics in a multi-polar world are characterized by the interdependence

of parties, diffusion of dangers & confusion of responses; whereas the great-power politics in a bipolar world

are characterized by self-dependence of parties, clarity of dangers & the certainty about who has to face

them.14

Falsification of the other Arguments

While there are other outcomes that can take place, it is of my belief that a bi-polar world order would be the

most likely future of Sino-American relations. In the advent that U.S imposes economic sanctions on China,

11

Ibid, p.622 12

Ibid, p.623 13

Art, R. “The United States and The Rise of China”, pp. 393 -401 14

Waltz (1988), p. 624




it is unlikely that their economy will fail since the Chinese economy trades with other countries apart from

the U.S. Moreover, the fact that U.S sanctions have failed to work in the past further questions this argument.

As pointed out earlier Interdependence of parties, diffusion of dangers and confusion of responses are the

characteristics of great-power politics in a multi-polar world; which is not stable.

Contrastingly, if the economic interdependence between the two countries grows apace, Waltz says that “the

separation of interests between great powers reduces the occasions for dispute and permits them to leave each

other alone even though each defines its security interests largely in terms of the other”. 15 However,

Constructivists argue that with time, constant interaction with one another leads to the development of

common norms and ideas which could ensure the stability of peace between the two powers. In his article,

Robert J Art argues that “the relationship between levels of economic inter-dependence and intensity of

ideological competition on the one hand, and war or peace on the other, is indeterminate”. 16

In the advent that China becomes a democracy, the democratic peace treaty would hold that future relations

between the two countries would be peaceful. However this development is quite unlikely because unlike

many other older democracies like Great Britain and Japan; Chinas democracy will be new & unstable and

hence find it difficult to establish power in the Asian realm. Moreover, the American behavior during the

Cold War contradicts this very proposition thereby resulting in an uncertain forecast17.

The Future of Sino-American relations: a reign of Peace

Sino-American relations are chiefly characterized by China maintaining a significant balance in the Asian

continent (Japan being out of its influence). But as China’s power grows more the global balance of power is

becoming increasingly important. The Balance of power theory begins with the assumption that states are

‘unitary actors who, at a minimum, seek their own preservation, and, at a maximum, drive for universal

domination’.18 While China’s strategy is primarily concerned with economic development, the procuring of

sufficient energy supplies and the related construction of a modernized military; America’s strategy, as the

world’s overwhelming economic and military power, is the preservation of the status quo. I do not agree that

this would lead to a security dilemma between the two countries just like how it did during WWII between

15

Ibid, p. 624 16

Art, R. J. ‘The United States and the Rise of China’. Pp. 393 -401 17

Jervis, R. “The Era of Leading Power Peace”, pp. 377-392 18

Waltz, K. (1979) ‘Theory of International Politics ’, p.118.




the U.S and the Soviet Union. I have explained this in the last leg of my paper but before that, I present my

argument on the features of the Secured Second Strike possessed by both the states.

The United States and China have followed supposedly liberal-universalistic policies that are in firmly based

on national self- interest. For instance, America’s desire for Chinese democratization has more to do with

obtaining greater access to Chinese markets and with the increase of the U.S.’s own security, than with a real

concern for human rights and freedoms. Likewise, China’s entrance into the multiple arms treaties, such as

the Missile Technology Control Regime in 2004, can be seen more in terms of public relations than any true

unease about arms proliferation.

The daunting experience of World War II and the massive wide-spread destructiveness of conventional

weapons & nuclear weapons have dramatically increased the difficulty of the occurrence of a World War

III.19 Both the PRC and the US possess nuclear weapons which can aid in facilitating peace between the two

nations as they both have to abide by nuclear deterrence. Waltz argues that “the probability of major war

among states having nuclear weapons approaches zero”. 20 Nuclear weapons make the implications of a

victory too horrible to contemplate. In the anarchy of states, improving the means of defense and deterrence

relative to the means of offense increases the chances of peace. Weapons and strategies that make defense

and deterrence easier, and offensive strikes harder to mount, decrease the likelihood of war. Mearshimer

contends with Waltz on the same lines by arguing that Nuclear-armed rivals are reluctant to fight with each

other, which means that each side will have less reason to fear the other than otherwise.21

Furthermore, Mearshimer argues along the same lines stating that the two nations are separated

geographically by a large body of water, which could further help to maintain peace between these two

nations as each has the potential to be the superpower of their own respective regions. 22 This makes it all the

more difficult for them to project their military force over the water body, thereby maintaining hegemony in

their respective regions. As a result a bi-polar world is created and as stated before, this system is more

peaceful.

Conclusion

Those who fear an emerging Cold War between the U.S. and China consistently fail to comprehend how

vastly different the structure of the Chinese state is to that of the former So viet Union. Art Argues that China

does not present the type of security threat to the U.S that caused the waging of the two World Wars.23

19

Waltz (1988), p.625 20

Ibid, p. 627 21

Mearsheimer, J. (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 29- 54 22

Ibid, pp. 29-54 23

Art, R. “The United States and the Rise of China”. Pp. 393 -401




America’s nuclear forces possess a secured second strike and this makes the geo-political scenario much

different from the one that included the Soviet Union.24

While war due to miscalculation being a possibility between the two states, the possession of nuclear

weaponry by both sides has a restraining effect, thereby raising the incentives to not fall prey to

miscalculation. Nuclear deterrence would work to dramatically lower the possibility of war either through

miscalculation or through deliberate decision.25

Moreover, in the advent that China ends up dominating the Korean peninsula and a significant part of South

East Asia; as long as it does not over-power the Japanese influence and as long as the U. S retains its naval

footholds in South East Asia, the Chinese hegemony in the Asian realm will not tip the balance drastically in

its favor.26

While uncertainties regarding the future of China are multifarious in the cases of the Taiwan issue and over

the maritime supremacy over East Asia, the peaceful integration into the international order of a

strengthening and influential China is possible. I propose the policy suggestion that through interaction and

increased inter-dependence, a new, peaceful bi-polar world order can be ensured in the international system.

24

Art, R. “The United States and the Rise of China”. Pp. 393 -401 25

Art, R. “The United States and the Rise of China”. Pp. 393 -401 26

Art, R. “The United States and the Rise of China”. Pp. 393 -401




Bibliography

John Mearshimer, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, W.W. Norton, 2001

Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” in Art/Jervis, eds.

Kenneth Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” in Art/Jervis, eds.

Stephen Walt, “Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning” in Art/Jervis, eds.

Robert Art, “The United States and the Rise of China”, in Art/Jervis, eds.

Robert Jervis, “The Era of Leading Power Peace”, in Art/Jervis, eds.

The Chinese Balance – a new International order

Documents

Transcript of The Chinese Balance – a new International order