Tag Archives: the footnote

035 – China Rise: Good or Bad?


Today, many people in the United States look upon China with a growing a growing super power that is probably competing economically with the United States. Many scholars that harp on realpolitik and offensive realism like Mearshimer or Kagan would probably think that a Chinese rise in the asia-pacific region would probably spell doom for any American regional hegemony in the area along with a probable loss of forward deployed military presence on Okinawa, Japan, and South Korea. The “evil” Chinese – as the cx debate community would jokingly call them – would probably overtake the US in terms of military power one day.

All of the above are probably scenarios that many cant fathom as being “okay” for international affairs. An usurpation of status quo power? Unheard of!

But what if we look deep into the implications for a China rise? Would it be malevolent? Benign? Total hegemony or just increased influence? What would it mean for the status of American power? Will it decline? Or is the United States here to stay? Maybe it would be beneficial for everyone’s interests if the China gained power?

Let’s explore the possibilities.

Some Background Informatics

China is a country with a large variety of cultural backgrounds as well as political thought. Although some may think of the current policies of the Chinese Communist Party as representative of China as a whole, I think it may be just a good refresher to take a quick social and anthropological lesson regarding China itself. At least history right after the rise in the CCP.

Contrary to what most people believe, the population in China feel fairly satisfied with the government. Many actually believe that the events during Tian an men square were not justified during a time of “economic and political” instability. Moreover, although it seems that many in China do like the government, it seems strange that many also recognize the power that the government holds over the population. This, I feel is an important concept to grasp: the people willingly accept the power of the government – there is a strange sense of satisfaction in the majority of the population.

Moreover, culturally and socially, the people of China are extremely proud. Last names are a symbol throughout families and there is a goal of honoring the family name: this can be visibly seen as there is a focus on having male children (heirs) and the refusal of many married couples of having shared last names. Maiden names seem permanent.

Finally, a third thing that should be recognized is that China finds previously conquered or controlled land to be permanently theirs. With the experience of colonization by the British as well as invasion by the Japanese, it seems as if the Chinese have a certain complex against losing any sort of power or footholds of control. The Boxer Rebellion as well as the refusal to accept Taiwan as a sovereign nation and the belief of some that even Okinawa belongs to Chinese influence complicates as well as explain certain international behaviors of the state.

With these three things in mind, let’s begin.

Chinese Rise

China is currently gaining in power in a region currently dominated by Japan and South Korea (under the umbrella of US military power.) With economic force as well as shows of military power in during the 2007 ASAT test as well as other dogmatic behavior in response to US requests. What does it mean? Keeping in mind the “colonization complex” we can postulate that the Chinese probably don’t like US power and forward military presence in the region on Japan or South Korea. This makes sense; however, the United States also probably don’t want foreign aircraft carriers just a few thousand miles from the coast.

But China isnt as satisfied with US control as South Korea or Japan. China wants a little bit of regional hegemony. With a long history, a proud population, as well as a history of being controlled by western influence, it obviously wants its own shot at the world stage. And a bit of control of the region like current US control of North America with NAFTA and influence would be proof of a “powerful” China.

Some say that China would rather keep the US in the region. That they fear a rise of Japanese or South Korea. Although this may seem like a probably theory, empirics as well as a peer into the psychology of the nation and population seem to disprove this. China has obviously shown multiple shows of power to the United States: following with an active space program, ASATS, and aircraft carriers itself pretty much show that the feel that the US should get out of their backyard. And bitter resentment of western influence in their history is probably more telling than the Japanese invasion. I think it’s pretty obvious that the country wants regional power and want the US out. The real question is thus: Would they be malevolent?

My guess

I think that they wouldn’t be malevolent. With a move toward the capitalist impulse and little less control on the actions of the populace with regards with the economic system, I think that the Chinese are more interested in fame, glory, and power in the context of making history and spreading the language than destroying nations or colonization. Given that current Chinese actions are fairly militarily showing, these malevolent actions are not for the sake of being malevolent, but rather a challenge to the US: we can match you too.

Thus, if the Chinese were to gain hegemony or at least regional hegemony, they would not be controlling, but rather similar to how the US behaves now. This is probably a bad assumption, but I think that I can conclude that this would be true. A Chinese rise would not be the end if the world; it would be a fairly non aggressive rise.

However, how would the US respond?

The Western Hemisphere

What happens after China rises to power and how the US would respond is a lot more complicated. I think there are two possibilities: a shift to a multipolar balance of power between China and the United States as forward military presence declines. Or the US latches onto hegemonic power and a very similar conflict will probably erupt between the United States and the Chinese. And I think the latter is probably a better possibility.

If China were to rise, the US would probably accommodate their new power. However, the US will refuse to leave Asia. Keeping allied credibility, relationships, and deterrence with SoKo and Japan would be extremely important to maintain. The United States would not just leave the region up to the Chinese with no guarantees. Even if China’s rise would have peaceful intentions, the US nor any other country in Asia would believe that. The US would probably dig in for as long as possible and voila we have another Cold War. But it’s doubtful who would win this time: an overextended America or an ambitious China.


It is difficult to depict the outcome. Although I believe that a rising Cina would be fairly peaceful, the transition process will definitely be heated and probably make any sort of peaceful intention turn south. In this sense, the United States should open up with more diplomatic efforts with China, including them with consultation in foreign policy. In the mean time, the US should build up a dig in Japan and SoKo for the inevitable conflict in the future. The only question is if the United State can keep China satisfied.

Tagged , , , , ,

029 – US Hegemony and Global Power Relations: Now What?

Ever since the end of the Great Depression and the massive socio-economic power that the United States of America had gained from the industry movement during World War II, the USA has been the global power hegemon. With the world’s most advanced military prowess, dollar hegemony, as well as influence in the political processes of other countries, the USA is still the clear, number one global power. Even with the recession as well as the domestic chaos the USA has been facing,  other countries still look to the USA as the international leader. Yet, does that power come with a price?

The Good

Empirically, the world has always been a lot more peaceful with an international power at it’s helm. The Dark Ages began with the fall of the Roman/Byzantine empires, the world was comparatively calmer during periods of British power in the colonial eras, and today, we don’t see the same great power wars (the World Wars) that occurred during times where international relations were confused and polarity was the dominant paradigm in power relations. Bradley Thayer, a professor in security studies at Missouri State, wrote that American power has promoted things such as improved relations, economic growth, democratic promotion, and a laundry list of other benefits of American power. Thayer continues to state in his article, “In Defense o Primacy,” that an American retrentchment would “would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy.” It would seem that American hegemony obviously seems like the best choice in comparison to transition conflicts and withdrawal. Today however, the same benign hegemony that the USA seemed to have in the 20th century is increasingly challenged.

The Bad

Today, multiple movements have sprung up in response to American interventionism. One the most poignant examples of this is probably the onset of terrorism and the American reaction to those actions. From the 9/11 to today, we can see that increased security measures as well as the War on Terror has lead to an almost paranoia regarding terrorism – especially domestically. Historically, acts of terrorism has never really garnered much of a large scale response compared to today’s security measures and wars. For example, the Branch Davidians never called into question security. However, this new wave of terrorism is not terrorism; it is a direct backlash against US power and hegemony. And these movements are just the tip of the iceberg of protests against US Hegemony.

Another prime example is the movement against Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa.  Many Okinawans are angry and starting protests against the forward deployed military forces on the island. Although the US is fairly liked  mainland Japan, the okinawans are extremely displeased to the point of influencing as well as bringing chaos to the political system with Hatoyama and Kan all resigning in period of two years. And these basing movements aren’t just centered in Okinawa; global protests are occurring that are directly challenging US forward military presence

Moreover, national governments are becoming increasingly annoyed with the US. China is looking to move onto the world stage with advances in GDP, education, military power, and space leadership. Other countries are also gaining power at the US expense. Although the United States of America is still considered the global hegemon – other countries can’t really do much in the face of US hard power other than asymmetrical poking – we are rapidly declining on the world stage, and it seems that nations like China are picking up the slack. Although we are still able to maintain good relations, it seems highly doubtful that other countries would find it in their best interests to listen to the United States if the trend continues.


However, an important question that must be asked before the US appeases critics of US hegemony. What is the alternative to US power. Some have suggested offshore balancing, others a new hegemon, and still others argue for a fully multipolar world. But what would happen in those transitions? Would the world fall into chaos as dollar, power, and military hegemony switch to a new power up for grabs? Or will it be as peaceful as the critics suggest? It seems clear that we should have an answer to thee questions BEFORE dismissing US power. In the meantime, the world won’t be as bad of a place to be in as some might suggest. We got this far. But, we’ll see if that peace can be maintained in today’s international climate.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

022 – The Semi-Colon

This may be a little strange, but in every essay I write, I always take the time to include a semi-colon.

I’ve always felt connected to the semi-colon and felt a little bit sorry for the semi-colon too. The semi-colon isn’t used much. Whenever it can be used for grammar or rhetorical purposes, it is almost always preferred to use the mundane period or the comma and conjunction. Very rarely does one see the semi-colon used in punctuation; it’s integral to the English language, yet, it is never discussed. It’s sort of a like the foundation for a building: it’s always there, but we will never really appreciate it until its gone. It’s the person you know who’s in the background, but is always there and can help you finish that sentence when you need it to.

The home-row contains some of the most commonly used characters in the English language. The semi-colon also is one of the eight keys that you rest your hands on in the home-row. Why is it so neglected? It seems like the inventor who developed the keyboard layout put it there for a reason. Have we moved away from the use of semi-colons? How has something so integral to the keyboard and the location for your hands to rest on virtually disappear from the English language?

Thus I end on an important note: why is it that the person so integral to our own existence and success disappeared from our own lives? Is it growing apart? Is it a failed relationship? Regardless of the answer to anyone of these rhetorical questions, it is probably a good idea to think in a moment of self-reflection. Even if those around you have grown apart, moved on, or even become semi-colons in your own language, remember that those people are still in the home-row of your thoughts and are just a tap of the right pinky finger away.


Tagged , , , , ,

021 – International Health

I guess I’ll stop writing like ee cummings for a bit in order to make my ideas more readable. Maybe I’ll like proper grammar, capitalization, and syntax a lot better than I expected. Anyways, the United Nations came together to host a summit addressing the proliferation of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. The concerns of the summit are summarized below (MSNBC):

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a report circulated Monday that while the international community has focused on communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, the four main noncommunicable diseases “have emerged relatively unnoticed in the developing world and are now becoming a global epidemic.”

According to the report, 36 million people died from noncommunicable diseases in 2008, representing 63 percent of the 57 million global deaths that year. Nearly 80 percent of deaths from these diseases were in the developing world, and 9 million deaths were of men and women under the age of 60, it said.

Although this may seem like a breakthrough, it really doesn’t seem to likely that the measure is going to do anything. It really is a symbolic declaratory statement rather than a tangible directive. The WHO itself admits that “The next step is to act on those commitments,” and we all know from Economics 101 that people always act on their own self interest. I really don’t think that any major US corporation or pharmaceutical company is interested in forwarding the sustainability of other countries when they are focused on maintaining their own standing within the United States’ damaged economy. In this sense, it would be hard for me to believe that even the federal government would act or take any declarative statement by the United Nations seriously  when the major problems that both the government and its citizens are concerned about revolve around the domestic issue of the economy and the larger (but US related issue) of the war in Afghanistan.

Secondly, the acting on non-communicable disease carries are certain stigma associated with the disease. Conditions like diabetes, lung cancer, and heart attacks are generally asscociated with lifestyle choices that shifts the blame from the environment or external factors to choices that the sufferer makes instead. When this preexisting notion exists and is associated with the disease, those diseases will seem to be almost voluntary to those who would be affected by an “act of charity.” Yet the problem is much deeper than this viewpoint suggests; the problems stems from both the deep cultural and socio-economic roots that the sufferers have. Although it may seem logical to just tell people to “stop eating butter” or, as Kevin James puts it, to “chew sugarless gum,” those measures wouldn’t work because the root is deeper than that.

Although I don’t believe that the problem of non-communicable diseases will perter-out anytime soon, I do appreciate the recognition by the U.N. as it is the first step towards formulating a coherent policy. Though it does seem empirically denied that similar declarations have accomplished anything substantial (RE: 2001 AIDS summit) and without government responsibility, that recognition will eventually go to waste.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

019 – Minecraft

so i have been playing minecraft a little bit more after a long break and things have changed alot. for those that don’t know what minecraft is or haven’t played the game before, it is a sandbox style game with an infinitely generated world created from individual blocks that the player can manipulate to create creative structures or even electric wiring mechanisms.although i think that my creations are actually really fantastic, some people seriously take the minecraft engine to its limits:

a bit old, but still awesome

well, long story short, a few of notch’s new updates to minecraft have improved it but utterly destroyed the old physics that kept my old world intact. my water elevator, for example, is utterly broken. now boats can’t defy logical physics and travel up a waterfall and can only float in a couple of blocks of water opposed to just one. to tell the truth, this method was the only way i could reach my house without inefficient ladders.

thanks notch, i love and despise you at the same time.

Tagged , , , , ,

018 – Space

apparently nasa has announced a new launch vehicle known as the “sls launch vehicle.” According to nasa:

“SLS is designed as NASA’s first new “space exploration-class” system since the Saturn V took astronauts to the moon more than 40 years ago. NASA hopes that SLS will enable it to explore “near-Earth asteroids, Mars and its moons and beyond.”

kind of like saturn 5, the space shuttle, and the various ares heavy launch vehicles right?

those worked out perfectly.

Tagged , , , , , ,

017 – Migration

so this is the first post on the new site. i guess this will end up becoming a blog with the occasional web-comic. you know, my thoughts and the like. oh wait, no one is reading this at the moment. maybe it’ll take time. and resources. and tablets, photoshop, good paper, sharpies….

guess I’ll work with what I got in this market economy:

p.s. – i’m obviously not capitalizing ironically for the rhetorical effect. wink wink.

Tagged , , , ,

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.