(Student’s Full Name)
The relationship between the United States and China has always been a strange one. This is because the United States have always struggled with the decision has to how best to deal with or approach China. Should China be seen as a threat? Or should this country be seen as an ally? In answering whether China should be perceived as a threat, experts in US foreign relations argue that a containment policy should be used to handle China as a threat to the free world as a rising military power. A containment policy adopted by the United States may require that China be denied access to markets while continuing “US military growth” (“Will China and the US Fight?” PowerPoint presentation 15). Furthermore, Andrew Browne noted that President Obama has implemented a containment policy that involves “bringing advanced American combat ships to Singapore, Marines to Australia and military advisers to the Philippines” (Browne par. 10). This is intended to help to “preserve the independence of smaller Asian nations” who do not want to “China’s territorial ambitions” (Browne par. 10).
On the other hand, some argue for an engagement policy that recognizes the benefits that can be had from cooperating with China. If the United States continues to cooperate with China then this would mean that “[c] onflict of interests can be resolved through negotiations” (“Will China and US Fight?” PowerPoint presentation 16). In addition, cooperation with China will recognize the fact that the “Chinese economic growth benefits” the “whole world” (“Will China and US Fight?” PowerPoint presentation 16). Furthermore, China’s cooperation is necessary on “major issues like terrorism and climate change” (“Will China and US Fight?” PowerPoint presentation 16).
Nevertheless, from the US’s perspective, it is rather difficult to decide on the best strategy to use when approaching China. This can be portrayed in the types of games that are used by the United States when approaching diplomatic relations with China. For instance, when using the Prisoner Dilemma theory in its approach to diplomatic relations with China, the US might consider the need to use antagonistic measures to deal with Chinese “expansionism” (Kai par. 3). In the scenario involving the Prisoner Dilemma, the “objective of the two nation-states in a direct confrontation” is to “protect themselves from the possibility of destruction or domination by the other” (Correa 6). In other words, when China and the US employ the principles of the Prisoner Dilemma game, then they will act in order to respond to the actions of the other so as to ensure that each other’s interest is preserved. The Prisoner Dilemma when the countries trade with the each other. For instance, the United States can decide to place tariffs on Chinese made goods, but the Chinese will respond by placing tariffs on American made goods. This will create a “[s] ub-optimal outcome” because both countries’ producers will lose profits (“Feb 10: Institutions and Game Theory” 6). The principles governing the Prisoner Dilemma explains that although the best scenario will be that one country imposes taxes and the other does not, this will most likely not happen. One country will retaliate when the other imposes taxes. This will also happen as it pertains to relationship with other countries in South Asia. Jin Kai observes that, from China’s perspective, US appears to “automatically support any party [in South Asia, specifically] that has trouble with China, either directly or indirectly” (Kai par. 3). This support might be military support or otherwise. China has responded by “dredging tiny coral reefs in the South China Sea to create runways, apparently for military jets” (Browne par. 9).
Nevertheless, it can be said that behaving in an antagonistic manner is necessary for nation-states because it allows them to retain power. For example, it has been proven that a high percentage of “non-democratic leaders clung to power after winning wars” (“Whose Interest Count? Do Politicians Spark War?” PowerPoint presentation 39). On the other hand, if a dictator loses a war, his chances of “retaining power after a loss are 50/50” (“Whose Interest Count? Do Politicians Spark War?” PowerPoint presentation 39). This may explain why China feels the need to expand its territory in East Asia. Furthermore, a democratic country, such as the US, will be able to gain from winning a war against China since a “third of democratic leaders who led their country into war” and won, lost the elections (“Whose Interest Count? Do Politicians Spark War?” PowerPoint presentation 39). On the other hand, losing a war still does not enable a democratic politician to retain his power since only “ten percent of elected leaders” who have lost their wars, return to power (“Whose Interest Count? Do Politicians Spark War?” PowerPoint presentation 39). In light of these statistics, it should be noted that the politicians should not be totally blamed for sparking wars in regions. It should be noted that China’s and the US’s leaders are mainly by the “politics of their country” (“Whose Interest Count? Do Politicians Spark War?” PowerPoint presentation 19). Moreover, it can be argued that the decisions of a leader are not influenced by the entire country, but by special interest groups and other actors within a country, especially as it pertains to the idea of going to war.
However, in the case of the US, it will be more beneficial to engage China in economic relations and trade. Furthermore, trade is “[m] utually [b] eneficial” for both parties involved (“Chapter 7: What’s So Good About Trade?” PowerPoint presentation 4). This is because it helps to facilitate the “[d] vision of labor” and “[s] pecialization” (“Chapter 7: What’s So Good About Trade?” PowerPoint presentation 4). In other words, free trade enables each country to become efficient at producing a specific product. For instance, free trade allows Japan to be efficient at creating automobiles and New Zealand, through free trade, is able to specialize in producing dairy products. Free trade ensures that nations are not required to be self-sufficient and are allowed to divide labor and specialize in a particular area of expertise. It is important that the US co-operates with China since it has an “increased share of global economic activity and increased capacity” (“FACT SHEET: US-China Economic Relations par. 1).
On the other hand, China, as a country with a totalitarian government, benefits from being in a war with the US. For instance, it was mentioned earlier that a totalitarian leader benefits from winning a war. Additionally, the US also benefits from having a war against China since it will ensure that the country will be contained and will not challenge its position as a super world power by expanding its territory.
In conclusion, I believe that the US-China relations are difficult to handle by both nations since each can gain benefits from co-operating with each other as well as being antagonistic to each other. If China cooperates with the US, it will be able to gain much from its trade with the US and vice versa. If the US becomes antagonistic towards China then it would be able to contain the efforts of China to expand its territory and further modernize its military. On the other hand, if China becomes antagonistic towards the US then it would be able to seriously challenge the US position as the super world power.
Works Cited
Browne, Andrew. “Can China Be Contained?” WSJ. Dow Jones and Company, 12 June 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-china-be-contained-1434118534>.
Chapter 7: What's So Good About Trade? N.p.: n.p., 14 Mar. 2016. PPT.
Kai, Jin. "The US, China, and the 'Containment Trap'" The Diplomat. N.p., 30 Apr. 2014. Web. 22 May 2016. <http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/the-us-china-and-the-containment-trap/>.
“FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Economic Relations.” The White House. The White House, 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/fact-sheet-us-china-economic-relations>.
Feb 10: Institutions and Game Theory N.p.: n.p.: n.p., n.d. PPT.
Whose Interests Count? Do Politicians Spark War? N.p.: n.p., 24 Feb. 2016. PPT.
Will China and the US Fight? N.p.: n.p., n.d. PPT.
