US China Relation Essay Draft3 Modifications

Q/ Is the War between the US and China improbable or inevitable?

Introduction:

In this essay, I will address the relationship between the United States and China by asserting that war between them is improbable. Assuring that strengthening of economic cooperation is the most proper choice for avoiding war, the U.S. and China are likely to assess that the cost of war is far greater than the cost of peace. However, there are some situations which will be discussed, where one side, or a country in the region, may decide that war is worth the risk, although this is unlikely. For students exploring international relations, understanding such dynamics is crucial, making politics dissertation help essential for deeper insights.

The corresponding essay would be deliberative about the explanations and assumptions regarding the proposition of future war between USA, China and its neighbours and the possibility of such a war being a regional as well as global disaster, both in terms of the economic perspective and the politico-social stability based aspects. The study would then delve into the existing and ever expanding benefits of international benefits amongst China and the USA. The study would as well consider the political exchanges between the national administrative leaders of both the countries such as JiXingpeng and Donald Trump and how these might increase the chance of conflict. In the final section, it will look at how war between the U.S. and China may be caused accidentally, however, the improbability of it would be emphasised upon. The developed conclusion is based on the extensive interdependence of these two countries regarding trade exchanges on the international level. The cost of war is also another factor in this regard and this reinforces the improbability of any future war. One of the main reasons for this has been defined by Webb and Krasner, the U.S. still carries the role of “hegemonic leadership” in the world, which will be discussed later in terms of military and financial power.

Emphasis has been also concentrated upon the prospect of the diplomatic narrative of formulation of “peace through strength,” as has been propounded by Risse Kappen, which could established between the political antagonists of China and the USA despite the expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the historical instances of “Detente” between the equally hostile USSR and the USA during the Cold War due to the prevailing nuclear status quo, could be outlined in this perspective as well. The fact which could emerge in this respect is the existing difficulty of China to compete with the USA in every sphere and this could entail a position of strength for the USA which could be utilised a bargaining instrument by the USA.

Additionally, several scholars have questioned the presumed overtaking of the USA by China in terms of global influence. According to Beckley (2011), China would acquire greater quantity of power through

^1. jstor.org, 1989. Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097178?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^2. jstor.org, 1991. Did "Peace Through Strength" End the Cold War? Lessons from INF [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2539054.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

greater “absorptive capacity” of new technology and USA would acquire greater quality of power through greater “intangible assets”. The ensuing cost of war could as well deter both the political antagonists from getting engaged into outright conflict. This had been amply demonstrated during Korean War of 1951 which was one of the most destructive wars in the history of the 20th Century involving the North Korean campaign to reunite South Korea with itself and the subsequent United Nations intervention there, lead by the U.S. Forces. The material, human and financial casualties of this war drove home the futility of the prospects of going to war even with the latest equipment and technology since any new conflict would render both the nations at extremely disadvantageous positions in terms of recuperation from the incurred losses, more so, from the evident fact of both the countries having far greater destructive capabilities than those which they had employed during the Korean conflict. In this respect, it is to be acknowledged that greater force projection capabilities such as that of a superior naval force could enable the USA to have greater leverage in this respect over China. As Ikenberry argued, the world is still seeing the “unipolar” moment where U.S. military power is allowing a higher level of peace than before, despite the tide of rising global conflict. Ikenberry has said, “With the rise of American unipolarity, stability and peace are guaranteed by the wielding of power by a single Superstate.”

Therefore, war is made less likely, if we follow Hegemonic Stability Theory. The extensive military expenditures of both China and the USA could establish a “balance of power” theory. Scweller describes the Structural Realist view of this theory, where “system balance is a spontaneously generated, self-regulating, and entirely unintended outcome of states pursuing their narrow self-interests.”

Certain different explanations abound regarding the improbability of any conflict taking place between the USA and China and one such explanation could be understood to be the liberalist theories of global trade which emphasises peace amongst nations as a prerequisite for economic progression and financial stability maintenance. The dual factors of hegemonic economic capabilities and superior military expenditure of the USA, in the form of 677.1 billion dollars during 2018, coupled with the possession of greater numbers of thermonuclear weapons on part of the USA in comparison with China who also possesses large arsenal of thermo nuclear weapons, could ensure the improbability of war taking place. This realisation brings into consideration the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The U.S. possesses more nuclear missiles within its land forces than China has in its full nuclear arsenal, with 400 silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and hundreds more nuclear weapons held by naval and air forces. However, the greater military power possession by the USA does not denote the proposition of declaration of war by the USA over China in the events of political contention over Taiwan or regarding lending of support to other Asian countries against China, such as that of Japan, by the USA. From the Chinese view, Shifrinson (2018) argues that China will struggle to match the U.S. militarily and, Take a deeper dive into East Village: Urban Design Impact with our additional resources.

^3. academic.oup.com, 2005. Power and liberal order: America's postwar world order in transition [online] Available at: https://academic.oup.com/irap/article/5/2/133/2357368] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^4. oxfordre.com, 2016. The Balance of Power in World Politics [online] Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-119] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

using balance of power theory, he argues that China may prefer to continue, or even increase cooperation with the U.S.

On the other hand, the risk of commencement of conflict could not be ruled out between the USA and China given the expansion in the Chinese military budget allocation to150 billion US dollars in 2017, excluding the expenditure of research and development as well as miscellaneous costs. It is also reported that China has 20 ICBMs, 10 transportable silo-based ICBMs, 40 mobile ICBMs and 16 mobile intermediate-range ballistic missiles IRBM in its land forces, in addition to 4 SSBN with 48 SLBM. Although China has 0 nuclear-capable bomber aircraft so far, it has been expected to have up to 50 in 2037.

Henry Kissinger makes this argument when he writes that China is probably aware of its weak military position, not only because of the U.S., but because it is surrounded by countries that are friendly to the U.S., or afraid of China: “China today faces Russia in the north; Japan and South Korea, with American military alliances, to the east; Vietnam and India to the south; and Indonesia and Malaysia not far away. This is not a con- stellation conducive to conquest. It is more likely to raise fears of encirclement.”

Such a precarious neighbourhood of China is conducive for the USA for dominating force projection since some of these countries could become bases during any conflict scenario for the mobilisation of military assets of the USA and this drives home the situational implications which China does face now on the military fronts.

The trade structure of the two complementary countries, coupled with the nature of the economic conditions in both countries, has been responsible for the consistent expansion of trade between China and the USA and this provides another hurdle in the occurrence of war between them. This also heightens the cost of war since the increased mutual trade has been responsible to benefit both the countries in terms of national economic growth rate increment.

^5. tandfonline.com, 2018. The rise of China, balance of power theory and US national security: Reasons for optimism? [online] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390.2018.1558056?af=R&journalCode=fjss20] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^6. Kissinger, H.A., 2012. The future of US-Chinese relations: conflict is a choice, not a necessity. Foreign Affairs, pp.44-55

^7. ustr.gov, 2018. Office of the United States Trade Representative [online] Available at: https://ustr.gov/] [Accessed 30/12/2018.]

Furthermore, the increased trade between the two countries contributes in dampening the risks of ensuing war and various theoretical constructs attest to the proposition of trade volume increment reducing international conflict. McDonald (2004) argues in favour of the capability of the bilateral trade of fostering better communication and financial links along with the interdependence between different nations and societies.

Martin, Mayer and Thoenig (2007) also attest in favour of increment of trade volume having the capability of reducing risks of war. They write that, “Bilateral trade, because it increases the opportunity cost of bilateral war, deters bilateral war.”

During the following Deng Xiaopeng period, this caused China to seek economic cooperation with the U.S.A. According to Bingxi (2009):

“China-U.S. bilateral trade had increased by 305 times from US$0.99 billion in 1978, the year when China launched reform and opening-up, to US$302.08 billion in 2007; the total amount of U.S. directs investment in China had grown from US$210 million in 1978-82 up to US$58.44 billion by the end of July 2008.”

This situation has not changed, in fact trade between the two nations has increased, with the combined value of U.S. exports and imports from China reaching $636 billion during 2017.

However, the culmination of the Obama presidency tenure has witnessed increasing tensions in the bilateral relations between the two countries. Kissinger writes that this tension is the partial result of inadequate diplomatic contacts between the two countries, but not the result of a dearth in bilateral trade:

^8. journals.sagepub.com, 2004. Peace through Trade or Free Trade? [online] Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002704266117] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^9. parisschoolofeconomics.eu. 2008, Make Trade Not War? [online] Available at: https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/koenig-pamina/martinmayerthoenig.pdf ] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^10. ciis.org.cn, 2006. China-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations: A Win-Win Partnership [online] Available at: https://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2009-08/21/content_3815090.htm] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^11. statista.com, 2019. Total value of U.S. trade in goods (export and import) with China from 2006 to 2017 (in billion U.S. dollars) [online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/277679/total-value-of-us-trade-in-goods-with-china-since-2006/] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

“The two countries adopted a number of steps, establishing a high-level forum for strategic and economic dialogue, which meets twice a year. The event was productive on urgent issues, but remains at the foothills of its ultimate mission to produce a truly global economic and political order.”

Maintenance of stability through bilateral trade could be jeopardised through hike in trade tariffs by President Trump on Chinese exports and this could result in a substantial crisis and this could be exacerbated through customs duty adjustments with potential disastrous consequences. The implications of such development could have extensive negative ramifications for the bilateral relationship of both countries. As Obama had said in 2009, "if the two countries do not succeed in correcting deep economic imbalances, they will impose 'enormous strains' on their relationship”.

The consequential agreements on tariffs and intellectual property have contributed to some extent of reduction of trade tensions by 2019 between the countries. The persisting allegations of industrial espionage and copying of U.S. technology by China had conjured up the tariffs and intellectual property related tensions. This leads to the third part of this essay, which argues that although the very high levels of trade between the two nations and their military capabilities makes war unlikely, there are a number of situations which can increase risks. Instances could be highlighted such as Taiwan crisis of 1996 with Chinese ballistic missile tests, the crushing of Tiananmen Square protests in June 1989 previously, and placement of Chinese claim of ownership of 200 islands and coral reefs regarding the dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands/ Diaoyu islands. However, such incidents could remain confined as sources of conflicts between regional countries such as Japan and China and may not involve the U.S.A.

The uncertainty of the diplomatic relationship has been further fostered by the shift of attention of the Obama administration towards Asia in the form of “Pacific Pivot,” which has been continued by President Donald Trump. The depreciation of trust between the countries has been fostered by factors such as espionage and territorial disputes and Chinese territorial ambitions on Taiwan. However, avoidance of conflict through containment of competition is key in this respect. The “America first” doctrine of the Trump Presidency is poised to change the policy orientation and the Chinese extra-territorial ambitions in the Pacific region are also inadvertent impetus for continuation of U.S. military alliance with the Asia nations. The cost of involvement including the 60% strength deployment by the U.S. Navy could be called into question by the Trump presidency despite the incremental trend in the defence budget of USA.

^12. Kissinger, H.A., 2012. The future of US-Chinese relations: conflict is a choice, not a necessity. Foreign Affairs, pp.44-55.

^13. reuters.com, 2003. 'Obama Warns Strains Unless US, China Balance Growth', [online] Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-china-idUSTRE5A85AQ20091111] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^14. Morton, K., 2016. China's ambition in the South China Sea: is a legitimate maritime order possible?. International Affairs, 92(4), pp.909-940.

Despite some minor tensions within China, the global financial crisis in 2008 did not jeopardise the bilateral relations between USA and China. According to Chow (2010) the U.S. pressured China to allow its currency to appreciate at a time when China was struggling to stop the effects of the financial crash. Chow argues,

“Adding to the tensions is a perception by many in China that the United States triggered the global financial crisis by creating the subprime mortgage problem that led to the financial downfall. From China’s perspective, the United States caused the global financial crisis and is now threatening to prevent China from taking the necessary steps to recover from the crisis. This perception could escalate tensions in United States China economic relations.”

The recovery from the after effects of the global financial crisis by both countries could be signified from launching of the stimulus programs by the USA to restore growth and enhance demand and from the resumption of Chinese national economic growth to the rates of pre-crisis period. This has ensured the continuation of positive relationships between the two countries. However, the detrimental effects of imposition of customs duties on Chinese exports and proclamation of trade war against China by the Trump administration have ratcheted up tensions regarding the economic protectionism efforts of Trump Presidency. China responded by imposing 25 percent customs duties on 128 US goods, mainly pork and wine, hitting U.S. imports to the value of $ 3 billion.

However, the advent of trade war could be contained in the financial domain only. On the other hand, the threat to “hegemonic stability” of the USA with the rise of China, could be a serious impetus of conflict since research forecast determine that China would hold predominance over the USA regarding total GDP by the middle of the century at most (Implications of the Financial Crisis for the US-China Rivalry Aaron L. Friedberg). This means that China will be able to spend an increasing amount on its defence budget. The U.S. National Intelligence Strategy in 2008 predicted that by 2025, China would be taking the lead over the U.S. in some areas.

^15. engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu, 2010. China’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis:Implications for U.S. – China Economic Relations[online] Available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=gblr] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^16. reuters.com, 2018. Factbox: Tariff wars - duties imposed by Trump and U.S. trading partners [online] Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-tariffs-factbox/factbox-tariff-wars-duties-imposed-by-trump-and-u-s-trading-partners-idUSKCN1NZ2GB ] [Accessed in 1st January.2019]

^17. Nye Jr, J.S., 2010. American and Chinese power after the financial crisis. The Washington Quarterly, 33(4), pp.143-153.

The status quo alteration regarding the dominant and emergent global powers is the source of considerable concern for researchers and policymakers about the possibility of a war between America and China. Richard Ned Lepo and Ben Valentino point out that the "transition of power" has become "an acceptable framework for many scientists and policymakers who focus on Asia".(Power Transitions: Thucydides Didn’t Live in East Asia David C. Kang and Xinru Ma 2018 ) Rauch and Wurm (2013) describe how Power Transition Theory predicts how a hegemon is likely to come into violent competition with a rising challenger.

There is reason to believe that Power Transition Theory applies well to Asia, but it is arguably less useful when we consider that China’s rise is slowing down. With the Chinese defence budget equalling one third of the defence budget of the United States and the fast pace of Chinese military capability expansion, the traditional advantage of the USA regarding the superiority of military strength is seeming to be slowly negated as time progresses. With Trump's policy toward East Asia, China's priority has become clearer, and might even extend to pushing U.S. influence out of the region. If China pursues this as a policy, it would prove Transitional Power Theory as being correct, but until there is such a crisis, we will not know if this is the case.

According to Roach, disputes over specific issues occur often, but on their own do not affect the major trade interdependence of the two nations:

“Frequent disputes over intellectual property rights, subsidies and monetary values will not be a major threat to bilateral flows of trade, investment, and the greater political relationship between the United States and China.”

China, despite its pursuit of regional leadership and leading the world scene, has serious internal problems and must manage its social, environmental and economic issues in a way that allows it to play an international leading role. Susan Chirk says China is "strong abroad but fragile at home."

Supporting this view, David Shambao argues how "the political system in China is badly broken.” Political surveillance, suppression of freedoms and violations of human rights, as well as corruption, have

^18. jstor.org, 2013. Making the world safe for power transition-Towards a conceptual combination of power transition theory and hegemony theory [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/jglobfaul.1.1.0050?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^19. Brands, H., 2018. American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump. Brookings Institution Press.

^20. Roach, S.S., 2009. Manchurian paradox. The National Interest, (101), pp.59-65.

^21. Shirk, S.L., 2007. China: fragile superpower. Oxford University Press.

increased during the era of Xi Jingping. Supporting this point, China's spending on homeland security is said to be far more than spending on external security.

Overall, both nations would still be extremely unlikely to go to war, almost regardless of how serious their internal divisions are.

Conclusion

Washington and Beijing would be better off avoiding any tension that could lead to a crisis in relations, including territorial disputes over the South China Sea and tensions over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Beijing may take 10 years or more to match its military capabilities with the United States, but they will be wary of a military confrontation with Washington. Beijing would be critically inclined towards investment of the differential military capabilities which it has, towards achievement of a supporting measure of foreign policy implementation in a secondary nature and international diplomacy would be leading the charge of Chine global ambition fulfilment. This entails the strengthening of global Chinese diplomatic relations and projection of soft power in the form of economic influence through trade dominance so as to foster greater economic cooperation with other nations. A major part of this strategy, focused on facilitating Chinese trade and influence, is the $1 trillion One Belt and One Road (OBOR) project. One significant instance of such initiatives could be outlined to be the under construction of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

While the future is uncertain, both Donald Trump and President Jingping have expressed extreme views especially on trade and Taiwan. However, both Presidents are deal makers and both will probably compromise to support their country's core interests.

A lot of shared interests have been identified by scholars between the U.S. and China; preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, combating climate change and countering piracy on the high seas.

^22. wsj.com, 2015. “The Coming Chinese Crackup,” Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-chinese-crack-up-1425659198 ] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^23.reuters.com, 2013. China Hikes Defense Budget, To Spend More on Internal Security Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chinaparliament-defence/china-hikes-defense-budget-to-spend-more-on-internal-security-idUS BRE92403620130305 ] [Accessed on: 18th January, 2019]

^24. Schultz, K.A., 2017. Perils of Polarization for US Foreign Policy. The Washington Quarterly, 40(4), pp.7-28.

^25. Allison, G., 2017. China vs. America: Managing the Next Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Aff., 96, p.80.

^26. Etzioni, A., 2017. Avoiding War with China: Two Nations, One World. University of Virginia Press.

However, the distinct possibility of either tactical or strategic level confrontation between the conventional and non-conventional combat forces of the of the two nations, does exist regarding the escalation or tension in the situation in China's eastern and southern seas which is a volatile region. This could entail the application of high-precision weapons and serious damage could be inflicted upon each of the contending forces. In this situation, neither side is likely to be victorious, while the risk of nuclear war could cause a global catastrophe. Even in the event that both sides were able to launch a short war without nuclear weapons, the devastation that this war will cause to the world economy means that either side will think hard about peaceful options.

Supporting this idea, AmitaiEtzonihas written that, (2017) “I strongly believe that war is justified only when all other means for settling conflicts have been exhausted”. China and the U.S. are a very long way away from exhausting peaceful ways of resolving disputes. As previously mentioned, the internal challenges each country faces mean that economic cooperation is more likely to enhance political stability and international peace and security.