A Never-Ending Story Inflating the Threat from North Korea.pdf (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Paradoxes of Paramountcy: Regional Rivalries and the Dynamics of American Hegemony in East Asia
Global Change, Peace & Security, 2003
In the 1970s and 1980s a number of observers argued that the United States had entered a phase of irreversible decline, in which its economy would not only be overtaken by Japan's, 2 but would prove incapable of underwriting its strategic ambitions. 3 Yet, by the end of the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the seemingly terminal demise of socialism as an alternative to capitalism, to say nothing of the East Asian financial crisis and the remarkable renaissance of the US economy, pessimism was replaced by triumphalism, 4 and expectations about the rise of Asia were eclipsed by visions of a new American century. American observers and strategists routinely talked of a new 'unipolar moment' in which American power was set to enjoy an unrivalled and enduring position of dominance at the heart of a broadly supported, stable international order. 5 The new millennium, however, has witnessed yet another reassessment of America's position.
Hegemonic transition in East Asia? The dynamics of Chinese and American power
Review of International Studies, 2009
The ‘rise of China’ is seen by some observers as a precursor of inevitable hegemonic competition in East Asia. At the very least, it seems likely that China’s influence in East Asia will grow at the expense of the United States. Whether this will eventually amount to a form of ‘hegemonic transition’ is far less clear, not least because of fundamental environmental constraints that potentially limit China’s rapid continuing development. While it is difficult to be certain about the long-term impact of such factors on either China’s development prospects or its domestic stability, it is an opportune moment to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of China and the US in East Asia. This paper provides such an analysis and suggests that the nature of hegemonic competition and transition is more uncertain and complex than some of the most influential theoretical understandings of hegemony would have us believe.
RISE OF ASIA: A CREDIBLE CHALLENGE TO THE HEGEMONY OF U.S. IN INTERNATIONAL ORDER?
The United States emerged as one of the most powerful nations in the world during the transition from the 19th to the 20th century. The U.S. succeeded the United Kingdom as the worldwide hegemon after the Second World War. Numerous International Relations scholars suggested that 1945 was the starting of a cycle in which the United States would rise as a worldwide hegemon and shape the world politics. These researchers also theorized that the U.S. will eventually drop and lose its status as hegemonic ruler of the world system. Thus what remains to be seen is which country will evolve as the world hegemon after the United States? Which country will be able to overcome the gains that the U.S. has made and obtain a legitimate position of dominance recognized by the other great powers? Various researchers anticipate China will be the next hegemon. A few see Russia as a resurgent power. Still others anticipate that India will rise as the world hegemon, while a few accept that the European Union will be able to overwhelm the U.S. This paper will discuss what are the possibilities that China or India might truly challenge the U.S. hegemony and what are the variations in western perception regarding the rise of China and India and the threat or opportunities that they pose to the United States.
Hegemonic instability and East Asia: Contradictions, crises and US power
Globalizations, 2010
One of the most influential theories in international political economy is that hegemonic power generally and the actions of the US in particular have been essential forces for stability in the international system. Yet even before the current financial crisis that has its origins in the US there were grounds for questioning this claim. Now the argument looks increasingly implausible. The essence of our argument in this article is that the US’s historical record suggests that it has often been a force for global instability, as it has opportunistically sought to shift the burden of economic adjustment onto others. We develop this argument by looking at US foreign policy toward East Asia in particular, which has been deeply affected by the actions of successive America administrations, and also examine the implications of recent efforts by states to manage hegemonic instability through an expanded role for the Group of Twenty.
American hegemony and regionalism: The rise of East Asia and the end of the Asia-Pacific
Geopolitics, 2006
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it seemed inevitable that the ‘Asia-Pacific’ would become one of the most important regions in the world. A number of events – especially the East Asian crisis and the continuing ‘War on Terror’ – have effectively overturned these expectations. The increased marginalisation and ineffectiveness of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the rise of the East Asian ‘ASEAN+3’ organization highlight the changing fortunes and perception of regional institutions and the very definition of regions themselves. This paper argues that American foreign policy is actually encouraging this process as East Asians seek to create mechanisms with which to promote more narrowly defined regional interests and off-set external influences.
The US Quest for Regional Dominance in Asia and the Chinese Challenge
2020
In the post-World War Two era, the United States has sought to play the role of a regional hegemon in the Asia-Pacific region. This quest has been organized on multiple fronts, including the establishment of military alliances, efforts to foster open markets and trade relationships, and the development of political ties through diplomacy. Initial policy was rooted in the assumption that Marxist-Leninist movements and regimes posed an existential threat to the United States. Eventually, the US policymakers were compelled to acknowledge the fallacy of their earlier perceptions as to the monolithic nature of the so-called Communist bloc. By the early 1970s, the presidential administration of Richard Nixon indicated its willingness to engage with China (a movement motivated in part by the desire of both sides to counterbalance against the Soviet Union). The establishment of formal diplomatic ties with China in 1979 coincided with the launching of China’s economic reform movement. In sub...
Hegemonic Stability and Northeast Asia: What Hegemon? What Stability?
Northeast Asia has traditionally been a region rife with historical and political conflicts that display characteristics that seem to follow a path of development different from other regions. As one goes through the massive inventory of international relations theory, it is still uneasy to find an explanation that befits developments in the region. This paper examines the hegemonic stability and evaluates its effectiveness in explaining developments in Northeast Asia, particularly the rise of China. In addition, this paper seeks to test the hegemonic stability theory by re-addressing US role in the region and challenges to the regional status quo.
Perspectives of Hegemony in the Eastern Asia in Light of the World-System Approach
World Economy and International Relations, 2020
Xi Jinping Comrades, On behalf of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I will now deliver a report to the 19th National Congress. The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China is a meeting of great importance taking place during the decisive stage in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and at a critical moment as socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era.