Second Blog Post:The Eagle and the Dragon: Superpowers of the Future

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has stood alone as the world’s pre-eminent superpower. The leader of several coalitions and a prominent member of several international institutions, the U.S. achieved hegemony over a significant portion of global politics. In the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, however, many scholars have called into question how long American hegemony can last. There is a lack of internal or military issues normally prevalent in dying superpowers, which refutes the notion that America is somehow in decline. Instead, China’s rise to the role of global power represents a shift from the unipolar system America has enjoyed for the past 20 years.

Comparing China’s rise to the U.S. at this apparent ebb in power is a debate often voiced as the end of American dominance in the world. Pessimists frequently cite Chinese increases in military spending and accumulation of U.S. debt as the basis for a decline in American power. While the Chinese economy has enjoyed generous GDP growth for years, the sluggish U.S. economy has experienced a slow recovery since the Great Recession. Finally, as China continues to assert its dominance in the East China Sea to the detriment of its Asian neighbors, America is being seen as submissive to the dominance that is China.

It’s easy to paint a picture of Chinese hegemony when the only thing focused on is the successes China has experienced. While these gains cannot be discounted, it overlooks the growth made by the U.S., as well as the wide gap separating the two countries. While China is a sole contender for the title of second world power, there is a great difference in terms of strength and economic power between it and the United States. With a distinct lack of external threats or internal instability, it is unlikely the U.S. is in decline. However, with a rise in the regional power of the world’s second largest economy, the age of unipolar rule has come to an end.

The end of sole American dominance, however, does not mean the world is destined to plunge into a Second Cold War marked by economic devastation and constant military threat. John Ikenberry, writing on the future of the western world in response to China’s rise, remarks that China will be facing a Western system of diplomacy. With the M.A.D. theory of war firmly in place, thanks to the U.S. and China’s respective stockpiles of nuclear weapons, war between the two great powers is unlikely, even as tensions mount in Asia over territory. Furthermore, with such strong economic ties existing between the two, the thought of a situation even remotely similar to the Cold War developing is highly improbable. China’s rise to dominance signals the inclusion of more eastern nations in global politics, but it will be included into a Western world order.

I remember seeing a political cartoon once that summed up the reality of U.S.-China relations. Using Uncle Sam and a Chinese Dragon to represent the two countries, the cartoon shows their reactions to one another over the decades, going from outright disdain, to formal recognition, to partners. In the final scene, which portrays modern day relations, the two entities are seen as conjoined together at the hand, unable to separate.  This, I feel, correctly sums up relations between the two. While the U.S. and China have their differences, and will continue to far so long as they both exist as nations, the modern system of trade, diplomacy, and military force dictates that they remain as partners.

This is not to say that America and China will ever become true allies, or even harbor any particular good feelings toward the other. It does, however, highlight the fact that the days of angry propaganda movies, communication through red telephones, and resounding threats coupled with banging shoes are now at an end.  The East vs. West dynamic may remain, but this is not the same Cold War of the past. China and the U.S. are partners, and are inexorably linked to one another. Each side is only capable of bringing both of them down, or bringing them both into prosperity. In a situation like this, it becomes safe to conclude that the Eagle and the Dragon, for all their history and differences, will cooperate in global politics as equals, if only because they must.

second blog post

After class on Friday I was hung up on the idea of what the best move is for America to make in regards to ISIS.  In class, I had decided that the U.S. would be smart to not play a very active role in Syria because we don’t want another situation liked we faced in Iraq.  But, upon further thought I think it is inconsiderate to decide that we should not be involved based mainly off of that reason, seeing as one of Americas main role in the world is the spreading of democratization and protecting people from the horrors (such as public beheadings) that have become a prominent issue as a result of ISIS. 

            I believe that it is very important for us to have soldiers on the ground there, it is through only that method that America can personally reach not only the dangerous front men of the operation but also the innocent victims of ISIS.  Although I do fervently believe we should send soldiers in, I also think that prior to that we take the time to map out a course of action.  For example, if we say we plan on being there for a year and then at that point either withdrawing troops or sending them back in.  I think the end goal should be to put someone new in office through a fair and free election.   This would show that the nation is back on the right path and that all the citizens in the nation are able to have a say in the government(as it should be).

            I also think it is important for The U.S. to have a plan in place if it seems that the state will completely fail.  I feel as though even thought The U.S. should be active in helping to better the situation there, if the government does completely collapse it is not the job of the U.S. to build it from the bottom up.   I think if this situation were to occur the best option would be to turn to the United Nations and have them ultimately craft a plan to re-build.  If the UN were to take on this role it would be important that the U.S. fully supported and helped to enforce plans made by the UN.  Hopefully this responsibility would be shared with other nations willing to help.  If for some reason the UN declined to take on this kind of project, I do not think the U.S. should take on rebuilding alone but instead should appeal to countries individually requesting help.

            What is most important is for the U.S. to not get too tied up in reputations but instead just do what is in the best interest of mankind and the victims of ISIS.  The ideals of the United States of America is what makes our country so unique and in the face of groups such as ISIS, it is the job of the U.S. to do our very best to get our soldiers there to better the situation.

Second Post

             In chapter ten of The Nation–State and Global Order Opello and Rosow introduce the “Modernization theory,” in which explains the process of transformation from traditional to modern societies (136). After learning about what the modernization theory implies through course readings and further research, I have concluded that I disagree with its approach. First it is important to know what characteristics differentiate a traditional society from a modern society. Traditional societies are characterized by small villages, subsistence agriculture, simple social structures, and particularistic behavior. Whereas modern societies are characterized by cities and towns, commercial agriculture, industry, complex social structures, and universalistic behavior (Opello and Rosow 136).

            The modernization theory explains that “the transition to modernity, the condition of being modern, would recapitulate the European experience (Opello and Rosow, 136). This implies that in order to become a modern society, every state must undergo through the exact same process of state transition as the Europeans states. A problem with this approach is that it is nearly impossible for all states to go through the same transition processes. A reason why this is almost impossible is primarily because each state derives from distinct conditions including location, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. In order for states to experience the same transition process, there must be a universal structure that demonstrates how the process must be done step by step. Another reason why this is unrealistic is because each state has a history in which are never the same as other states. Opello and Rosow further explain that the modernization theory “hides from view, and implicitly justifies, the power, violence, exploitation, and racism through which Europeans imposed the state in non-European areas (136). These impositions by the Europeans states influenced the history of each nation. For example the United States, a major component of the American history is the abolishment of slavery and later desegregation. These two events are only significant to the people in the United States and it affected the lives of the people in the United States, in which evidently was not the case in other states. Furthermore, this is also an example of state transitioning; the United States made a step to the transition to a modern society. Another problem that I find with this particular theory is that not all states have the necessary economic resources to transition into a modern society or have the ability to operate in such society. It is important to keep in mind that many traditional societies are financially dependent on modern societies. There is a reason why some states are more developed than others and the central factor is economy. If all states had the equal resources they would all be modern societies.

            The modernization theory has its advantages and disadvantages, but in my opinion it has more disadvantages. This theory requires the destruction of the indigenous cultures and replaces them by a more Westernized one. The modernization theory assumes that European states have reached the end of the transition process, which is wrong to assume considering the fact that technology is constantly advancing. The advancement of technology is one of the primary factors in a state’s transition.

Second Blog Post

In discussion on Friday we brought up an intriguing question: is Syria truly a failed state? With the readings and lectures explaining both the concept of a failed state and the current situation in Syria, opinion among the section was still somewhat divided on whether or not Syria met the criteria for a failed state. I believe that it is in fact a failed state, as it simply has too many established qualities of failed states. In addition, these negative traits also lead into other traits of failed states that at first it may appear Syria does not have.

            In lecture we formed a list of traits that qualify a state to be considered a failed state. Among these traits are civil war, social unrest, mortality rates, and lack of political control. Due to common knowledge of the situation in Syria, and especially after reading this week’s material, I believe Syria falls into all four of these categories, which combine to make up about half of the overall list. All of these traits are related, and the current conflict in Syria is a perfect display of all four of them. In the economist debate concerning military intervention in Syria, the moderator’s opening remarks show these problems at work in her overview of the situation at hand. Concerning the ongoing conflict in Syria, she states, “Eleven bloody months later, with more than 7,000 people dead in the government's continuing crackdown, those hopes are long gone.” (Delap, Economist debate)  Simply within this very general summary of the events of the conflict in Syria, Delap has managed to show a high mortality rate, civil war, and lack of political control.

While some may argue that there is at least an established government in Syria unlike other failed states, this established government clearly has no political control, as there are full-scale uprisings against it and a massive death toll among these continuing uprisings. This is also a very clear example of social unrest, which is a crucial aspect that I believe in itself constitutes a failed state. Specifically when social unrest is in the form of violent revolution, there is no possibility of a state being considered stable, which is one of the most vital attributes of non-failed states. In addition, these internal conflicts that can be considered a civil war also has undoubtedly lead Syria to other problems that we also established as criteria for a failed state.  As we touched on in lecture, civil war is almost guaranteed to doom a state in other areas besides those already mentioned. Civil war leads to economic instability as any war really would, but a nation spending money to murder its own people is truly economically crippling.  Civil war also leads to civil rights abuses, another important trait for failed states, as people hardly have freedom and other natural rights when their government is essentially at war with them.

Clearly, if Syria wasn’t a failed state before its ongoing civil war started it is a failed state today. The social unrest which lead to civil war lead to Syria having almost every trait of failed states, and it seems unlikely that military intervention would be necessary in any state that was not in fact a failed state.