Climate Change and China’s Rise to Great Power Status: Implications for the Global Arctic

ASEAN has long promoted its key interests in a stable and autonomous Southeast by binding outside powers to ASEAN’s norms and institutions. Today, domestic political change, divergent interests among ASEAN countries, and the changing balance of power in the Asia-Pacific are eroding the ASEAN cohesion necessary for a collective ASEAN external policy. ASEAN policy is based on soft power and therefore is dependent on a stable balance of power. China’s rise has upset that balance, triggering Sino-American tensions and conflicts with some Southeast Asian states. ASEAN’s goals of regional stability and autonomy from great power hegemony are increasingly coming into conflict, which may force ASEAN members to choose between them.

Download Full-text

Can a Planet in Peril Contain Geopolitical Rivalries?

Global Perspectives ◽

10.1525/gp.2020.17071 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kishore Mahbubani

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

United States ◽

Rapid Growth ◽

Driving Forces ◽

The United States ◽

National Interests ◽

Comprehensive Strategy ◽

China’S Rise ◽

China's Rise ◽

Empirical Reasoning

This essay uses the tools of Western empirical reasoning to analyze the origins and driving forces of the ongoing geopolitical contest between China and the United States. The essay argues that the origins of the geopolitical contest lie in China’s rapid growth from the Deng era, the relative socioeconomic decline of the United States, and the failure of the United States to work out a rational, comprehensive strategy for managing China’s rise. Finally, in the fallout of the global COVID-19 pandemic, where the relations between the two countries have been further strained, the essay argues that the two countries can manage their geopolitical rivalry if they concentrate instead on five “noncontradictions” that also characterize their relationship: that between the fundamental national interests of both countries; in tackling climate change; in the ideological sphere; in the American and Chinese civilizations; and in their worldview.

Download Full-text

China in 2013

Asian Survey ◽

10.1525/as.2014.54.1.113 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 54 (1) ◽

pp. 113-128 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Thomas Heberer

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

Growth And Development ◽

Great Power ◽

Development Model ◽

China’S Rise ◽

Chinese Dream ◽

Foreign Policies ◽

China's Rise ◽

The Chinese Dream ◽

China’S Growth

In 2013, China’s new party and state leadership specified its domestic and foreign policies in the context of Xi Jinping’s vision of the “Chinese Dream.” A new reform package modifying China’s growth and development model has been announced. In foreign policy, a debate has commenced regarding another side of the “Chinese Dream”: China’s rise as a “Great Power.”

Download Full-text

China's Rise and U.S. Hegemony: Navigating Great-Power Management in East Asia

Asia Policy ◽

10.1353/asp.2019.0032 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 26 (3) ◽

pp. 41-60

Author(s):

Beverley Loke

Keyword(s):

East Asia ◽

Power Management ◽

Great Power ◽

China’S Rise ◽

China's Rise

Download Full-text

China’s Rise and “Responsibility” in the 21st Century

British Journal of Chinese Studies ◽

10.51661/bjocs.v10i0.56 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 40-60

Author(s):

Astrid HM Nordin ◽

Graham Mark Smith

Keyword(s):

21St Century ◽

Status Quo ◽

The Other ◽

Great Power ◽

International Policy ◽

China’S Rise ◽

Norm Compliance ◽

The Status ◽

China's Rise ◽

Alternative Understanding

In recent decades ‘responsibility’ has become a prominent idea in international political discourse. Against this backdrop, international policy and scholarly communities contemplating China’s rise regularly as “whether, when, and how” China will become a “responsible” great power. This article reviews, unpacks and questions understandings of responsibility in the debates about China. One strand of these debates argue that China can become responsible by adopting and promoting the existing status quo; the other argues that China acts responsibly when it challenges the unfair hegemony of the status quo. This article argues that both of these debates operate with a remarkably similar understanding of responsibility. Whether China adopts existing rules and norms, or whether it establishes rules and norms of its own, responsibility is understood to be rule and norm compliance. The article explores the possibility of an alternative understanding of responsibility suggested by Derrida. It is argued that a Derridian approach does not dispense with rules and norms, but is conscious of the irresolvable dilemma when faced with the demands of multiple others. Such an understanding is helpful insofar as it reminds those who would call for responsibility that such responsibility, and politics itself, is more than simply following rules and maintenance of norms.

Download Full-text