scholarly journals Nordeste Asiático como Eixo das Disputas Hegemônicas: competição e desestruturação da ordem regional

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 611-644
Author(s):  
Pedro Vinícius Pereira Brites
Keyword(s):  
North Korea ◽  
International System ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Cold War

A região do Nordeste Asiático destaca-se por sua singularidade geopolítica. É uma região na qual predominam atores cujas ações possuem alcance global, mesmo quando se trata da Coreia do Norte, o país mais pobre da região. Além da Coreia do Norte, as interações entre China, Rússia, Japão, Coreia do Sul, e Estados Unidos como potência extrarregional com presença militar na região, afetam a distribuição de poder no Sistema Internacional. A consolidação da China como Grande Potência reconfigurou a região e tem evidenciado o papel crucial que esse subsistema regional exerce para a polaridade no século XXI. Nos últimos anos, a consolidação do programa nuclear norte-coreano, a ascensão de Xi Jinping na China, a busca por reafirmação japonesa, a chegada de Donald Trump ao poder, reorientam as relações regionais. O presente artigo procura discutir as transformações na ordem regional no Nordeste Asiático desde o final da Guerra Fria até seus desdobramentos recentes e seus efeitos sobre as disputas hegemônicas. Assim, avaliam-se os processos que vêm ampliando a tendência à militarização e competição na região e o papel que a dissuasão nuclear exerce como fator determinante para o balanço regional.     Abstract: The region of Northeast Asia stands out for its geopolitical singularity. It is a region dominated by actors whose actions are global in scope, even when it comes to North Korea, the region's poorest country. In addition to North Korea, interactions between China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States as an extra-regional power with military presence in the region affect the distribution of power in the International System. The consolidation of China as a Great Power has reconfigured the region and has highlighted the crucial role that this regional subsystem plays in polarity in the twenty-first century. In recent years, the consolidation of North Korea's nuclear program, the rise of Xi Jinping in China, the search for Japanese reaffirmation, reorient regional relations. This article discusses the transformations in the regional order in Northeast Asia from the end of the Cold War until its recent unfolding and its effects on the hegemonic disputes. Thus, are evaluated the processes that have been increasing the tendency towards militarization and competition in the region and the role that nuclear deterrence plays as a determining factor for the regional balance. Keywords: Northeast Asia; Hegemonic Recomposition; Regionalism.     Recebido em: Agosto/2018. Aprovado em: Dezembro/2018.

The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Layne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
Global Power ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
Will Power ◽  
The Cold War

Over the next two decades, international politics will be shaped by whether the international system remains unipolar or is transformed into a multipolar system. Can the United States sustain its primacy? Or will the emergence of new great powers reorder the distribution of power in the international system? If U.S. power is waning, will power transition dynamics result in security competitions and an increased possibility of war? In particular, what are the implications of China's rapid ascent to great power status? If the United States is unable to preserve its hegemonic role, what will happen to the security and economic frameworks that it took the lead in creating after the end of World War II and that have provided the foundation for the international order ever since? In a world no longer defined by U.S. hegemony, what would become of globalization and the open international economic system that the United established after World War II and expanded after the Cold War ended? This essay reviews five publications that grapple with these questions: Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy; Parag Khanna, The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order; Kishore Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East; National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World; and Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World.

South Korea’s ties with key countries will worsen

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
Content Type ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
The Us

Subject South Korea's international relationships. Significance South Korea’s government is celebrating the success of its response to COVID-19, but the country’s four key foreign relationships all face difficulties -- those with the United States, China, Japan and North Korea. No other countries or regions are vital to Seoul, despite vaunted ‘Southern’ and ‘Northern’ initiatives. Impacts A prolonged deadlock on funding the US military presence in South Korea could push Seoul closer to Beijing. If President Xi Jinping visits South Korea later this year, Washington could easily misread this. Substantial fence-mending with Japan may have to await new leaderships in both countries. South Korean President Moon Jae-in may have tacitly given up on North Korea, which has visibly given up on him.

The Chinese Economy and its impact on international trade (Study on the role of the port of Gwadar)

2020 ◽  
pp. 11-34
Author(s):  
أ.د.حميد شهاب احمد ◽  
م.م.زيدون سلمان محمد
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chinese Economy ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Important Region ◽  
Road Project ◽  
Trade Study

China's economic policy and its huge capabilities operate according to an expansion strategy, especially in investing foreign projects, as the past ten years have witnessed a major development in the elements of comprehensive strength, especially in the economic field, in 2014 China launched the largest initiative in the world, represented by the Belt and Road Project (BRI), which links nearly 70 countries, through this project, a very important region has emerged, which is (the port of cadres) in Pakistan, as China has headed towards that region and given the highest importance that is in its interest in the first place regardless of the great Pakistani interest, This is consistent with its future aspirations, especially after breaking the economic monopoly of the West, specifically (the United States), as it is a force in a state of decline and is no longer the dominant force economically. Which, in turn, led to the generation of an obsession with fear of this power and what it poses from a potential threat to the entire global economy, and what it seeks in the future to employ cadres not only to develop its economy and compete with other countries commercially , rather it takes another place aimed at increasing the Chinese military presence in the region, especially as China continues to work to develop everything available to its pioneering path in the international system in order to distinguish China as a major country and perhaps a superpower.

Finding Faith in Foreign Policy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregorio Bettiza
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Aid ◽  
First Century ◽  
Sacred Landscapes ◽  
Muslim Politics ◽  
The Cold War

Since the end of the Cold War, religion has been systematically brought to the fore of American foreign policy. US foreign policymakers have been increasingly tasked with promoting religious freedom globally, delivering humanitarian and development aid abroad through faith-based channels, pacifying Muslim politics and reforming Islamic theologies in the context of fighting terrorism, and engaging religious actors to solve multiple conflicts and crises around the world. Across a range of different domains, religion has progressively become an explicit and organized subject and object of US foreign policy in ways that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. If God was supposed to be vanquished by the forces of modernity and secularization, why has the United States increasingly sought to understand and manage religion abroad? In what ways have the boundaries between faith and state been redefined as religion has become operationalized in American foreign policy? What kind of world order is emerging in the twenty-first century as the most powerful state in the international system has come to intervene in sustained and systematic ways in sacred landscapes around the globe? This book addresses these questions by developing an original theoretical framework and drawing upon extensive empirical research and interviews. It argues that American foreign policy and religious forces have become ever more inextricably entangled in an age witnessing a global resurgence of religion and the emergence of a postsecular world society.

Peaceful Change in Northeast Asia: Maintaining the “Minimal Peace”

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhubhindar Singh
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
Institutional Structure ◽  
Economic Interdependence ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
The Cold War

Northeast Asia is usually associated with conflict and war. Out of the five regional order transitions from the Sinocentric order to the present post–Cold War period, only one was peaceful, the Cold War to post–Cold War transition. In fact, the peaceful transition led to a state of minimal peace in post–Cold War Northeast Asia. As the chapter discusses, this was due to three realist-liberal factors: America’s hegemonic role, strong economic interdependence, and a stable institutional structure. These factors not only ensured development and prosperity but also mitigated the negative effects of political and strategic tensions between states. However, this minimal peace is in danger of unraveling. Since 2010, the region is arguably in the early stages of another transition fueled by the worsening Sino-US competition. While the organizing ideas of liberal internationalism—economic interdependence and institutional building—will remain resilient, whether or not minimal peace is sustainable will be determined by the outcome of the US-China competition.

Negotiating the Cold War: The United States and the Two Koreas

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Steven Hugh Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Agreed Framework ◽  
Peace Settlement ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractSince December 1997, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States have met in a series of talks aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region. According to a November 1998 U.S. Department of Defense report, the discussions have created a “diplomatic venue for reducing tensions and ultimately replacing the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace settlement.”1 Amidst the tragic human suffering which has occurred in North Korea, there have been some encouraging developments on the peninsula. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea placed international controls on North Korea’s atomic energy program and cautiously anticipated the normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. Since assuming power in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has vigorously pursued a policy of engagement with P’yo¨ngyang, known as the “sunshine policy.” Over the past decade, North Korea has also reoriented its foreign policy. In the early 1990s, the regime’s social and economic crisis led to a rethinking of its autarkic economic system. By early 1994, the state had created new free trade zones and relatively open foreign investment laws.2 By complying with the Agreed Framework, the DPRK has also shown a willingness to work with the international community on sensitive issues affecting its internal sovereignty and ability to project power beyond its borders.

scholarly journals Is China Trying to Push the U.S. out of East Asia?

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 59-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
Western Discourse ◽  
The Future ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
The U.S

One of the key questions for understanding the future trajectory of regional order is whether or not China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order. Some Western analysts accuse China of pursuing the Monroe Doctrine and excluding the United States from the region. This article argues that the Western discourse of China practicing the Monroe Doctrine is a misplaced characterization of China's behavior. Rather than having intention of pushing the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order, China is pursuing a hedging strategy that aims at minimizing strategic risks, increasing freedom of action, diversifying strategic options, and shaping the U.S.' preferences and choices. This can be exemplified in five issue areas: China's ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and China's foreign policy activism, China-Russia relations, the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the New Asian Security Concept, as well as China-U.S. relations. Beijing has explicitly acknowledged the U.S. predominance in the international system and reiterated its willingness to participate in and reform the existing system. It concludes by suggesting that, for a more peaceful future to emerge in East Asia, the United States and China, as an incumbent power and a rising power, will have to accommodate each other, and negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries of their relative power, as well as their respective roles in the future regional order where Beijing and Washington would learn to share responsibilities and leadership.

scholarly journals Rethinking the Security Architecture of North East Asia

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 273
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelly ◽  
Sean Watts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cold War

In the aftermath of the Cold War, many began to question the continuing efficacy, or at least call for reform, of collective security structures such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations Security Council. Yet, North East Asia never enjoyed a formal, institutionalised collective security structure. As Russia and the United States recede and China emerges in North East Asia, this article questions whether now is the time to consider such an arrangement. Financially, Japan and South Korea are locked into a symbiotic relationship with China (as is the United States), while the government in Beijing continues to militarise and lay territorial and maritime claims to large areas of the region. Moreover, the regime in North Korea, with its new nuclear capabilities, remains unpredictable. Consequently, central components to the question of collective security in North East Asia are the equally vexing questions of what to do about North Korea and whether a new formalised security arrangement would include or exclude the People's Republic of China.

Challenging US Hegemony: The Ukrainian Crisis and Russian Regional Order

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-95
Author(s):  
Michael O. Slobodchikoff
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Dynamic Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Order ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
The Cold War

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was reduced from the role of a global hegemon to that of a regional hegemon. As the regional hegemon, Russia was responsible for creating a regional order that was nested within the global order. However, since the Soviet Union had collapsed, it could not be assumed that Russia would create a regional order that was compatible with the global order. Would Russia create a regional order that was incompatible with the global order, and further, would Russia be a dissatisfied state that would challenge US hegemony? Using network analysis, I discover that Russia created a regional order that was compatible with the global order. In other words, Russia did not directly challenge the global order. More specifically, Russia accepted the global order that existed at the end of the Cold War. Providing that the global order remained static, Russia would not challenge that order. However, US actions following the collapse of the Soviet Union such as the expansion ofnatoand the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are interpreted by Russia as a dynamic change in the global order. The Ukrainian crisis further exacerbated the wedge that had developed between the United States and Russia. It has further isolated Russia, destroyed the regional order nested within the global order, and ensured that Russia fully became a dissatisfied state looking to challenge US hegemony. Russia will now turn to China to try to challenge US hegemony.

1. Theories of US foreign policy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Defensive Realism ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines some of the competing theories that have been advanced to explain U.S. foreign policy. In trying to explain the foreign policy of the United States, a number of competing theories have been developed by International Relations scholars. Some theories focus on the role of the international system in shaping American foreign policy while others argue that various domestic factors are the driving force. The chapter first considers some of the obstacles to constructing a theory of foreign policy before discussing some of the competing theories of American foreign policy, including defensive realism, offensive realism, liberalism, Marxism, neoclassical realism, and constructivism. The chapter proceeds by reviewing the theoretical debate over the origins of the Cold War and the debate over the most appropriate grand strategy that the United States should follow in the post-Cold War era.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document