Table of Contents
Introduction
David R. Stilwell stated in his remarks that the U.S. has provided deliberate, direct and specific support for China’s development. The U.S. extended hand of friendship and provided peaceful and stable environment for China to grow in. However, China has not reciprocated (2019). The U.S. foreign policy towards China has been liberalism approach which both directly and indirectly responsible for empowering China to become superpower. In this essay, I will discuss the Democratic Peace, the Capitalist Peace, and Interdependence using the U.S.-China relations as an example and analyze how the U.S. foreign policy, especially that of towards China, has developed and changed over the years.
The Democratic Peace
Bruce M. Russet states that democratic states have not fought each other (Russett, Layne, Spiro, and Doyle, 1995, 165). He bases his argument on three hypothesis that:
- wars between democracies are extremely rare events;
- violent conflicts between democracies that fall short of war are rare; and
- it is difficult to find enough cases to distinguish zero as a statistically significant number (Russett, Layne, Spiro, and Doyle, 1995, 169).
Russett does not argue that democratic states never go to war. Rather, he acknowledges war is principally possible for a few democratic great power states. He further acknowledges war is possible for neighboring or near-neighbor states, whether states are democratic or not (Russett, Layne, Spiro, and Doyle, 1995, 171). Russett suggests that wealthy countries or countries whose economies are rapidly growing are unlikely to go to war against each other; countries in alliance are less likely fight against each other than states that are not so in alliance; countries with disparate military capabilities less likely to go to war while countries in similar power are more lily to fight (Russett, Layne, Spiro, and Doyle, 1995, 172). The proposition of the Democratic Peace is that democracies are more likely to settle mutual conflicts of interest without threat or use of military force, rather they settle dispute by mediation, negotiation, or peaceful diplomacy.
127 our experts are availableright now
The Capitalist Peace
Erik Gartzke discusses a theory of peace based on capitalism and common interstate interests that economic development, capital market integration, and the compatibility of foreign policy preferences are the variables which affect statistical test of the democratic peace (Gartzke, 2007, 166). He further discusses how peace can be attained from three attributes of mature capitalist economies that
- natural resources can be more cheaply pursued through markets than means of military occupation and territorial expansion;
- post-WWII overlapping foreign policy goals of developed liberal nations limits the scope and scale of conflict as well as accommodate minor differences; and
- emerging capital markets created a new mechanism for competition and communication for states which might otherwise be forced to enter warfare (Gartzke, 2007, 166).
Gartzke differentiates the Capitalist Peace from the Democratic Peace by stating that most democratic peace theorist such as Maoz and Russett examines trade in goods and services but ignores capital markets. He further argues that democratic peace research offers only a superficial assessment of economic development although he acknowledges liberal economy process lead to peace as well as democracy collaborates peace (Gartzek, 2007, 167). Gartzek then discusses how interstate interaction result in warfare. First, states must not only possess capability to compete, but they must be willing to compete. Second, states must unable or unwilling to settle disputes or discrepancies through diplomatic means (Gartzek, 2007, 171). With that, in search of peace, states must possess mutual unwillingness to avoid warfare.
As stated above, states in similar policy goals often promote cooperation and accommodate minor differences. Also, resources can be attained readily through commerce rather than territorial disputes. The value of winning resource or territory through warfare is relatively small compare to cost of fighting (Gartzek, 2007, 171). In conclusion, Gartzek states that his study offers evidential suggestion that capitalism leads to peace, not just democracy. However, he admits that his study needs to be extended and requires additional research in order to corroborate and refute the result further.
Interdependence
John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett discuss economic interdependence based democratic peace. In their introduction, they state liberal peace perspective is based on the hypothesis that trade and foreign investment as well as institutions and practices of democratic governance reduce a chance of warfare. They also discuss political regime and trade influence on likelihood of militarized conflicts. (Oneal and Russett, 1997, 267-268). According to Emeric Cruce, wars are results of international misunderstanding as well as the warrior class ruling of the society.
With that, likelihood of wars can be reduced by international interdependence, such as expansion of commerce, common interests provoked by trade as well as the prosperity and political power of the peaceful members of society (Oneal and Russett, 1997, 268). Autocratic state which lacks systematic mechanism of checks and balance of democratic institutions and norms are primarily responsible for setting a tone of dyadic relations. Further, political distance that separate states has significantly influences the likelihood of dyadic conflict (Oneal and Russett, 1997, 287-288).
Democratic and autocratic states are prone to conflict. However, two autocracies are highly susceptible to violent conflict than an autocracy and a democracy pair while likelihood of dispute between two democracies are low. Yet, if a democratic state is isolated from other democracies and contiguously bordered by autocracies, they have higher chance to enter dispute (Oneal and Russett, 1997, 289).
The reason behind probability variance of entering dispute is the difference in domestic policies between autocratic and democratic states. A book by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith describe such difference quite well using Sun Tzu and Casper Weinberger’s advice to their respective leaders. Simply put, Sun Tzu’s advice to his king, Ho Lu of Wu, was that war should be fought quick with small forces. If it was determined that commanders lack ability to conquer adversary, it is better to withdraw the forces rather than exhausting state’s treasure (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith, 2011, 226-228).
In contrast, Casper Weinberger’s advice was that the U.S. should commit its combat forces to overseas conflict as the last resort only when the situation is deemed vital to national interest or that of allies. If we decide to commit its forces, then we should do so overwhelmingly with the clear intention to win with the support of American public and Congress. If we are unable to commit enough forces to win decisively, then we should not commit any forces (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith, 2011, 227). Although Weinberger’s advice is significantly different from Tzu’s, his advice is also appropriate for his superior, President Ronald Reagan, the leader of large coalition and a democratic state. Autocratic states such as the state of Wu have lower standard to enter warfare than democratic states such as the U.S. With that, as liberals have argued throughout the history, democracy and free trade proliferate individual liberty and prosperity as well as tend to mitigate international conflict.
The U.S.-China Relations
The U.S. policy to sustain a free and open international order has contributed to China’s empowerment as the U.S. provided a peaceful and stable environment in which China to grow. However, less known is that the U.S. has provided deliberate, direct, and specific support for China’s development (Stilwell, 2020, para 6-7). Since normalization of the U.S.-China relationship in 1979, the U.S. has provided support in science and technology, industry, agriculture, defense, as well as in education (Stilwell, 2020, para 14-16). The U.S. also has used its leading position at the World Bank (WB) so that China was able to obtain its membership and financially supported.
China has since been approved for 423 projects in the amount of well over $62 billion and became second largest loaner of the WB (Stilwell, 2020, para 19). The U.S. foreign policy towards China has been liberal approach in sought of Democratic Peace. The U.S. foreign policy focused to integrate China into the international community. However, China has not reciprocated as the U.S. hoped for. China has grown to economic superpower superseding the U.S. in GDP. Not only economically, but China has also strengthened its war fighting capabilities.
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama expressed concerns over Beijing’s behavior, both domestically and internationally. Yet, both Presidents still ensured the U.S. relationship with China remain as a partner and supporter while taking measures to protect from risks posed by Beijing (Stilwell, 2020, para 41). This changed when President Trump assumed the office. The National Security Strategy (NSS) of the Trump administration, specifically over that of the economic, clearly focused on a strong America at home which will lead to a stronger America abroad (Anonymous, 2018, 2).
This led to heightened tension between Washington and Beijing, just as Hobbesian predicted. However, President Trump and Liu He, the China’s Vice Premier, recently signed a trade agreement in effort to resolve ongoing trade tension. Yet, the agreement falls short of addressing fundamental problem in dyadic relationship between the U.S. and China (Bisio et al., 2020, 1). However, the agreement is announced to be phase one thus it might be too early to predict the whole picture.
Conclusion
As discussed above, democracies tend to result in peace despite not all democratic states are prone to conflict. As Russett suggested democracies are more likely to settle mutual conflicts of interest without threat or use of military force, rather they settle dispute by mediation, negotiation, or peaceful diplomacy. Economic interdependence falls within a realm of Democratic Peace as Oneal and Russett discuss trade and foreign investment as well as institutions and practices of democratic governance reduce a chance of warfare. They further discuss dyadic relationship between two democracies, two autocracies, and a democracy and an autocracy.
The fundamental differences between democracy and autocracy make difference on likelihood tendency on a state to enter international conflict. Just as liberals have argued throughout the history, democracy and free trade proliferate individual liberty and prosperity as well as tend to mitigate international conflict. The Capitalist Peace, as Gartzke argued, is a theory of peace based on capitalism and common interstate interests that economic development, capital market integration, and the compatibility of foreign policy preferences. Gartzke differentiates the Capitalist Peace from the Democratic Peace that most democratic peace theorist ignores capital markets. However, he admits his theory requires further analysis and discussion.
I further discussed the U.S.-China relationship. As I noted, the U.S. foreign policy has been liberal approach, the Democratic Peace, to include interdependence approach, as it focused to integrate China into the international community. However, the bilateral relationship did not evolve as the way U.S. intended to. Rather, China began to grow as a superpower both economically and militarily. It was inevitable that the U.S. foreign policy had to shift away from liberal approach. Further, when President Trump took office, his administration made drastic shift in foreign policy by proposing raise in tariff, threatening China on intellectual property and technology transfer as well as human rights violations. Although President Trump and the Vice Premier of China has signed the phase one agreement, future is still unpredictable. As the Democratic Peace approach, to include interdependence, has failed, the Capitalist Peace might be an option at this time despite the Capitalist Peace theory itself needs further analysis and discussions.
References
- Anonymous. 2018. “Breaking the mould: Trump’s China policy.” Focus Asia. Stockholm: Institute for Security and Development Policy.
- Bisil, Virgil, Charles Horne, Ann Listerud, Kaj Malden, Leyton Nelson, Nargiza Salidjanova, and Suzanna Stephens. 2020. “The U.S.-China “Phase One” deal: A backgrounder.” Issue Brief. Washington D.C.: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
- Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Alastair Smith. 2011. The Dictator’s Handbook. New York: PublicAffairs.
- Gartzke, Erik. 2007. “The Capitalist Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1). 166- 191. Oneal, John R. and Bruce M. Russett. 1997. “The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985.” International Studies Quaterly 41 (2). 267-293.
- Russett, Bruce M, Christopher Layne, David E. Spiro, and Michael W. Doyle. 1995. “The Democratic Peace.” International Security 19 (4). 164-184.
- Stilwell, David R. 2019. “U.S.-China bilateral relations: The lessons of history.” Remarks. https://www.state.gov/u-s-china-bilateral-relations-the-lessons-of-history/ (February 6, 2020).
