In this paper I argue that China 's change of foreign policy strategy after 1949 can be explained in a realist, liberalism, and constructivist application. Prior to 1949 the Chinese government administered through strong communist ideology. Time went on but during the transition the China we once knew was no more. On the surface it was the same but on a deeper level China was ready to join the other world powers. Specifically I will explain why China changed to a more open-minded mentality. Why did this passionate communist nation renounce their basic tenets? I will present readers with three different theories realist, liberalism, and constructivist. Each theory has its merits and deficiencies. In the beginning of the twenty-first century
…show more content…
The realist model explains the outcome but assumes a great deal. All we really know for sure is that the United States is in fact dominating world politics at the time. The realist application assumes that the Chinese leaders fear survival and thus builds up national security. There is no indication that China ever feared for its national security. Perhaps China was taking an evolutionary step to democracy. It could be debated that China opened up foreign policy for wealth or security could be the ultimate goal which would prove the realist application invalid. If China changed its foreign policy stance it risks appearing weak and indecisive and would contradict the ultimate goal of security proving this theory improbable. Applying the liberalism method provided above has its faults. Historians realize that the United States and other western powers are wealthy and powerful but are unsure if China views them as an example. We could assume that China resents these nations wealth. Once again the root of this theory is speculative and without more evidence, what is the ultimate goal? The liberalism method relies on the presumption that China considers power to be national wealth. A lack of evidence to prove or disprove this assumption make this theory unlikely. China could have changed its foreign policy stance for wealth or for other cryptic reasons that this theory discredited as improbable. Out of the three …show more content…
Man 's most basic instinct is survival so it seems probable to believe that the realist ultimate goal of security is enough to explain the change of policy. But China only seems to be interested in gaining wealth so analysts could state that the model to follow is liberalism. I would argue that China achieved its goal of mass wealth so this is unlikely to be the ultimate goal. China is one of the wealthiest nations in the world now so hypothetically it could go back to being isolated. We can argue that China 's continued cooperation proves the liberalism method unlikely. Less aggressive behavior leads me to believe that the ultimate goal is not just peace. Legacy can be achieved in many different ways so what if China was not pursuing through conquest? What if China does not wish to be known for military might and rather be known for domestic infrastructure? Without more raw data this could be debated endlessly. We measure correctness by supportive evidence and logic. A theory without logic or proof should be discounted. The key is to have an idea that can stand on its own principles. The criteria for a strong theory is something that can be relatively
The realist model explains the outcome but assumes a great deal. All we really know for sure is that the United States is in fact dominating world politics at the time. The realist application assumes that the Chinese leaders fear survival and thus builds up national security. There is no indication that China ever feared for its national security. Perhaps China was taking an evolutionary step to democracy. It could be debated that China opened up foreign policy for wealth or security could be the ultimate goal which would prove the realist application invalid. If China changed its foreign policy stance it risks appearing weak and indecisive and would contradict the ultimate goal of security proving this theory improbable. Applying the liberalism method provided above has its faults. Historians realize that the United States and other western powers are wealthy and powerful but are unsure if China views them as an example. We could assume that China resents these nations wealth. Once again the root of this theory is speculative and without more evidence, what is the ultimate goal? The liberalism method relies on the presumption that China considers power to be national wealth. A lack of evidence to prove or disprove this assumption make this theory unlikely. China could have changed its foreign policy stance for wealth or for other cryptic reasons that this theory discredited as improbable. Out of the three …show more content…
Man 's most basic instinct is survival so it seems probable to believe that the realist ultimate goal of security is enough to explain the change of policy. But China only seems to be interested in gaining wealth so analysts could state that the model to follow is liberalism. I would argue that China achieved its goal of mass wealth so this is unlikely to be the ultimate goal. China is one of the wealthiest nations in the world now so hypothetically it could go back to being isolated. We can argue that China 's continued cooperation proves the liberalism method unlikely. Less aggressive behavior leads me to believe that the ultimate goal is not just peace. Legacy can be achieved in many different ways so what if China was not pursuing through conquest? What if China does not wish to be known for military might and rather be known for domestic infrastructure? Without more raw data this could be debated endlessly. We measure correctness by supportive evidence and logic. A theory without logic or proof should be discounted. The key is to have an idea that can stand on its own principles. The criteria for a strong theory is something that can be relatively