Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China Publication Year within 25 Years

2171. American Primacy by Default: Down but Not Out

Author:
Roberto Menotti and Jason W. Davidson
Publication Date:
03-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The International Spectator
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
American primacy continues to characterise the international system, despite trends toward a diffusion of power. The discussion is too often biased in favour of multipolarity due to imprecise or misleading definitions of US primacy. On the basis of a simple definition of what a "pole" is, combining GDP and defence expenditure, only the US can be considered a global pole. The current economic crisis is not changing this reality. Even considering perceptions, soft power, and the ability to translate power into influence, rising powers like China or an aggregate power like the EU have a long way to go before they can get on an equal footing with the United States.
Political Geography:
United States, China, and America

2172. Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market

Author:
Alex Epstein
Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Objective Standard
Institution:
The Objective Standard
Abstract:
The most important and most overlooked energy issue today is the growing crisis of global energy supply. Cheap, industrial-scale energy is essential to building, transporting, and operating everything we use, from refrigerators to Internet server farms to hospitals. It is desperately needed in the undeveloped world, where 1.6 billion people lack electricity, which contributes to untold suffering and death. And it is needed in ever-greater, more-affordable quantities in the industrialized world: Energy usage and standard of living are directly correlated. Every dollar added to the cost of energy is a dollar added to the cost of life. And if something does not change soon in the energy markets, the cost of life will become a lot higher. As demand increases in the newly industrializing world, led by China and India, supply stagnates-meaning rising prices as far as the eye can see. What is the solution? We just need the right government "energy plan," leading politicians, intellectuals, and businessmen tell us. Of course "planners" such as Barack Obama, John McCain, Al Gore, Thomas L. Friedman, T. Boone Pickens, and countless others favor different plans with different permutations and combinations of their favorite energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, ethanol, geothermal, occasionally nuclear and natural gas) and distribution networks (from decentralized home solar generators to a national centralized so-called smart grid). But each agrees that there must be a plan-that the government must lead the energy industry using its power to subsidize, mandate, inhibit, and prohibit. And each claims that his plan will lead to technological breakthroughs, more plentiful energy, and therefore a higher standard of living. Consider Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore, who claims that if only we follow his "repower American plan"-which calls for the government to ban and replace all carbon-emitting energy (currently 80 percent of overall energy and almost 100 percent of fuel energy) in ten years-we would be using fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home. . . . We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America. . . . [W]e can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. And Gore claims that, under his plan, our vehicles will run on "renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline." Another revered thinker, Thomas L. Friedman, also speaks of the transformative power of government planning, in the form of a government-engineered "green economy." In a recent book, he enthusiastically quotes an investor who claims: "The green economy is poised to be the mother of all markets, the economic investment opportunity of a lifetime." Friedman calls for "a system that will stimulate massive amounts of innovation and deployment of abundant, clean, reliable, and cheap electrons." How? Friedman tells us that there are two ways to stimulate innovation-one is short-term and the other is long-term-and we need to be doing much more of both. . . . First, there is innovation that happens naturally by the massive deployment of technologies we already have [he stresses solar and wind]. . . . The way you stimulate this kind of innovation-which comes from learning more about what you already know and doing it better and cheaper-is by generous tax incentives, regulatory incentives, renewable energy mandates, and other market-shaping mechanisms that create durable demand for these existing clean power technologies. . . . And second, there is innovation that happens by way of eureka breakthroughs from someone's lab due to research and experimentation. The way you stimulate that is by increasing government-funded research. . . . The problem with such plans and claims: Politicians and their intellectual allies have been making and trying to implement them for decades-with nothing positive (and much negative) to show for it. For example, in the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter heralded his "comprehensive energy policy," claiming it would "develop permanent and reliable new energy sources." In particular, he (like many today) favored "solar energy, for which most of the technology is already available." All the technology needed, he said, "is some initiative to initiate the growth of a large new market in our country." Since then, the government has heavily subsidized solar, wind, and other favored "alternatives," and embarked on grand research initiatives to change our energy sources-claiming that new fossil fuel and nuclear development is unnecessary and undesirable. The result? Not one single, practical, scalable source of energy. Americans get a piddling 1.1 percent of their power from solar and wind sources, and only that much because of national and state laws subsidizing and mandating them. There have been no "eureka breakthroughs," despite many Friedmanesque schemes to induce them, including conveniently forgotten debacles such as government fusion projects, the Liquid Fast Metal Breeder Reactor Program, and the Synfuels Corporation. Many good books and articles have been written-though not enough, and not widely enough read-chronicling the failures of various government-sponsored energy plans, particularly those that sought to develop "alternative energies," over the past several decades. Unfortunately, the lesson that many take from this is that we must relinquish hope for dramatic breakthroughs, lower our sights, and learn to make do with the increasing scarcity of energy. But the past failures do not warrant cynicism about the future of energy; they warrant cynicism only about the future of energy under government planning. Indeed, history provides us ample grounds for optimism about the potential for a dynamic energy market with life-changing breakthroughs-because America once had exactly such a market. For most of the 1800s, an energy market existed unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes, a market devoid of government meddling. With every passing decade, consumers could buy cheaper, safer, and more convenient energy, thanks to continual breakthroughs in technology and efficiency-topped off by the discovery and mass availability of an alternative source of energy that, through its incredible cheapness and abundance, literally lengthened and improved the lives of nearly everyone in America and millions more around the world. That alternative energy was called petroleum. By studying the rise of oil, and the market in which it rose, we will see what a dynamic energy market looks like and what makes it possible. Many claim to want the "next oil"; to that end, what could be more important than understanding the conditions that gave rise to the first oil? Today, we know oil primarily as a source of energy for transportation. But oil first rose to prominence as a form of energy for a different purpose: illumination. For millennia, men had limited success overcoming the darkness of the night with man-made light. As a result, the day span for most was limited to the number of hours during which the sun shone-often fewer than ten in the winter. Even as late as the early 1800s, the quality and availability of artificial light was little better than it had been in Greek and Roman times-which is to say that men could choose between various grades of expensive lamp oils or candles made from animal fats. But all of this began to change in the 1820s. Americans found that lighting their homes was becoming increasingly affordable-so much so that by the mid-1860s, even poor, rural Americans could afford to brighten their homes, and therefore their lives, at night, adding hours of life to their every day. What made the difference? Individual freedom, which liberated individual ingenuity. The Enlightenment and its apex, the founding of the United States of America, marked the establishment of an unprecedented form of government, one established explicitly on the principle of individual rights. According to this principle, each individual has a right to live his own life solely according to the guidance of his own mind-including the crucial right to earn, acquire, use, and dispose of the physical property, the wealth, on which his survival depends. Enlightenment America, and to a large extent Enlightenment Europe, gave men unprecedented freedom in the intellectual and economic realms. Intellectually, individuals were free to experiment and theorize without restrictions by the state. This made possible an unprecedented expansion in scientific inquiry-including the development by Joseph Priestly and Antoine Lavoisier of modern chemistry, critical to future improvements in illumination. Economically, this freedom enabled individuals to put scientific discoveries and methods into wealth-creating practice, harnessing the world around them in new, profitable ways-from textile manufacturing to steelmaking to coal-fired steam engines to illuminants.
Topic:
Government
Political Geography:
United States, China, America, and India

2173. Darfur: Koruma Yükümlülüğü ve İnsancıl Müdahale Kavramları Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme

Author:
Funda Keskin
Publication Date:
05-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
There is no doubt that gross human rights violations in Darfur exceed the limits of the responsibility to protect of the international community. During the discussions about the situation in Darfur in the Security Council, especially China and Russia put forward the principle of state sovereignty as an argument against intervention. Whatever the result about this contention, it is not possible to take a decision at the Security Council authorizing the member states to intervene in Darfur due to veto right of the permanent members. The African Union as the regional organization would not able to intervene due to its limited capacity and the lack of political will. According to some commentators and states, states like the US or the European Union members who endorse the concept of the responsibility to protect must be able to intervene. Nevertheless, although they never accepted the objection based on the state sovereignty, these states do not have the required political will to intervene by force. This brings us to the result that the major criticism directed against the humanitarian intervention which is its application on a selective basis, persists for the concept of the responsibility to protect as well.
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, and Europe

2174. The Russia File

Author:
Robert Legvold
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Reversing the collapse of U.S.-Russian relations is one of the great tests facing the Obama administration. Among the major powers, Russia is the hard case. And the stakes involved in getting U.S.-Russian relations right are high -- much higher than the leadership of either country has acknowledged or perhaps even realized so far. If the Obama administration can guide the relationship onto a more productive path, as it is trying to do, it will not only open the way for progress on the day's critical issues -- from nuclear security and energy security to climate change and peaceful change in the post-Soviet area -- but also be taking on a truly historic task. One of the blessings of the post-Cold War era has been the absence of strategic rivalry among great powers, a core dynamic of the previous 300 years in the history of international relations. Should it return, some combination of tensions between the United States, Russia, and China would likely be at its core. Ensuring that this does not happen constitutes the less noticed but more fateful foreign policy challenge facing this U.S. president and the next.
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and Soviet Union

2175. Arms and Influence at Sea

Author:
Thomas Culora and Andrew Erickson
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Robert Kaplan ("Center Stage for the Twenty-first Century," March/April 2009) correctly underscores the Indian Ocean's strategic importance. But in envisioning "dynamic great-power rivalry" between Beijing and New Delhi there, he is too pessimistic about the United States' ability to maintain influence, too optimistic about China's ability to exert influence rapidly, and too dismissive of India's inherent regional advantages.
Political Geography:
United States, China, Beijing, and New Delhi

2176. Managing Strategic Competition with China

Author:
Philip C. Saunders
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
Officials in the Obama administration have highlighted the need for a “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship” with China that can help the United States address an array of global challenges. Administration officials have not adopted the “responsible stakeholder” language that characterized recent U.S. China policy, but their overall approach appears compatible with that concept. Initial policy statements have focused on expanding U.S.-China cooperation, with particular emphasis on addressing the global economic crisis and climate change.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Globalization, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and China

2177. China's National Defense in 2008 Panel Discussion Report

Author:
Dr.Alison A. Kaufma
Publication Date:
02-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
On February 6, 2009, CNA China Studies and the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University convened a panel discussion on China's sixth defense white paper, which had been released by Beijing on January 20, 2009. The following are the main observations that emerged from that roundtable.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and War
Political Geography:
China, Beijing, and Asia

2178. Regional Trade Agreements vs. Multilateral Trading System: A Study of Chinese Interests and Policy Options

Author:
Chen Taifeng
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The simultaneous emergence of rapidly developing RTAs and a strengthened and more encompassing MTS attracts worldwide attention. “Complementary Competition” is the very essence of the RTA/MTS relationship. Both compete complementarily in trade liberalization and economic integration initiatives. Since joining the WTO, China has pursued a “three-pronged” economic and trade development strategy of pushing forward regional trade cooperation and bilateral trade cooperation while enhancing multilateral trade and cooperation. After joining the WTO, China has basically developed a spatial landscape of “focusing on Asia-Pacific and reaching out globally” with regard to its participation in the RTA.By participating in RTAs, China can obtain the same benefits of market openness and trade and investment liberalization as other countries do. It is important for China not to act too hastily, but to push forward regional cooperation step by step from adjacent to remote regions and level by level, from easy to difficult regions. Asia is especially important to China, and Asian economic cooperation is the foundation of China's RTA policy.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Markets
Political Geography:
China and Asia

2179. International Journal Of Korean Studies

Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
The Chinese policy toward the Korean Peninsula from the beginning of the Korean War in 1950 had been to keep it within the Chinese sphere of influence. As the occupation of the Korean Peninsula by a hostile nation would inevitably threaten China's national security it would not allow any foreign domination of Korean Peninsula. Therefore, China has consistently supported North Korea economically and militarily for the past half century. However, the Chinese policy toward South Korea was beginning to change as South Korea hosted the Olympic in 1988. North Korea also participated in the Olympic. China began to adopt an equal distance policy toward the two Koreas and established the diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea (ROK) in 1992, an act of which was in fact the recognition of two governments in the Korean Peninsula. However, China insisted a peaceful reunification of two Koreas by opposing any attempt to reunify two Koreas by military means thus endorsing North Korean policy of reunification. When North Korea developed nuclear weapons in the 1990s and withdrew from the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1992, China supported the Six-Nation Talks by hosting them in Beijing for the sake of denuclearization of North Korea. This paper reviewed the role of China in the six-party talks, participated by China, the United States, Russia, Japan and two Koreas. Following series of negotiations in the 1990s and the six-party talks from 2003 to 2007 ten joint statements and agreements came out. This paper attempted to analyze them in the context of Sino-North Korean relations as well as North-South Korean relations. It is the conclusion of this paper that China expressed its national interest to realize the nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It is also China's interest that the two Koreas achieve the peaceful reunification. The Sino-South Korean relations has changed into a “strategic cooperative partnership” under the newly inaugurated government of Lee Myung-Back in Seoul.
Topic:
War
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and Korea

2180. The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay

Author:
Christopher Layne
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
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.
Topic:
Economics and War
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Asia