5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- What is asymmetric information and how does it affect relations between states?
- How did Moscow initially react to Bush's withdrawal of the ABMT?
- What conditions are necessary, according to some, in order for Asia to develop into a security regime?
- What might be some responses to the rise of a bellicose China?
- What was China's approach to regionalism in the mid-2000s?
- a could draw the US in ( constructing China as a global rival) or push the US out (fear of engagement in Asian wars)
- b • stronger institutionalism
• spread of democracy
• agreement on a status quo amongst the great powers
• China fails to develop into a dominant power instead becoming a regional power that is perceived as benign by its neighbours
• the US remains significantly engaged in Asia as the holder of the ring
- c a. It played the threat card: It tried to frighten Europe into persuading the US not to abandon the ABMT. Then it announced that it would withdraw from START II.
- d -- Information is asymmetric or incomplete when different actors know or believe different things about a situation.
-- The problem of asymmetric information manifests itself in two general areas - (1) difficulties in assessing the relative power of various states, and (2) difficulties in discerning the preferences of states.
-- These asymmetries typically take the form of uncertainty about states' goals or capabilities.
- e --a) accruing economic benefits from the regional free trade regime.
b) allaying fears of the threat it might pose to the Southeast.
These approaches brought China many benefits, especially in the light of a disinterested US under the Bush regime, and a Japanese prime minister who was intent on respecting the dead at the Yasukuni Shrine.
5 Multiple choice questions
- • "flying geese" model: Japan set up a hierarchy of finance, production, and technology spreading out from Japan to the countries of E. Asia.
• created concentric circles of investment throughout Asia
• unique form of regionalism largely based on private capital and no international political institutionalization
- During the Cold War the Japanese developed naval and air forces to counter the Soviet threat. The Japanese defence budget is large in absolute size. Japanese weapons are technologically advanced. High-grade nuclear fuel shipped to Japan from France in the 1990s means that Japan can make nuclear weapons whenever it wants.
- Traditionally its goal is to:
- enhance national security, especially by reducing nuclear threats.
- overcome political and ideological conflict by advancing common interests.
- It should be consistent with military strategy
- And arms control regimes don't have to be formal
- A) China does not represent a serious threat to its neighbours and therefore they are correct in keeping their securitizations of it at a rather low level
B) Chinese diplomacy has somehow been so successful that it has been able to intimidate its neighbours into a form of appeasement that restrains them from publicly responding to provocations. The mechanism at work here is the threat that any balancing responses will cause an immediate worsening of relations and escalation of threats. (Also China's treatment of Taiwan is seen as a special case)
C) The possibility that the Asian international subsystem is dressed in Westphalian clothes, but is not performing according to Westphalian script. A Chinese World Order has survived - a form of sino-centric hierarchy in international relations in the region. This replaces traditional balancing of power and leads to band wagoning (intriguing but impossible to test until US pulls out of Asia; India also does not fit this mould as it has never been part of a Chinese World Order)
D) impact of US engagement in Asia explains the lack of counterbalancing.
- Alternatively, dominant political coalitions dependent on inward-looking bases of support and hostility to integration into the global political economy are more likely to pursue nuclear weapons programs.
5 True/False questions
What steps can China, Japan, and the US take to avert a security dilemma spiralling out of control? → Multilateral security regimes are one way to improve transparency and defuse the security dilemma. By participating in a trilateral security forum, the Chinese could reassure their neighbours and establish improved ties. In addition, the Americans have to stay in Japan—finding the balance between getting more Japanese involvement without arousing Chinese suspicions. The Japanese, on the other hand, should apologize for WW2 and do their best to rebuild the region's trust.
What are the differences between a hegemon and the dominant power in a hierarchy?. → -- Global hegemony is virtually impossible, except for a state that has acquired "clear cut nuclear superiority," defined as "a capability to devastate its rivals without fear of retaliation"
-- Regional hegemony - A hegemon is the only great power in its system. Thus, if a region contains more than one great power, there is no hegemon. The United State is the only regional hegemon in modern history, through its domination of the western hemisphere.
-- Potential hegemon is the most powerful state in a regional system, but it is more than that. It is so powerful that it stands a good chance of dominating its region by overcoming its great power neighbours, if not all together, at least in sequence. There is a "marked gap" between the size of its economy and army, and that of the second most powerful state in the system. They always aspire to be hegemons, and they will not stop increasing their power until they succeed.
How is cooperative security different than collective security or collective defense? Why has arms control been categorized under cooperative security? → - Cooperative security: Regulate the military forces for mutual benefit of all parties.
- Collective security: Defend integrity of states within a group.
- Collective defense: Defend all members of an alliance against outside aggressors.
What are the key assumptions of arms control theory? → • insulating qualities of its geographical size and diversity
• the presence of great powers within Asia
What is the main goal of states for offensive realists, such as Mearsheimer? → -- Offensive realists believe that status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs. Power is a means and an end in itself.