Pacific Asia in the Post cold war era

The probability of a number of developments bears on the unfolding of a new world war for the 21st century. First the world seems to observe the emergence of new systematic value which would distinguish it from previous century. The norm will be used as grammar of world politics to redefine the role that nations play to enhance their mutual relations. The norm holds hope for future. The recent command can spell perils in relation between the industrialized nations and underdeveloped nations as well as between path of affluent-non western world and West.

Secondly, the huge range of strategic anxiety will govern the policy and conduct of nation. Generally, ‘comprehensive security’ will comprise of financial security, environmental and ecological security and human security along with national military security. It is often argued that in the chasing of ‘comprehensive security’ objectives, nation needs to cooperate and are required to survive with collective decision-making and actions. The explicit improvement in that nature of community cooperation such as in combining environmental degradation that may decay the erstwhile reflects of unilateral self-help.

For facing the challenge of 21st century, a global society is required rather than IMF or WTO; it is true that the reforms of the IMF or WTO are necessary in response to the rising social issues. Thirdly, it is noticed that there are two alternatives in the world – a. Continuance of US dominance, and b. Emergence of multi-polar system in which other powers sharing leadership with the US. The first view was held by B. Hans who foresees that post cold war system out of incurrent fluidity and developing multi-polarity will eventually transform to a bi-polarity of a different type.

It is true that the pace at which China has been growing since the last two decades is really bewildering. Even if the pace of change slows down a bit, it will be beyond any iota of doubt that China of tomorrow will be very different from today’s China. China’s insertion into the global political economy could not have occurred without the actions of the Chinese government at both national and local levels. But how this insertion has evolved owes as much to the interests and actions of external non-state actors as it does to the decisions and policies of the Chinese state elites.

China truly represents a huge market for business enterprises that have been competing to survive in more mature, developed markets that have been flat and where there exists extreme competition. Many economists believe that China’s economy could exceed that of Japan within this decade, and if the trend continues, China would soon become the world’s largest economy surpassing even the United States. However, China is still a believer of communism and hence, severe tensions are often arising in the country as an economically backward, communist-led nation attempts to move toward an advanced capitalist country.

The prevailing political structure has done fairly well and is not likely to respond to these changes passively in the future times From historical perspective China can be rightly regarded as the ‘middle kingdom’. Since the ancient days, today’s nations like Korea, Vietnam, Tibet and many other regions of Central Asia were profoundly influenced by the Chinese culture and tradition. Needless to say that China, therefore, can be regarded as a superior civilization. As a matter of stark reality, until the 16th century, her activities were initially confined within its geographical borders.

However, from the beginning of the 16th century, China gradually revealed her interests on the outside world. Due to this passive attitude of non-interaction with other nations, China became gradually weak in terms of technology, military power and economic prosperity compared to, particularly, the western world. Her defeat in the opium war with Britain (1842) and the Sino-Japanese war (1894-95), Taiping Rebellion (1848-1862) and the Boxer rebellion (1900), clearly points out Chinese weakness in both internal and external affairs. Finally in 1911, the Qing Density was over thrown, thereby, founding the Republic of China.

In 1927, the nationalist party headed by Chiang-Kai-Shek revolted against Mao-Se-Dang’s communist party. Resultantly, a severe civil war broke out between the communist and the nationalist that lasted till 1949 when Chiang-Hai-Shek retreated to Taiwan and formed the Republic of China in Taiping. However, the Mainland China formally became the Peoples Republic of China. In the next few decades the communist leaders switched between a pragmatic approach aimed at promoting economic gains and revolutionary approach focused on cultural development.

In 1976, Deng-Zia-Pong announced his ‘four modernization’ programs which primarily deal with agricultural, industry, science and defense. The communist leaders aimed to integrate socialist China with a capitalist economy. However such capitalist thought was strictly opposed by the communist sector which finally led to the Tine-min Square massacre in June 1989. However, in spite of this brutal act of the Chinese Government, communist China gradually started bending towards a capitalist economy which, resultantly, increased its trade, technical and political relationships with foreign powers like U. S. , Japan, Sought Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore and so on.

The foreign policy frame work reflects five principals of peaceful co-existence – a. Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, b. Mutual non-aggression, c. Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, d. Equality and mutual benefit, and e. Peaceful coexistence. China has obviously introduced capitalistic elements in other ways as well. The opening up of foreign capital marks its coexistence within a socialistic economy on condition that it is used to strengthen the socialist sector.

But, we are now seeing the exact opposite in China today. About the half of the national products are now produced by private companies. It means that China has deviated from the original model of controlling the private sector and depending upon the state-enterprise. What is more significant is that the state-owned enterprises are under capitalized and a large number of such prices have been sold to the private companies at a grave financial loss.