I have been with the think-tank on China and have written a lot of research papers on Chinese affairs. Had been the student of International Politics and now pursuing PhD in this arena, thy post tempted me to reply on this intriguing topic. Not similarly, I have discussed on China in this forum from other dimensions. Link :
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=244203
To begin with, Prof. John Mearsheimer belonging to 'Offensive Realism' school of thought and have tremendously debated, argued and presented on his concerned subject; which is not 'optimistic' to the Global Economy as the views tend to be biased and in favor of US strategies.
I've attach a .pdf file on this topic with this reply as I were not able to access the video. My analysis; probably critic of Offensive Realism, quoted from his paper are presented below:
Prof. John : If China continues its impressive economic growth over the next few decades, the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most of Chinaâs neighbors, to include India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will join with the United States to contain Chinaâs power.
I disagree with this proposition. If the so-called 'impressive economic growth over the next few decades' will likely enable 'intense security competition with considerable potential for war' then wouldn't the economic liberalism as contemporarily beholden would mitigate any such tension. Though the military spendings from both are on escalation mode but over the next few decades I view more of trade cooperation/competition. Cannot ignore the G2 forum wherein track-I diplomacy do diffuse the conflictual potentiality.
Prof. John : That theory must be logically sound and it must account for the past behavior of rising great powers.
Indirectly, he's conveying here for the structural-cum-theoretical establishment of hegemonic stability theory & long cycle theory between the International Politics of USA and China. I state that determinism of such furniture the foundationalism of 'potential conflict'.
Prof. John : No Americans, for example, worry that Canada or Mexico will attack the United States, because neither of those countries is powerful enough to contemplate a fight with Uncle Sam.
My interactions with Mexicans and Canada have now led me to generalizely believe that the Anti-Americanism sentiment is relevant in Mexico and Canada. Thanks to US and NATO with Canada that pushed Canada to structurally cooperate in this juncture. Wherein Mexico cannot anymore believe to conflict with Uncle Sam as it's the 'land of employable opportunities'. Power alone cannot be the sole determining factor here as propounded by Prof. John.
Prof. John : We should expect China to come up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, as Japan did in the 1930s.
I have read Joshua Joshua Kurlantzick paper on China and South East Asia few years back where I came across the term as predicted by Prof. John ''Chinese Monroe Doctrine'' of which China's foreign policy behavior have not asserted it officially.
Prof. John :Why should we expect China to act any differently than the United States did? Are they more principled than we are? More ethical? Less nationalistic? Less concerned about their survival? They are none of these things, of course, which is why China is likely to imitate the United States and attempt to become a regional hegemon.
China does act differently as the Structural-Functionalism of it is 'exceptional' of which Prof. John's proposition have underestimated it. China have termed its attributing factors ''Socialism with Chinese characteristics'' as the mode of Socialism is 'comparativistically' different than that of understandings of West. Words like 'principled', 'ethics', 'nationalism' are characteristically relative, therefore, the argument of Prof. John tend to dissolve here. However, Uncle Sam gained consciousness in 1783 or say in 1823 or to add more ... say in 1899 ...but the Chinese civilization and its regional hegemony was relevant before Jesus was born. However that then the such regional hegemony had no conflict with India who is now a 'big brother' in South Asia. South Asia region is a podium for China's containment policy whereas South East Asia and North East Asia for 'little NATO' (Japan, South Korea, Australia, can include India) against China. Indirect hand of US, no doubt for me to say, is overt.
Prof. John : In conclusion, the picture I have painted of what is likely to happen if China continues its rise is not a pretty one. I actually find it categorically depressing and wish that I could tell a more optimistic story about the future.
Normatively speaking, his views depress due to 'extreme' reliance over Hard Power diplomacy. I don't know which genre of his self-depression belong to but however the so-called 'peaceful rise' of China that is enabling harmonious development is good for the global economy but not at the regional level. I am not in the mood, to conclude, talking about the plight of Human Rights in China and of the Human Rights as globally 'promoted' by the bombing democracy USA.
Quote from SouthAmerica:
"Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully"
