Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Age of Geoeconomics, China’s Global Role, and Prospects of Cross-Strait Integration

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After noting the rise of geoeconomics in the post-Cold War era, the paper ascertains how the age of geoeconomics re-defines power and the rules of the balance of power game. Of particular significance is that a nation’s economic security eclipses its military security (or traditional national defense). In this context, I examine the meanings of the rise of a re-ascendant China for world politics in general and for Taiwan’s future in particular. Considering Taiwan’s heavy dependence on imported natural resources and its isolation and exclusion from vital international economic groupings, such as FTA’s. ASEAN, ASEM, and the 16-nation Asian super economic bloc in the marking. Finally, I take a prospective look at the prospect of a future cross-Strait integration between Taiwan and mainland China under the impact of the dictate of geoeconomics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of the two parts in this definition of geoeconomics, the first part (macro-level) may find echoes in the globalization literature (e.g., [30]), which, nonetheless, has nothing to say on the micro-level.

  2. See “Japan to Mend China Ties While World Eyes the Gulf,” Japan Times Weekly, September

    24–30, 1990, p. 1.

  3. On the U.S.–Europe rift, see Joseph S. [31]; Ivo H. [6]; Robert [17].

  4. Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, March 11, 1995, p. 5.

  5. New York Times, March 3, 1996, p. 3.

  6. The Asia-10 are: Brunei, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam).

  7. With Cambodia, Laos, and Burma/Myanmar added, the original Asia-10 became Asia-13. On the European side were the EU-25 and the European Commission.

  8. The 45 included EU-25, the European Commission, Bulgaria and Romania, on the one side, and Asia-13, plus India, Mongolia, Pakistan, and the ASEAN Secretariat on the Asian side.

  9. The proposal to set up such a council was put forward at the U.S.–EU Summit, held in Washington, D. C., on April 30, 2007.

  10. Typical of these forecasts was found in Tammen et al. [40].

  11. The discussion here is in part based on James C. [15].

  12. Kang can find support from Eric [21].

  13. Indicative of the return of scholarly interest in hierarchy is a study by Katja [44].

  14. President Bush repeated the theme that the U.S. welcomed an increasing powerful China, with which the U.S. could work together in facing the many challenges of the 21st century. See his interview with the Phoenix TV (Hong Kong) on November 10, 2005, NCNA On-line; China Daily report on his meeting with China’s President, Hu Jintao, in Beijing, <http://www.sina.com.cn>, Nov. 20, 2005.

  15. “Whither China? From Membership to Responsibility,” reproduced in National Committee on U.S.–China Relations, Notes, vol. 34, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 2006): 6–9.

  16. Sourced from: <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59957.htm>.

  17. Available at <http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/june-2006/rumsfeld.says-ch.>.

  18. Report in Qiao Bao (The China Press) (New York), July 20, 2006, p. A2.

  19. This theme that the Chinese cultural tradition reflects the preferences and weltanschauung of a continental farmer on the huge Chinese landmass surviving in an agrarian economy was developed by Feng [7] (reprint).

  20. I have dealt with this point about peace with equity in the 21st century in Hsiuing [13]:353f.

  21. Qiao Bao [China Press] (New York), May 16, 2008, p. 16.

  22. See “East Asia Summit,” sourced from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  23. “China’s Rising Influence in Asia: Implications for U.S. Polic,” Strategic Forum, No. 231. (April, 2008), p. 3: Tables 1 & 2.

  24. On example is Wei Ai, “Strategic Choice for Taiwan in the age of Economic Globalization,” Haixia pinglun (Cross-Strait Monthly) (Taipei), No. 217 (January 2009): 8–12.

References

  1. Binnendijk, Hans, with Alan Hanikson. 1999. Bacl to Bipolarity, Strategic Forum, No. 161 (May). Washington, E.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University.

  2. Chen, Po-chih. 2000. Analysis of the state of Japan–China trade relations. Mainland China Studies (Taipei) 43(2): 79–108.

    Google Scholar 

  3. China Institute. 1956. China and the United Nations. New York: Manhattan.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1998. ReOrient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gray, Colin S. 1977. The geopolitics of the nuclear era. New York: Crane, Rusak.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Daalder, Ivo H. 2001. Are the United States and Europe heading for a divorce. International Affairs 77(3): 553–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feng, Yu-lan. 1968 (reprint). Zhongguo zhexue shi [History of Chinese Philosophy]. Kowloon: The Pacific Books

  8. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War & change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gilpin, Robert. 2000. The challenge of capitalism: The world economy in the 21st century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Holz, Carsten A. 2006. Why China’s rise is sustainable. Far Eastern Economic Review 169(3): 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hsiung, James C. ed. 1993. Asia Pacific in the New World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

  12. Hsiung, James C. 1997. Anarchy and order: The interplay of politics and law in international relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hsiung, James C. ed. 2001. Twenty-first century world order and the Asia Pacific. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

  14. Hsiung, James C. 2002. Pacific Asia in the Twenty-First Century World Order: What China Threat? Asian Affairs: an American Review, vol.29, no. 2 (published by the Heldref Foundation, in Washington, D.C.)

  15. Hsiung, James C. 2008. “The Changing Intellectual and Political Climate in the China Debate and the Future of International-Relations Theory,” American Foreign Policy Interests (published by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy), vol. 30, no. 1 (January-February), pp. 1–12.

  16. Hunter, Robert E. 1992. The United States in the new era. In U.S. Foreign Policy after the cold war, ed. Brad Roberts, 3–18. Cambridge, MS: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kagan, Robert. 2003. Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kang, David. 2003–2004. Hierarchy, balancing, and empirical puzzles in Asian international relations. International Security 28(3): 165–189.

  19. Keohane, Robert, and Joseph Nye. 1977. Power and interdependence. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kugler, Jacek. 2006. The Asian ascent: Opportunity for peace or condition for war. International Studies Perspective 7(1): 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Labs, Eric. 1992. Do weak states bandwagon. Security Studies 1(3): 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lake, David. 2003. The new sovereignty in international relations. International Studies Review 5: 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Layne, Christopher. 1993. The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will arise. International Security 17(4):5–51 (Spring).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Layne, Christopher. 2001. The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will arise. International Security 17(3): 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mahbubani, Kishore. 2008. The new Asian hemisphere: The irresistible shift of power to the East. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Maddison, Angus. 1995. Monitoring the world economy: 1820–1992. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maddison, Angus. 2001. The world economy: A millennial perspective. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mearsheimer, John F. 2001. The future of the American pacifier, Foreign Affairs, September-October issue, pp. 46–61, at 47.

  29. Menzies, Gavin. 2003. 1421: The year China discovered America. N. Y.: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mittleman, James H. ed. 1996. Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

  31. Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 2000. The U.S. and Europe: continental drift? International Affairs 76(1): 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosecrance, Richard 2006. Power and international relations: The rise of China and its effects. International Studies Perspective 7(1): 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ross, Robert S. 1999. The geography of peace: East Asia in the twenty-first century. International Security 23(4): 81–118.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Segal, Gerald. 1999. Does China matter. Foreign Affairs 78(5): 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Singer, Max, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1993. The real world order: Zones of peace and zones of turmoil. Chatham, NY: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith, Woodruff D. 1986. The ideological origins of Nazi imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Spero, Joan, and Gary Hart. 1997. The politics of international economic relations, 5th ed. New York: St. Marti’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Spykman, Nicholas. 1944. The geography of the peace. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Strausz-Hupe, Robert 1972. Geopolitics, the struggle for peace and power. Reprint. New York: Arno.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tammen, Ronald L., et al. 2000. Power transitions: Strategies for the 21st century. New York: Seven Bridges Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Van Ness, Peter. 2002. Hegemony, not anarchy: Why China and Japan are not balancing U.S. Unipolar Power. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 2(2): 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000. Structural realism after the cold war. International Security 23(1): 32, 41.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ward, Michael Don. 1992. The new geopolitics. Philadelphia: Gordon & Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Weber, Karja. 2000. Hierarchy amidst anarchy. Albany, N.Y.: State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th St., Rm 222, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    James C. Hsiung

Authors
  1. James C. Hsiung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Hsiung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsiung, J.C. The Age of Geoeconomics, China’s Global Role, and Prospects of Cross-Strait Integration. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 14, 113–133 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-009-9045-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-009-9045-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation