Ehrenreich 1

Natan Ehrenreich

Professor Zaitseva

Intro to International Relations

30 November, 2021

Short Paper

The Emergence of the Chinese Threat

Mr. President, it is an honor to serve as your new National Security Advisor. When you

asked me to brief you on the most pressing national security issue facing the United States, I

immediately knew what we had to talk about: China. I have collected data on our relationship

with the Chinese, and examined the issue from the perspectives encountered throughout my

extensive IR background.

As we sit here today, the Chinese Communist Party is the single greatest threat to our

continued prosperity. Not only are they currently engaged in the mass concentration of the

Uighur Muslims, but they likely suppressed crucial knowledge of the Covid-19 outbreak that

could have prevented the deaths of over one million Americans. Mr. President, I posit that the

threat posed by China is the single greatest that we have faced since the fall of the Soviet Union.

If we do not take action, posterity may very well look at us as we look at those countries who

watched idly as Hitler rose to power. Furthermore, China’s actions in recent years exemplify a

country ready and willing to take arms against foreign competitors regardless of any

international norms or precedent. It is, therefore, worth examining how experts in international

relations might classify the problem.

 Ehrenreich 2

Mr. President, many of your predecessors have been subscribers to the realist school of

thought. In fact, Richard Nixon–and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger– notably applied the

realist school of thought to China in the 1970s. Realism proposes that all countries search for

power as a primary goal. In the anarchic global system we live in, no one can be sure of China’s

true motivations, but it would be foolish not to assume that the Chinese government is drawn by

the allure of power and influence. Some realists even assert that states are always in search of

enough military power to pose a challenge to the global superpower. As John Mearsheimer puts

it: “great powers inherently possess some offensive military capability, which gives them the

wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other” (Mearsheimer). If this is the case, we

should be seriously concerned about China’s ability to threaten our safety, as they currently

possess the single largest active military personnel in the world (Statista). Realists believe that

countries like China will continue to pursue power until we stop them from doing so.

However, I am aware that you have an affinity towards liberal theory. When you served

as Vice President, you helped negotiate the historic Iran nuclear deal. You have shown a history

of faith in international agreements and organizations to solve complex global problems. As we

enjoy such intimate economic ties with China, perhaps you believe that we might have leverage

to negotiate some sort of agreement. You probably agree with the liberal thinker Robert O.

Keohane, who notes that “economic interdependence and its regulation have altered notions of

sovereignty: Few states can still demand to be completely independent of external authority over

legal practices within their territory” (Keohane). His statement is uniquely applicable to our

relationship with the Chinese. We enjoy a level of economic interdependence historically

unprecedented among great powers. Liberals argue that this might allow us to trust the Chinese

when it comes to possible negotiations.

 Ehrenreich 3

Yet there remains another prominent theory of international relations that might apply to

our situation: constructivism. Mr. President, I confess that this theory is the hardest to describe

succinctly, as it rejects blanket assumptions about international relations and state motivations. I

suggest you look at the work of Ted Hopf, who notes that “conventional constructivism rejects

the mainstream presumption that world politics is so homogenous that universally valid

generalizations can be expected to come of theorizing about it” (Hopf). Constructivists argue that

we cannot expect any theory to fully provide us with a solution to China’s continued aggression.

We must look at Chinese ideology and attempt to empirically deduce what the appropriate form

of action is. As the current Chinese government is intent on amassing influence through

economic means, perhaps a confrontation involving our economic ties is suited to curtail the

Chinese. Alas, constructivists do not see any one size fits all solution to global problems. China

is a unique country, and we need a unique solution.

Mr. President, although you have shown a sympathy towards liberalism, I propose that

the appropriate action stems from realist and constructivist theory. Realism’s applicability is

simple. China is ruthlessly amassing power. They are silencing entire populations to do so.

Mearsheimer’s position rings true, and it is foolish to think that any sort of international

agreement is going to stop Xi Jinping, especially with the level of economic interdependence

already present in our relationship. We need to send a clear message that China’s current actions

will lead to a reduction in global influence. This means reevaluating our economic relationship,

and possibly instituting severe sanctions. This might hurt our economy, but it might be necessary

nonetheless. I say this because a constructivist evaluation of China’s identity leads me to believe

that we are dealing with a severe threat. Does the Chinese government subscribe to the same

liberal and democratic moral philosophies that we do? Of course not. Thus, a liberal solution that
 Ehrenreich 4

emphasizes cooperation and goodwill is essentially useless. Constructivism provides us with the

lens by which to view the problem, and realism provides us with a tenable solution: extreme

measures to isolate China’s economy from our own until China ceases to imprison their own

citizens and threaten the United States on a global scale. I know this might be unpleasant to hear,

but we must look at the situation as it is, not as we wish it to be.

I would further note that the upcoming Olympic Games are to be held in China. Mr.

President, when the Nazis were afforded the oppurtunity to host the Games in 1936, it provided

them with a historic publicity boost. We simply cannot allow such an opportunity for the Chinese

Communist Party. Our solution must include measures akin to suspending our own participation

in the Games. Again, this is not ideal. But liberal solutions are too reliant on the carrot. It’s time

to bring out the stick. Stop cooperating with the Chinese on economic measures. Impose severe

sanctions. Pull our athletes from the olympics. These are drastic measures to a drastic problem.

They rest on the realist assumption that in order to get China to act appropriately, we must

threaten their power and influence. They also rest on the constructivist observation that China’s

extreme identity renders liberal solutions useless. I urge you to consider these theories as you

contemplate our next moves, and I hope that you see the urgency of the problem and the

usefulness of my proposed solutions.

 Ehrenreich 5

Works Cited

Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International

Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998, pp. 171–200. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.

Accessed 30 Nov. 2021.

Keohane, Robert O. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy, no.

110, 1998, pp. 82–194. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1149278. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021.

“Largest Armies in the World by Personnel 2020.” Statista, Statista, 10 Sept. 2021,

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-for

ce-level/.

Mearsheimer, John J. “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” Anarchy and the Struggle for

Power, University of Chicago, pp. 29–54.