mozi assignment

8/10/2019 Mozi Assignment

1/22

An Introduction

The United Nations(UN) is anintergovernmental organization established 24

October 1945, to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the

ineffectiveLeague of Nations, the organization was created following theSecond

World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51member

states; there are now 193. Theheadquarters of the United Nations is situated

inManhattan,New York City,and enjoysextraterritoriality.Further main offices are

situated inGeneva,Nairobi andVienna.The organization is financed by assessed

and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining

international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and

economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid

in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

During the Second World War, US PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt initiated

talks on a successor agency to the League of Nations, and theUnited Nations

Charter was drafted ata conference in AprilJune 1945; this charter took effect 24

October 1945, and the UN began operation. The UN's mission to preserve world

peace was complicated in its early decades by theCold War between the US and

Soviet Union and their respective allies. The organization participated in major

actions inKorea andthe Congo, as well as approving the creation of the state of

Israel in 1947.

The organization's membership grew significantly following wide spread

decolonization in the 1960s, and by the 1970s its budget for economic and social

development programmes far outstripped its spending onpeacekeeping. After the

end of the Cold War, the UN took on major military and peacekeeping missions

across the world with varying degrees of success.The earliest concrete plan for a

new world organization began under the aegis of theUS State Department in

1939. The text of the "Declaration by United Nations" was drafted by President

Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt aide

Harry Hopkins, while meeting at the White House, 29 December 1941. It

incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. Roosevelt first coined

the term United Nationsto describe theAllied countries.The term was first officially

used 12 January 1942, when 26 governments signed the Declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headquarters_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Cityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorialityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Genevahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Nairobihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Viennahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_International_Organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_the_Congohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeepinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_State_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_State_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeepinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_the_Congohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_International_Organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Viennahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Nairobihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_at_Genevahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorialityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Cityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headquarters_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_organization


2/22

Roles and Functions

As the most representative inter-governmental organization of the world today, the

United Nations' role in world affairs is irreplaceable by any other international or

regional organizations. The United Nations has made enormous positive

contributions in maintaining international peace and security, promoting cooperation

among states and international development. Today, people of the world still face the

two major issues of peace and development. Only by international cooperation can

mankind meet the challenges of the global and regional issues. The United Nations

can play a pivotal and positive role in this regard. Strengthening the role of the

United Nations in the new century and promoting the establishment of a just and

reasonable international political and economic order goes along with the trend of

history and is in the interest of all nations.

In order to strengthen the role of the United Nations, efforts should be made to

uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The

authority of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security must

be preserved and role of the United Nations in development area should be

strengthened. To strengthen the role of the United Nations, it is essential to ensure

to all Member States of the United Nations the right to equal participation in

international affairs and the rights and interests of the developing countries should

be safeguarded.

According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes:

1. to maintain international peace and security;

2. to develop friendly relations among nations;

3. to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human

rights;

4. to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does,

however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate


3/22

policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States large and

small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems have a voice

and a vote in this process.Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the

United Nations membership totals 193 countries included Malaysia.

Conclusion

The United Nations is the symbol and core of global governance but lacks the

attributes of a world government. It must continue to lead efforts for the creation and

maintenance of a rulesbased order that specifies both the proper conduct to be

followed by all state and no state international actors and mechanism and

procedures for reconciling differences among them. The United Nations will continue

to play a central role in the development of global governance through filling five

gaps in all issueareas: knowledge (empirical and theoretical), normative, policy,

institutional, and compliance (monitoring and enforcement). The United Nations

provides and manages the framework for bringing together the worlds leaders to

tackle the pressing problems of the day for the survival, development and welfare of

all peoples, everywhere. Yet multilateralism is under unprecedented challenge, from

arms control to climate change, international criminal justice and the use of military

force overseas. At such a time, it is especially important to reaffirm the UNs role as

the principal embodiment of the principle of multilateralism and the main forum for its

pursuit. For it remains our best and only hope for unityindiversity in which global

problems require multilateral solutions. It is the embodiment of the international

community and the custodian of an internationalized human conscience. It

represents the idea that unbridled nationalism and the raw interplay of power must

be mediated and moderated in an international framework of rules and norms. This

is what makes the United Nations the centre for harmonizing the everpresent

national interests and forging the elusive international interest.


4/22

An Introduction

American hegemony is the basic fact of global politics, recognized by all other

powers.American global powermilitary, economic, technological, cultural, political

is one of the great realities of our age. Never before has one country been so

powerful or unrivalled. The United States emerged from the Cold War as the worlds

only superpower and grew faster than Europe and Japan in the decade that

followed. American bases and naval forces encircle the globe. Russia and China

remain only regional powers and have ceased to offer ideological challenges to the

West. For the first time in the modern age, the worlds most powerful state can

operate on the global stage without the fear of counterbalancing competitors. The

world has entered the age of American unipolarity. The United States is not just a

powerful state operating in a world of anarchy. It is a producer of world order. Over

the decades, and with more support than resistance from other states, it has

fashioned a distinctively open and loosely rule-based international order. This order

built with European and East Asian partners in the shadow of the Cold War and

organized around open markets, security alliances, multilateral cooperation, and

democratic communityhas provided the foundation and operating logic for modern

world politics. For better or worse, states in the post-war era have had to confront,operate in, or work around this far-flung order.

Today, however, this American global order appears to be at a turning point.

Indeed, some observers argue it is in crisis or breaking apart. In recent years and

certainly since the September 2001 terrorist attacksthe character and future of this

post-war order have been thrown into question. The Bush administrations war on

terrorism, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, expanded military budgets, and

controversial 2002 National Security Strategy have thrust American power into the

light of day and, in doing so, deeply unsettled much of the world. In the

background, the post-war rules and institutions, political bargains, communist

threats, shared visions, and communal bonds that shaped and sustained this United

States-led order appear to be eroding. For most of the post-war era, Americas

pursuit of its national interest and the construction of a progressive and mutually

agreeable global order went hand in hand. But today, America and the world seem

increasingly estranged. Anti-Americanism is a prominent feature of politics in many


5/22

regions of the world. The most fundamental questions about the nature of global

politics who commands and who benefits are now the subject of conversation

among long-time allies and adversaries alike.

The United States is situated at the centre of this complex liberal orderbut it

is an order built around the American provision of security and economic public

goods, mutually agreeable rules and institutions, and interactive political processes

that give states a voice in the running of the system. Strategic bargains, binding

security ties, open markets, and diffuse reciprocity also infuse the order and give it

liberal characteristics. This distinctive liberal political architecture is built on top of a

Western security community that removes war and threats of force from American

relations with the other democracies.3 Americas massive power advantages do give

the order a hierarchical cast, but its liberal hegemonic and security community

features make American empire a structural impossibility.

United States of America Political-Security and Economy

Importantly, this American system is tied together in a cooperative security order.

This was a very important departure from past security arrangements within the

Atlantic area. The idea was that Europe and the United States would be part of a

single security system. Such a system would ensure that the democratic great

powers would not go back to the dangerous game of strategic rivalry and balance of

power politics. In helped, of course, to have an emerging Cold War with the Soviet

Union to generate this cooperative security arrangement. But the goal of cooperative

security was implicit in the other elements of Western order. Without the Cold War, itis not clear that a formal alliance would have emerged as it did. Probably it would not

have taken on such an intense and formal character. But a security relationship

between Europe and the United States that lessened the incentives for these states

to engage in balance of power politics was needed and probably would have been

engineered. A cooperative security order, embodied in a formal alliance institution,

ensured that the power of the United States would be rendered more predictable

(Risse-Kappen, 1995). Power would be caged in institutions, thereby making

American power more reliable and connected to Europe and to East Asia.


6/22

While it is clear that the international environmentespecially in the Middle

Easthas shifted in ways that constrain United States of America power today, I do

not believe it is proper to called 2006 the year that America lost its supremacy in

international affairs. In fact US supremacy was never as total, or as meaningful, as

either its admirers or its enemies claimed. What has diminished over the past few

years has not been United States of America power itself, but rather our perceptions

of that power and what it can do.The United States provides its European and Asian

partners with security protection and access to American markets, technology, and

supplies within an open world economy. In return, these countries agree to be

reliable partners who provide diplomatic, economic, and logistical support for the

United States.

Conclusion

As the conclusion of this hegemony order make American power more stable,

engaged, and restrained. First, Americas political institutions open, transparent,

and organized around the rule of law have made it a relatively predictable and

cooperative hegemony. The pluralistic and regularized way in which American

foreign and security policy is made reduces surprises and allows other states to build

long-term, mutually beneficial relations. Second, this open and decentralized political

process works to reduce foreign worries about American power. It creates what

might be called voice opportunities: it offers opportunities for political access and,

with it, the means for foreign governments and groups to influence the wayWashingtons power is exercised. Finally, the post-war web of Western and global

institutions create a framework for order that helps to establish credible commitments

and restraints on American power.


7/22

An Introduction

Terrorism is an act of violence committed by that view themselves as victimized by

some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection

with government, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic

governments, typically they stages unexpected attack on civilian targets, including

embassies, airliners with the aim of sowing and confusion.

According to this view, state as a kind of system has more than one centres

of power and the demolition of these power centres is the main target of terrorism.

However the demolition state does not mean physical extermination. The aim of

terrorism is to weaken the authority of state and the superiority of law. This can bedefined as a creation of a graded affect. Since the social, economic, politic and

military powers of the state are interdependent from each other, any attack that will

harm to one of them will naturally affect the others. This is the main reason of the

creation of the graded affect by the terrorism. Since the crucial points of the state

produce more impression, they are the potential targets of the terrorist attacks.

The crucial points that are chosen by the terrorist organizations may not

always aim to physical destruction. There is no need to kill somebody to cause a

social chaos or economic crises. With the pressure that will be formed on one of the

national power components can cause a panic and depress the people and this may

be the target of the terrorist organization to achieve. Today terrorist groups in order

to create a psychological affect are using methods of fear. This is the main reason of

the terrorist attacks targeting the state and the people in the strategic level.

Consequently, with the terrorist actions, to lessen the determination of thepolitical power on fighting against the terrorism is aimed. Because the attacks to the

heart of the state will cause partial affect and create a psychological pressure on

the political leaders. On the other hand, the leaders of the terrorist organizations

know that they are not able to achieve their goals by way of terrorism; however this

is not important for them. For them terrorism is a tool to deprive the target state of

reaching their social, economic and political targets. Till recent days terrorist actions

have been always directed by the headquarters. It was impossible for the militants


8/22

do some actions without the approval of the leadership. The political initiative is

never given to the militants and collected in the hands of the leadership.

The Global impact on Peace and Security

Some of the reactions to terrorism play into the hands of the perpetrators and help

further their goals and objectives. For example: A fundamental goal of any opposition

movement is publicity, denying access to media, or censoring news can force

extremists to blast their way into the news. Before reacting to political violence, its

important to identify the dissidents goals and objectives. The following list identifies

a number of possible objectives, not all of which may apply to any specific group.

Terrorism has been described, correctly, as a tactic of the weak. Its adopted

by groups of dissenters who lack the resources to attack the state and its forces.

Clearly a rebel force that had the capacity to attack and defeat the governments

forces would do so to achieve their goals as quickly as possible. Such opportunities

rarely, if ever, exist in strong states. The alternative is to wage a war of attrition,

gradually wearing down the states and publics resolve. Terrorists seek to install a

climate of fear that erodes the public psyche, and to impose escalating economic

costs, draining the states financial resources and the collective will. Publicity has

traditionally been a major dissident objective, as Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corp. has

commented that, terrorist dont want a lot of people dead; they want a lot of people

watching. Jenkins has also described terrorism as a form of political theater. This

may be true of national liberation movements, but todays Islamist extremists now

want a lot of people dead.

Many of these objectives could be pursued without resorting to terrorism

against innocent civilians. However, States recognize that their forces and facilities

are the primary targets of political violence and they adopt security and force

protection measures that deny insurgents the ability to strike at these priority targets.

By hardening priority targets, states encourage insurgents to attack softer targets in

the civil sector. When the insurgents comply, the inevitable consequence is civilian

casualties, whether intentional, or accidental. Insurgents have now become terrorists


9/22

for perpetrating violence against non-combatant targets. In fact, the targets may not

have been non-combatants, but such distinctions are rarely considered. Once

dissidents have crossed the threshold to terrorism the rules change the costs and

risks escalate and the challenge to maintain and build public support increases. For

dissidents terrorism is the tactic of last resort, when all else has failed. One can

argue that for weak regimes, lacking broad public support and legitimacy state

terrorism is also a tactic of the weak, but the tactic of first resort.

The international community has often demonstrated a willingness to tolerate

political violence against civilians perpetrated by statesstate terrorism. Repressive

states have been responsible for far greater terrorism than any so-called terrorist

organization, yet they are allowed to continue their participation in the worlds

political and economic community. Only in the most enduring and grievous cases

does the international community sanction, or exclude a repressive state. In addition,

countries and arms merchants sell arms, provide military training and economic

support to repressive, even terrorist regimes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that

state repression breeds international terrorism and that terrorists will target those

who lend support to their adversaries. Its little wonder that terrorism has emerged as

a major threat to world security and peace.

One aspect of political violence and terrorism thats rarely discussed in depth are the

economic impacts, both negative and positive. The direct costs incurred to defend

against and counter terrorism is enormous, worse still are the incalculable social and

human costs. But terrorism has its upside too, creating an economic boom for

defence-related industries and private contractors. Repairing and rebuilding cities

like Beirut, or Londons financial district and Lower Manhattan are a windfall for those

who profit from the efforts. Constructing forts and security installations, or erecting

Berlin-style peace walls and security fences through Belfast, or around Israels

Occupied Territories, shift limited state funds from more socially useful services, but

create business opportunity and profits. The unspoken issue is that these

expenditures create a new constituency that benefits from continued violence. The

beneficiaries can become influential, if conflicted, advocates of hard line policies that

suit their business objectives.


10/22

Conclusion

Its doubtful that terrorism is any sane persons first choice. Most disgruntled people

would start with a petition stating their grievances and setting forth their demands for

reform. If denied, they might organize to demonstrate, or protest and might engage

in civil disobedienceall design to attract public attention and broaden their support.

If denied again, they might attempt legal action, if such avenues are open to them.

And if they fail, what then? And what if the denial involves being attacked and beaten

by authorities, or being arrested and imprisoned? The reactions of the state

government can directly influence the course of future events.

Oftentimes, counter-demonstrators who fear that the government will give in todissidents demands confront demonstrators. These clashes can lead to violence

and destroy hope for resolution of the problems.


11/22

An Introduction

Illegal immigrants are people who migrate across national borders without

complying with the legal requirements. Some people call those they suspect of illegal

immigration as illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants. People who arrive

legally but then overstay their visas may also have illegal status. The term illegal

immigrant is highly contested because some consider it a pejorative term, since

some consider violating the law a moral as well as legal issue. Because of these, the

illegal immigrants give serious effects to host country like Malaysia which makes our

government worried about the Malaysian community.

Migration across our national border by illegal immigrants strongly affects our

social security. This is because some of them are the most wanted terrorists in their

countries. They come to Malaysia to release themselves from the law impeachment.

By doing the own same action in our boundaries, they are associated with the cases

of robbery and rape. In fact, entire citizens live in fear and maybe afraid to go

outside. Those illegal immigrants are influenced by their culture such as fighting

among each other and lifestyle to survive in their country For sure this will bring a

bad image to Malaysia. For instance, the cases which involved an Indonesian shot

out and died in a police attack not a normal case more. On 10 March 2005, the

Royal Malaysian Police officers shoot four Indonesian workers when they became

wary while carrying out a security patrol in Sungai Buloh area at Selangor. The four

victims of the Indonesian workers were Dedi, Reni, Markus and Gaspar, (High beam

Research, 2005). Some of our army sends to Semporna, Sabah to fight with the

terrorist that use high technologies weapon.


12/22

The Impact of Illegal Migration

The migrations of the illegal immigrants also bring another big problem to our country

that is dangerous diseases. As we know illegal immigrants come from rural areas

and when they enter our boundaries they do not even go to the public or the private

health department for a medical check-up. Diseases such as HIV, AIDS and TB are

some of the disease brought by them. The health problem will enlarge because this

illegal immigrant brings lot of health problem from their country. For instance the HIV,

it refers to the smuggling of women for the purposes of forced prostitution and this

will lead to HIV virus in other hand it will increase the total of fatality. (The effects of

illegal immigrant in Malaysia, 2008). Because of these diseases, entire citizens

become afraid to be affected by those and some of them have been a victim of the

diseases. Nowadays, more and more people are suffering from these diseases and

this contributes towards the cases of death.

Civil rights are class of right and freedom that protect the individual from

unwarranted government action. What this mean is that violation of civil rights is our

local labour right has been taken by the illegal immigrants. Most employers in our

country like to hire them rather than our own local workers. The cost to hire foreign

workers is cheaper than locals in terms of their salary. For instance, the construction

industry is dominated by Pilipino workers, maid services are normally related with

Indonesians and the plantation sector is usually run by the Indonesians and Pilipino.

Subsequently, our local workers are faced with the shortage of job opportunities. The

arrival of immigrants, especially those without licenses, as well as cause problems

with housing.


13/22

They will establish a residential area illegally. Some migrant groups are also

open forest areas as housing areas. These slum areas are not organized and lack

basic services such as waste disposal systems and wastewater. Thus,

environmental pollution will occur. In addition, the development of a goldfish will

come as well as the emergence of squatters is stunted. Also affected the image of

our country as this reflects the weakness of the government administration and

distribution of economic imbalance. There is also a rich area of illegal settlements,

complete with electricity, and water. The right of the people we are somewhat

affected. The employers prefer to hire illegal immigrants in the plantation sector,

construction, and domestic helpers because their salaries were much lower. This

would affect the employment opportunities of our citizens even though not all the

people we are interested in this job. In addition, many of them engage in the

business, such as food stalls, selling jewellery, decorative lights, batik and more. In

fact, some of them have become filthy rich, married without paying large income tax.

Conclusion

In conclusion,Illegal immigration has caused much turmoil in Malaysia. When

the illegal immigrants enter into Malaysia they are bringing in harmful diseases that

have never been a problem in this area such as tuberculosis and leprosy. Even

though Malaysia's economy is doing well many of their people are looking for jobs

but are not able to find them since the illegal immigrants are occupying them. It has

taken a lot of government time and money which could be used in other areas such

as education or new development. Not only are the people of Malaysia affected, but

the immigrants themselves are too, because when they are deported they are often

sold into slavery or abused. illegal immigrants may affect our country negatively. We

can see it affect to our economy, social structure and health. Therefore, before the

problem becomes more serious, the authorities should take corrective action to

overcome this problem to save our country from any negative effects that are

brought by the illegal immigrants.


14/22

An Introduction

China is the worlds most important rising power. In two decades, China has moved

from the periphery to the centre of the international system. Every day and

everywhere, China figures prominently in global attention. Wherever one turns,

China is in the news gobbling up resources, soaking up investment, expanding its

overseas footprint, asserting itself in its Asian neighbourhood, being the sought-after

suitor in global governance diplomacy, sailing its navy into new waters, broadening

its global media exposure and cultural presence, and managing a mega-economy

that is the engine of global growth. Chinas global impact is increasingly felt on every

continent, in most international institutions, and on many global issues. By many

measures, China is now clearly the worlds second leading power, after the United

States, and its aggregate economy is due to surpass that of the United States

sometime around 2025.

For the past three decades, observers have watched how the world has

impacted China; now the tables are turning and it is necessary to understand how

China is impacting the world. Chinas emergence on the world stage is accelerating

dramatically in pace and scope and it is important to understand the differentmanifestations of its going global. Chinas global expansion did not occur by

happenstance. It grew directly out of Communist Party and government policies

launched at the famous Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee in

December 1978 to engage in reform and opening Throughout the 1980s, China

invited the world in and began its hesitant baby steps on the world stage

particularly in overseas educational and science and technology exchanges. By the

early 1990s, there was a conscious government policy launched to encourage

Chinese commercial firms to go out and for Chinese localities and organizations to

more generally go global. The encouragement to Chinese companies did not really

begin to materialize fully until the mid-2000s, while a considerable international

initiatives were being launched by a wide variety of Chinese organizations, localities,

and individuals.


15/22

China As A New Global Power.

In 2008, China launched its global cultural blitz, attempting to improve its

international image and build its soft power. Militarily, during the same decade the

Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) stepped up its international foreign exchanges,

amounting to more than four hundred annual exchanges. Thus the origins of Chinas

going global date back several decades, even if the manifestations of it are more

recent.

Over a longer period of time, a distinguishing feature of Chinas modernization

mission has been the national pursuit of comprehensive power. The Chinese have

wisely learned one key lesson from studying the experiences of other previous

powers: genuine global powers possess multidimensional strength. Chinesestrategists have observed the failings of other powers that possessed strength in

only a single dimension or a few, and they have thus concluded that it is important to

build and cultivate power comprehensively across a variety of spheres: the economy,

science, technology, education, culture, values, military, governance, diplomacy, and

other sectors. The Chinese grasp that idea that power is comprehensive and

integrative, not atomistic. Nor is power today the same as in the nineteenth or

twentieth centurys, when industrial and military power prevailed; today it must reflecta strong cultural and normative dimension (soft power) as well. Thus Chinas

contemporary effort to regain its status as a global power has consciously included

multiple dimensions.

China has a very long way to go before it becomes if it ever becomesa

true global power. And it will never rule the world. The evidence presented from

Bloomberg news reveals that China has an increasingly broad footprint across the

globe, but it is not particularly deep. Even its presence varies substantially by sector.

Chinas appeal as a model to others is weak to nonexistent, I argue. Moreover,

Chinas global posture is beset by multiple weaknesses not the least of which is

domestic and that the nations strengths are not as strong as they seem on face

value. The common denominator to most of Chinas global activities and foreign

policy is Chinasown economic development, which leads to a mercantilist trade and

investment posture. I also find that China possesses high soft power, and is a modelfor other nations to emulate.


16/22

The fact that China is increasingly seen as leading the world, economically, is

borne out by Pew Globals research. Of 20 countries surveyed in both 2008 and

2013, the median percentage asserting China as the worlds leading economic

power increased from 20% to 34%. At the same time, the figure for the United

States has fallen from 47% to 41%.It is generally the most economically developed

countries that perceive China on top. As of 2013, a majority of publics in Australia

(61% compared to 40% in 2008), Germany (59% compared to 30% in 2008), Spain

(56% compared to 24% in 2008), Britain (53% compared to 29% in 2008), and

France (53% compared to 31% in 2008) see China as the worlds leading economic

power.

This trend is evident despite the fact that China, on current trajectories, isunlikely to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world in terms of

GDP (measured per capita, the presumed overtake is even more distant) for a

decade or more, and significant uncertainties still surround its future

development. This underlines how international sentiment can overshoot facts on

the ground, and probably reflects perceptions of citizens in developed economies

that China has become a much greater commercial rival since 2008.

Chinas grand strategy is premised on a gradual, peaceful transition to power

(harmonious society) during which it will grow stronger while keeping low

profile. The brighter spotlight on the country, since 2008, has thus been

unanticipated, and unplanned for.And, it is this which has fuelled Chinas soft power

deficit. Soft power, which rests upon the international attractiveness of a countrys

foreign policy, political values and culture, is recognized by Beijing as a key political

commodity, but one the country has had limited success in cultivating. As

international perceptions of Chinas power have changed, there are growing signs of

international concern and sometimes even outright hostility toward the country.

Chinas image would also benefit from enhanced public diplomacy to win more

foreign hearts and minds. At a symbolic level, example measures might include

utilizing the countrys growing capabilities in space travel for high-profile international

cooperation projects. Surveys underline that many around the world admire Chinas

strength in science and technology.


17/22

Conclusion

As a conclusion, the only sense in which China is a superpower is economic - that is,

its economy is already over half the size of the US economy and projected to

overtake it around 2018, notwithstanding its reduced growth rate of 7%. But this is

overwhelmingly a function of China's huge population. In terms of technology and

living standards it lags far behind the United States of America. Instead the

quintessential forms of Chinese power will be economic and cultural. Over time,

China's economic strength - given the size of its population - will be gigantic, far

greater than other at its zenith. Already, even at its present low level of

development, China is the main trading partner of a multitude of countries around the

world. And with economic power will become commensurate political power andinfluence. China will, if it wishes, be able to bend many other countries to its will.The

Chinese are enormously proud of their historical achievements. They believe that

theirs is the greatest civilisation there has ever been. Theyhave a strong sense of

their own superiority rooted in history. They have long had a hierarchical view of the

world, with China at the top. And the rise of China is likely to accentuate these views.


18/22

An Introduction

An arms race, can define as a competition between two or more parties to have the

best armed forces. Each party competes to produce larger numbers ofweapons,

greater armies, or superiormilitary technology in atechnological escalation.

International conflict specialist Theresa Clair Smith defines the term as "the

participation of two or more nation-states in apparently competitive or interactive

increases in quantity or quality of war material and/or persons under arms".

More generically, the term "arms race" is used to describe any competition where

there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other

competitors in rank or knowledge. An arms race may also imply futility as the

competitors spend a great deal of time and money, yet end up in the same situation

as if they had never started the arms race.

The new arms race is currently the focus of much political debate in

Germany. The United States missile defence plans have led politicians from the

Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Greens, and the Left to professin dramatic

termsthe dangers of this phenomenon. In principle, the armament decisions of one

country can have serious consequences for other countries, so it is reasonable to

discuss the issue. In the German debate, however, the term arms race has

degenerated into an empty, but popular phrase backed by a noticeable absence of

strategic analysis. If this debate continues, German politics is in danger of losing

sight of the real issues at stake.

In Europe today, the ability to deal with real security threats is impaired by a

nearly hysterical fear of arms races. However, a quick look back in Europes history

demonstrates the danger of this view. Naturally the situation today is different to thatof pre-World War II and Europe is not confronted with another Hitler. However, by

shunning an arms race, Germany could one day wake up to the realization that it has

been taken nuclear hostage by Iran in its embittered hate campaign against Israel

and the United States. The latest Russian efforts to use the threat of an arms race to

conjure fear in Germany illuminates another danger: fuelling paranoia of an arms

race between Russia and the United States could make Germany an unwilling

accomplice in Russias ambitions to regain its former hegemonies position in Eastern

Central Europe by obstructing transatlantic cooperation in missile defence. It could
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_escalationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_escalationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon


19/22

also provide an opportunity for Moscow to drive another wedge into the already

shaky transatlantic alliance.

Arm Race : Rise to its Occurrence

This basic international relations question has received extensive attention. A large

quantitative empirical literature addresses the consequences of arms races by

focusing on whether they correlate with war, but remains divided on the answer. The

theoretical literature falls into opposing camps: arms races are driven by the security

dilemma, are explained by the rational spiral model, and decrease security, or arms

races are driven by revisionist adversaries, explained by the deterrence model, andincrease security.

An arms race is an interstate competition that motivates states to innovate,

design and deploy the most lethal war technology in order to gain the upper hand

against their rival states. However, arms races also create the looming danger of

mutual destruction as an unintended by-product of both states striving to gain the

upper hand in the battlefield. Primarily, in older economic and political theories, arms

races are viewed as an actionreaction process triggered, fuelled and shaped by

real or perceived external threat. One state, fearing a second state as a threat,

embarks on a military build-up. The rival state, observing the action of the first state,

reacts by augmenting its military power, which in turn motivates the first state to

increase its military power and thus the arms race starts.

In the latest works on arms races it is usually assumed that a sequence of

states, or leaders of these states, each chooses in turn one of two options, A (to

arm) or B (not to arm), with each s tate observing all of its predecessors choices.

They have common preferences among the two choices but do not know which is

better. Each state knows the costs and benefits of its own military build-up, but it is

unsure of the costs and benefits of its rivals in the arms race.It is well-documented in

the existing literature that military spending can pose a security dilemma, when a

state chooses to retaliate to the military build-up of another state because it is

unaware of the rivals true intentions. The reciprocated increases in arming


20/22

potentially engender a spiral of hostilities, increasing the chances for the outbreak of

armed conflict.

In other words, the costs and benefits of arming often depend on the social,

moral, political and psychological considerations of the leaders of states, which are

often idiosyncratic and country- or leader-specific. In this scenario, leaders have an

incentive to learn from social interactions about their rivals true preferences, actions

and intentions. There is an extensive literature in economics on the relevance of

social interactions and social learning for economic behaviour in a wide range of

contexts. As an example, we now know that social interactions in neighbourhoods

can shape, influence and propel individual choices in important contexts ranging

from education to crime. The literature has firmly established that social interactionscan have a wide range of effects on the properties of the economic equilibrium:

social interactions can lead either to conformity of behaviour or to polarized actions.

They can also cause multiplicity of equilibrium in cases in which equilibrium would

otherwise be simple and unique, which in turn can create indeterminacy and make

consequent outcomes inexplicable to modern economics.

The latest vintage of game-theoretic models of arms race has provided a

complete formalization of the critical role of information revelation, transmission and

pre-play communications to offer new insights into the dynamics of arms race. In a

similar vein, the latest cohorts of international relations models highlight the role of

social learning, information problems and information acquisition to explain the onset

of arms race. From these valuable new works we now learn that there is nothing

automatic, instantaneous and sacrosanct about arms race as there is positive

probability that the dtente equilibrium will prevail to stem costly and self-destructive

arms race from occurring. Arms races will not go astray as the desire to arm will be

bound by the leash of this dtente equilibrium. In other words, apparently there is no

economic justification for arms races to race to the bottom.

In 2011, according to the Grimmett Report of 2012, the three major markets for

conventional weapons in the developing world were Saudi Arabia (21 per cent), India

(13 per cent) and the UAE (6 per cent) while many other states have continually

upgraded their military capability. Both China and Pakistan are major absorbers of

conventional weapons, yet the data from China and Pakistan on arms spending and
http://www.globalissues.org/http://www.globalissues.org/


21/22

their bilateral trade in arms are too unreliable to make a reasonable analysis. In the

absence of meaningful regulation the global arms market, akin to anarchy, suffers

from widespread corruption, bribery and kickbacks in the midst of which the top three

armament firms usually share immense market spoils, for example, a whopping sale

of arms worth almost $98 billion, roughly 10 per cent profits for the largest three firms

and possible profits of $50 billion for the entire supply chain in 2012, from producing

machines for aggravating human miseries.

Conclusion

The last half-century has seen a radical change in the general attitude toward war.

Most people take it for granted today that peaceful solution of international conflict is

intrinsically desirable and even aggressors pay at least lip service to this principle.

The idea of some form of arms control as one of the requisites for maintaining peace

has also been gaining ground. While the desirability of arm race seems to be

accepted in principle and as an abstract aim, like goodness, there is little unanimity

on the possibility or even the desirability of achieving it now or soon. It is not enough

to tell the world to disarm or face the consequences. It is necessary first of all to

inquire whether arm race is really necessary. By the end of the cold war, from

various research works published in the 1990s, we now know how armament firms

have regularly spread false rumours about the military and naval programs of various

states, engaged in scaremongering, played one country off against another,

influenced public opinion on armament through control of media and formed powerful

arms cartels to promote a global arms race. In other words, while money talks, big

money talks so much louder that it forces many states to home in on an arms race

even when they are fully convinced that there is absolutely no need to do so. It is

often argued that the arms race has deepened the cycle of violence, oiled terrorism

and increased human rights violation mostly in developing states.


22/22

mozi assignment

Documents