東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Through Too Western-Centric a Lens :...

Byford, George J.,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War // George J Byford.
作者:	Byford, George J.,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (170 pages)
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International86-04.
標題:	Democracy. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31510905
ISBN:	9798342108584

Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War /
Byford, George J.,

Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War /George J Byford. - 1 electronic resource (170 pages)

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04.

From the end of the Cold War until 2016, the US Foreign Policy (FP) Establishment remained committed to a grand strategy of global hegemony. Four consecutive Presidential Administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, pursued America's commitment to global leadership. They, in fact, created the opportunity and conditions in which the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) has risen to become the United States' most formidable strategic competitor, an aspiring, regional hegemon in the Pacific, and an "emerging potential superpower".China, throughout the same time, has risen to become the world's 2nd largest economy and transformed its military - moving it closer to parity with US Forces in the Pacific. In 2001, the PRC joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) and gained access, on favorable terms, to Western markets and foreign investment. Contrary to the objectives of the US FP strategy of Engagement, China remains an illiberal, authoritarian regime and pursues increasingly aggressive foreign policy abroad. Most observers concede that the "liberal bet that China would integrate as a 'responsible stakeholder' into a US-led liberal order has failed."This paper argues that the leading cause for the marked disparity between the US plan for its relations with China and how those relations have and continue to unfold is the US failure to adequately consider the Chinese perspective. The US FP Establishment, between the end of the Cold War and 2016, continued to view China through too "Western Centric" a lens.The paper will review examples of the statements and actions, made over this period by leaders within the PRC. It will also review examples of the US FP Establishment analyses, efforts to develop, and decisions to implement US-China policy as a response to China's statements and actions. The paper presents evidence that supports the claim that the US FP Establishment's efforts - i.e., to diagnose as well as to develop prescriptive policy in response to China's actions on the world stage - were undertaken without adequately considering the Chinese perspective. Examples reviewed include China's increasingly tense, Cross-strait relations with Taiwan, China's increasingly assertive behavior in the South and East China Seas, and China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) modernization efforts.Failure was manifest in the continued belief that increased economic liberalization would necessarily lead to increased political liberalization, China's embrace of liberal ideals, and assimilation into a US-led Liberal International Order. It has not.The paper contrasts the Western perspective with the perspective that drove China and their FP actions throughout this period. Specifically, it highlights the difference between the Western and Chinese perspectives on strategy, conflict, struggle, and war.To present and begin to accurately understand the Chinese perspective, the paper looks to translations of official, Chinese government sources. To strengthen this paper's conclusions made from a review of Chinese sources, the paper also looks to Western scholars who likewise relied heavily upon Chinese sources in their arguments. This brief exploration and consideration of China's perspective indicates that the "liberal bet" (mentioned above) was never a well-informed one. China, as is unambiguously supported by solid evidence, has had a grand strategic plan that does not include remaining subordinated to a hegemonic America.

English

ISBN: 9798342108584Subjects--Topical Terms:

519163
Democracy.

Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War /
LDR:04953nmm a22004213i 4500 001 2428258
005 20250414021649.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798342108584
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31510905
035 $a (MiAaPQD)Dartmouth_masterstheses1164
035 $a AAI31510905
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Byford, George J., $e author. $3 3815349
245 1 0 $a Through Too Western-Centric a Lens : Inadequate Consideration of the Chinese Perspective in US-China Policymaking After the Cold War / $c George J Byford.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (170 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 86-04.
500 $a Advisors: Pease, Donald E.; Rezvani, David; DeShazo, Peter; Lechner, Evelyn.
502 $b M.A. $c Dartmouth College $d 2024.
520 $a From the end of the Cold War until 2016, the US Foreign Policy (FP) Establishment remained committed to a grand strategy of global hegemony. Four consecutive Presidential Administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, pursued America's commitment to global leadership. They, in fact, created the opportunity and conditions in which the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) has risen to become the United States' most formidable strategic competitor, an aspiring, regional hegemon in the Pacific, and an "emerging potential superpower".China, throughout the same time, has risen to become the world's 2nd largest economy and transformed its military - moving it closer to parity with US Forces in the Pacific. In 2001, the PRC joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) and gained access, on favorable terms, to Western markets and foreign investment. Contrary to the objectives of the US FP strategy of Engagement, China remains an illiberal, authoritarian regime and pursues increasingly aggressive foreign policy abroad. Most observers concede that the "liberal bet that China would integrate as a 'responsible stakeholder' into a US-led liberal order has failed."This paper argues that the leading cause for the marked disparity between the US plan for its relations with China and how those relations have and continue to unfold is the US failure to adequately consider the Chinese perspective. The US FP Establishment, between the end of the Cold War and 2016, continued to view China through too "Western Centric" a lens.The paper will review examples of the statements and actions, made over this period by leaders within the PRC. It will also review examples of the US FP Establishment analyses, efforts to develop, and decisions to implement US-China policy as a response to China's statements and actions. The paper presents evidence that supports the claim that the US FP Establishment's efforts - i.e., to diagnose as well as to develop prescriptive policy in response to China's actions on the world stage - were undertaken without adequately considering the Chinese perspective. Examples reviewed include China's increasingly tense, Cross-strait relations with Taiwan, China's increasingly assertive behavior in the South and East China Seas, and China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) modernization efforts.Failure was manifest in the continued belief that increased economic liberalization would necessarily lead to increased political liberalization, China's embrace of liberal ideals, and assimilation into a US-led Liberal International Order. It has not.The paper contrasts the Western perspective with the perspective that drove China and their FP actions throughout this period. Specifically, it highlights the difference between the Western and Chinese perspectives on strategy, conflict, struggle, and war.To present and begin to accurately understand the Chinese perspective, the paper looks to translations of official, Chinese government sources. To strengthen this paper's conclusions made from a review of Chinese sources, the paper also looks to Western scholars who likewise relied heavily upon Chinese sources in their arguments. This brief exploration and consideration of China's perspective indicates that the "liberal bet" (mentioned above) was never a well-informed one. China, as is unambiguously supported by solid evidence, has had a grand strategic plan that does not include remaining subordinated to a hegemonic America.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0059
650 4 $a Democracy. $3 519163
650 4 $a Socialism. $3 528529
650 4 $a Assertiveness. $3 769265
650 4 $a East Asian studies. $3 3764093
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
690 $a 0773
690 $a 0509
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a Dartmouth College. $b Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. $e degree granting institution. $3 3815350
720 1 $a Pease, Donald E. $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Rezvani, David $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a DeShazo, Peter $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Lechner, Evelyn $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 86-04.
790 $a 0059
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31510905