Search

This work argues that writer Emmanuel John Hevi's works, written half a century ago about China's likely influence in Africa are still relevant today. Using relevant qualitative data and a constructivist analysis this paper argues that although Hevi was wary of China's influence because of the specific context in which he was writing, Africa would do well to keep his argument in mind and adopt from China only that which can aid the continent's development and spurn that which cannot. Constructivism has been used here to help explain the intersection of Chinese and African identities and interests as the main unifying factor in a growing China-Africa relationship. Hence, it is suggested that the West does not share such depth of identities and interests with China which has hugely influenced Western suspicions of China's growth and incursions in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The simultaneous rise of China and India is one of the most important developments in contemporary world politics. Given their steadily growing power and aspirations and China’s more assertive posture in Asia, the management of China’s rise is one of the major challenges for India’s foreign policy. However, India is often said to have no guiding strategic framework for its China policy, which is seen as incoherent and reactive. This article, by contrast, shows that India has an evolving China strategy and that the alleged inconsistencies in India’s China policy are rather the result of an ambivalent image of China. Drawing on constructivism and discourse analysis, the article identifies the dominant perception of China in India’s foreign policy discourse and the resulting foreign policy strategy. In a next step, the article analyzes the China policy of the Congress-led UPA Government and investigates whether it conforms to the strategic policy frame of the dominant China discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article argues that 2003–4 were decisive years in Russo-Chinese relations. Uncertainties over Russia's commitment to supply China with much needed energy revived deep-seated anxieties about the whole future of their relationship. However, by the autumn of 2004 they had launched plans for strengthening the partnership and widening mutual popular understanding. It also argues that this coincides with new efforts to view their foreign policies through the lens of constructivism, instead of realism. The article then looks at developments in bilateral economic relations and in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, before adumbrating their wider advocacy of multilateralism, linking this to converging relations with India. Finally, it argues that relations with the US will continue to have a significant impact on the direction and closeness of this bilateral relationship. It is still a partnership rather than an alliance. Russia and China may sometimes put a higher priority on their relations with the West rather than on each other. Yet they are also looking at other potential emerging powers and how they can bend that process of emergence to their advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is likely to be the future character of the relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China? Will it be marked by convergence toward deepening cooperation, stability, and peace or by deterioration that leads to increasingly open competition and perhaps even war? The answers to these questions are of enormous importance. They are also, at this point, unknown. Most analysts who write on U.S.-China relations deploy arguments derived from the three main camps in contemporary international relations theorizing: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Those whose basic analytical premises place them in one of these three schools, however, do not necessarily have similar views regarding the specific question of the future of U.S.-China relations. It is possible to identify realists who believe that the relationship will basically be stable and peaceful, liberals who expect confrontation and conflict, and constructivists who think that things could go either way. The six basic positions in this debate all rest on claims about the importance of particular causal mechanisms or sets of similarly aligned causal forces. In reality, one set of forces may turn out to be so powerful as to overwhelm the rest. But it is also conceivable that the future will be shaped by a confluence of different forces, some mutually reinforcing and others opposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]