As nations across the globe become more dependent on one another through international commerce, the Internet, multilateral organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's), individual governments need to re-evaluate their foreign policy agendas. This is particularly true for the United States and the People's Republic of China (PRC), the two nations that have the greatest potential to increase their individual powers, politically, diplomatically, and economically, in the next century. The current governments of both nations have begun to develop foreign policy agendas that are closer in tune with the international relations theory of complex interdependence than the realist theory that dominated the Cold War.

Their current strategies are increasingly attempting to garner a level of mutual understanding in order to lead toward cooperation on all fronts of the two nations' interactions. Specifically, the overall relationship between the two nations is increasing the level of importance of economic interdependence in order to break down barriers when the two nations are forced to face other problems in the international arena. No longer is military force the primary tool being utilized in international interactions. Diplomacy, economic sanctions, and pressure from multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO), are providing the means to solve many of the world's disputes, rather than an initial resort to violent, military means.

This new attitude has been a gradual shift from their interactions over the last fifty years, during much of the existence of the PRC, that could easily be viewed and described through the realist school of thought. In order to understand this continuing shift, it is necessary to understand the basic principles of each school of thought: realism, as proposed by such ancient thinkers as Thucydides and Macchiavelli, and modern theorists such as Hans J. Morgenthau, George Kennan, Robert Gilpin, and Kenneth Waltz, and complex interdependence, a form of liberal institutionalism, as initially proposed by modern international relations theorists Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye. Each of the differing theories provides a structural framework from which analysis of global interaction can be made.

The realist school of thought has been utilized to analyze international relations, in one form or another, since the age of the ancient Greeks. Basically, the fundamental structures for classical realism are based on the writings of Thucydides, a historian that chronicled a conflict between two great, nation-state powers of the ancient Greek world, Athens and Sparta. In his work, The Peloponnesian War, Thucydides analyzed the conflict by stating that international politics is driven by an endless struggle for power, which has its roots in human nature.1 Furthermore, Thucydides goes on to describe the state of nature as one of anarchy, with each nation having a dominant concern for its own security. According to the historian, within a given structure of states, a hierarchy among the states determined the pattern of their relations. Therefore, Thucydides claimed that while a change in the hierarchy of weaker states did not ultimately affect a given system, a disturbance in the order of stronger states would decisively upset the stability of the system. "What made the war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta," Thucydides wrote in order to illustrate the resulting systematic change; that is, "...a change in the hierarchy or control of the international political system."2 Thucydides's realism has had a timeless impact on the way contemporary analysts perceive international relations.

According to the works of Robert Gilpin and Kenneth Waltz, Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War provided tools that could be brought into a coherent framework to serve as the basis for a series of laws about the science of modern, international politics. In fact, political scientists have treated the work of Thucydides as a coherent attempt to communicate his theory of universal truths that have served as the basis for American foreign policy and security doctrine, which can be used as a focal point of all international relations, in the post World War II era. Thus, on one hand, Thucydides was the first to describe international relations as anarchic and immoral, with nations continuously on a quest for power. On the other hand, Thucydides illustrated the Cold War phenomenon of "polarization" among states, resulting from their strategic interaction and natural (and sometimes unnatural) tendencies toward one side of the bilateral system.3 The impact of Thucydides on modern realist theorists has been profound, as can be seen in the fundamentals of structural realism.

In a nutshell, the modern realist school of thought is based on the theory that states act on the global stage on threats of force and security. Furthermore, realist theory makes the assumption that security is the dominant concern of states, force is the major instrument of power, and state governments maintain their balance of power as they interact with each other. Realists would argue that stability occurs when there is a relatively equal distribution of power in any given area. A disruption in that balance by one state gaining too much power will often lead to conflict.

To expand on the previous paragraph, one could view the numerous alterations that have been made to traditional realist theory in order to fill in some part of the original theory that the new theorist felt was insufficient for analyzing international relations at the time. But, for the purposes of this paper, it is necessary to simply look at the assumptions made by theorists that are useful as a general basis of realist thought and the basis on which other theories are developed.

The first assumption necessary for the realist theorist is that states are the primary actors in the study of international relations. Non-state actors, such as NGO's and multinational corporations are much less important. Furthermore, it is the view of realists that multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, are not independent actors, since they are simply made up of many, independent, sovereign nations that decide what the organization will do. Another assumption is that the state is rational and unitary. The state is unitary because any policy differences among political leaders or entities within the state are resolved so that the state can be viewed by the rest of the world as speaking with one, coherent voice. Furthermore, the state is said to be rational. That is, states consider all possible options in order to achieve its goals. Finally, realist theory assumes that a state's national security, or national interest, dominates the agenda of the state, and the military is the primary tool to maximize a state's security. To realists, international relations is the struggle for power among states, in order to maintain the security of the states.

These assumptions, in practice, provided policies that were put in place by the United States throughout the Cold War, such as "balance of power," "containment," and "bipolar stability." For the most part, the United States, until the end of the Cold War, played all politics as a strategic measure against that of the Soviet Union. This is the basis of the U.S. relationship with the People's Republic of China during the Cold War. Although "friendly" relations were initiated in 1972 with President Nixon's visit to China, the policy was based on the theory that a strategic partnership with the PRC was ultimately a policy of "containment" of the Soviet Union. Specific areas of the policy will be discussed later. This relationship, especially since the end of the Cold War, has been determined by a more liberal philosophy initially thought out by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, called "complex interdependence." This new theory better fits (although not perfectly) the relationship of the two nations in the last decade or so.

The theory of complex interdependence came out of changing world during the 1970's, when the realist perspective on international relations was failing to take into account many of the new aspects of interstate relations. Although the global stage setting has changed quite a bit since the original inception of this theory into the study of international relations, the basic principles of complex interdependence have remained the same. Furthermore, these principles serve as the basis of the policy between the United States and China in the last decade, with increased emphasis placed on economic interdependence, rather than a military strategy, as focused on in the realist perspective practiced during the Cold War.

Interdependence is loosely defined as mutual dependence between two entities. Within international relations, interdependence refers to "situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries."4 According to Keohane and Nye, complex interdependence has three main characteristics.

First, there are multiple channels that connect societies, including informal and formal government-to-government ties, multinational corporations, and multilateral organizations. This contradicts the realist notion that states only act as coherent, sovereign units. These multiple channels suggest the various levels of contact that national leaders, both formal and informal, have with one another, continuously increasing opportunity for dialogue and the building of relationships between the significant interstate players. In addition, multinational corporations and financial institutions can directly affect the relationships between states. Since these firms are often limited very little by government control, they are playing an increased role in international relations. This increased role is due to the fact that these firms employ citizens of multiple nations, pay taxes in multiple nations, and have an increased influence on a nation's relationship with its business community. These firms are transcending state boundaries.

Along with these multinational firms, environmental concerns and technology controls are increasing the interaction between nations. Environmental concerns, such as global warming and industrial emissions, do not stop at a nation's border and can have a devastating effect on the global community. Furthermore, as technology, especially the Internet, is making the world a more "connected" place, with increased communications throughout the world, the spread of information and ideas is not limited to a single society, but rather creates a more knowledgeable, informed, global society. Thus, a nation's foreign economic, environmental, and technology policies are having a larger role in its domestic affairs, which with these new blurred lines, is increasing the number of issues relevant to foreign policy decisions.

Second, there are multiple issues on the agendas of states that are not necessarily arranged in a hierarchy. Thus, military security does not always dominate a nation's agenda, as the realist theorists would believe. Many issues arise from what used to be considered simple domestic policy, as described in the previous paragraph. These issues are important to numerous aspects of a national government, not just the foreign policy offices. Different issues often create opposing coalitions within a national government and within a domestic society, so domestic politics does not always stop at the state's border. Even as early as 1975, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, one of the strongest proponents of the realist philosophy in American foreign policy, said, "...progress in dealing with the traditional agenda is no longer enough. A new and unprecedented kind of issue has emerged. The problems of energy, resources, environment, population, the uses of space and the seas now rank with questions of military security, ideology, and territorial rivalry, which have traditionally made up the diplomatic agenda."5 The former U.S. Secretary of State realized that the world was changing, and has even expanded on this earlier statement with references to other multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations.6

This increase in multilateral organizations, along with the increase in multiple, domestic interests desiring an international role for their issues, creates a difficulty in formulating a sound, unitary foreign policy. Every decision will have a lasting effect on a group of people, both domestically and internationally, so nations are often coming up with policies that seem contradictory, yet fit individual needs for individual constituencies or ideals.

The third major characteristic of complex interdependence is the decreased role that a state's military force plays in international politics. It is important to recognize that complex interdependence, as it is seen here, does not disregard the magnitude of military power. A nation's military will always be a central component of national power. However, there has been increasing security among industrial, pluralist societies that attacks against one another are almost non-existent. Moreover, military force is no longer the best means of achieving a nation's goals. The effects of military force are extremely costly, economically, politically, and in human terms. Furthermore, the results of military force have become much more uncertain, with too high a risk.

Of course, military power can still be used as a deterrence tool by nations, but since the end of the Cold War, this tool has taken a secondary role to economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure when attempting to deter or compel another nation to act in the powerful nation's interest. Complex interdependence determines that military force has decreased in importance in a nation's toolbox, when compared to the complexity of issues that have risen since the end of the Cold War.7

One aspect that complex interdependence deals with and that stands out when describing U.S.-PRC relations over the last decade, is the strategy of linkage. As military force is devalued, militarily strong nations will find it more difficult to deter or compel nations on other issues based on a nation's military strength. In the past, militarily strong states were able to link their military power to any number of issues. In today's global community, economics are playing an increasing role, and have taken the place as the top ranking linkage tool of economically strong nations. Although Keohane and Nye put less emphasis on linkage, they do make the point that the increase of different issues will make linkage more problematic and will tend to reduce the international hierarchy.8 Although this may be somewhat true, linkage in this paper tends to put emphasis on a nation's ability to link its markets, and through multilateral organizations economic sanctions, on another nation to compel it to comply. As the world's markets become increasingly more open and free trade reigns, it will be more difficult for a nation to act independently against the wishes of its trading partners, since its economic prosperity will be determined by its role in the international marketplace. Thus, linkage of economics and trade to other issues, such as military non-proliferation, human rights concerns, and environmental protection, will be the most powerful tool in a world of increasingly complex issues.

When U.S. President Richard Nixon arrived in Beijing to meet with Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the two powers began a process of normalization of relations. From the standpoint of the United States, the strategic partnership with the PRC was a direct policy of containment of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, with the Vietnam War on the brink of ending with the scoreboard showing a loss for the United States, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger realized that another foothold was necessary in Asia in order to maintain the U.S. position, militarily and economically, in the region. The PRC sought to have greater security in the Asia-Pacific theater, specifically due to their desired decreased level of U.S. involvement in the area. In the first of three Joint Communiqués, the Chinese leaders stated:

...All nations, big or small, should be equal: big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind. The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all the oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation and that the people of all countries have the right to choose their social systems according to their own wishes and the right to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their own countries and oppose foreign aggression, interference, control and subversion. All foreign troops should be withdrawn to their own countries...10

This statement makes very clear that the PRC does not seek to be a superpower, nor do they think that the United States should be a hegemony. Specifically, the Chinese were targeting the United States position in Asia, and attempting to circumvent the U.S. position by creating a stronger relationship with the nation. Within the previous statement, the Chinese use the basic assumption of realist theory that all states are sovereign, unitary actors and that the Chinese government supports the struggle for power and use of military force to safeguard that "sovereignty and territorial integrity." Over the next twenty years, trade and economic interdependence between the two nations increased; the Cold War came to an end; international organizations (both political and issue-based) helped to develop the international agenda, as well as individual nations' agendas; and, the relationship between the two nations, although bumpy at times, became a more sound, diplomatically-based, mutually beneficial relationship.

Since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between the PRC and the United States has been defined by many issues, including economic interdependence, regional security, environmental concerns, human rights, and the international flow of technology and information. Each of these areas are continually being resurfaced and mutually linked to one another in multilateral discussions and agreements, bilateral, government-level talks, and increased societal exchanges. Furthermore, the increased economic interdependence, which will become even more of the cornerstone to the relationship in the future than it is now, has been on the top of the agenda of both nations' bilateral foreign policies in the form of a policy moving toward China's WTO accession.

When China becomes a full-fledged member of the WTO, it is thought, the world will begin to see a new China. This new China will be brought into the global marketplace, and will strategically create a China that is interdependent with the rest of the economies of the WTO. Through a U.S. policy of engagement that will lead to global access to China's markets, it is thought that China will be more inclined to use diplomacy and economic means, rather than military aggression or the threat of aggression, in order to solve regional and global disputes. Although there will be increased economic interdependence, there will continue to be areas of contention between China and the international community.

These areas of conflict, however, will increasingly be linked to China's economic growth, and will be determined through diplomatic and economic channels, international pressure, and cross-societal exchanges, rather than through armed confrontation. Furthermore, an increased number of multilateral organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations will play a role in international politics and in the resolution of many of these problem areas. Included in these areas of conflict will be the future of Taiwan, regional stability and military proliferation, environmental protection, and human rights concerns. In the last ten years, many instances of these conflicts have arisen, yet all have been eventually (temporarily) resolved through diplomatic means. This new relationship between the United States and the PRC is a form of complex interdependence, in the original sense, but it also continues to define the theory as a unique, and multi-faceted, relationship.

Many of the issues of possible conflict are being handled in a more sensitive way, but are also becoming more important on the scope of each nation's agenda. At all of the official talks between President Clinton and President Jiang over the last few years, the issues of environmental protection and human rights concerns have been discussed. The relationship on these two issues has been further defined by the pressure on both governments by NGO's specializing in these fields. Furthermore, as MNC's become more active, their influence on government relations will continue to grow. Since many MNC's rely on the grassroots level to buy products and a high level of public relation are necessary to sustain economic growth, NGO's are increasingly targeting MNC's in order to directly affect change through the business sector and indirectly affect change through MNC interaction with government officials. When the world witnessed China's 1989 crackdown on student democracy movements in Beijing, the initial response by the United States and through multilateral organizations was a strict set of economic sanctions. This use of economic linkage to a human rights concern is clear evidence that multiple levels of issues have begun to arise, and the policy tool of the future is economics. The solution to the economic sanctions came through multi-level negotiations between the United States and China, further showing that diplomacy will be used as another top political tool.

Another area of cooperation between the two nations has been military non-proliferation techniques and cooperative, general military policy. Leaders of the armed forces of both nations have had exchanges over the last few years, especially since the tension in the Taiwan Strait of 1996. Since both nations are nuclear powers, both have an interest in decreasing any chance of other nations gaining nuclear capability. For instance, both nations have urged North Korea, India, and Pakistan to curb its production and testing of nuclear weapons, in order to maintain the global nuclear stability.

There have, however, been instances were military cooperation has failed to be a role in the nations' actions, specifically looking at the U.S.-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The "accidental" bombing of the Chinese Embassy very well could have brought the two nations to confrontation, but was instead solved through diplomatic and economic relations. A joint, monetary settlement was made by negotiators from both sides, and both sides realized that their future economic relations would be shattered, along with China's WTO entry, if the PRC responded militarily to the bombing of the embassy. Thus, another example of the complexity of the relationship between the two nations in recent years, and the linkage of an issue to the future economic interdependence of the two nations.

The prospect of economic interdependence has led the United States and the PRC to an increased level of cooperation. The main issue of contention, and most possible area of military conflict over the past fifty years, has been the re-unification question of Taiwan. The issue has brought the two nations as close to military conflict as they have been since the Korean War. Most recently, the well-documented 1995-6 Taiwan Strait Crisis demonstrated the volatility of the Taiwan issue.

During this crisis, the world witnessed intensive and complicated political, military, and most importantly, diplomatic interactions between Beijing, Washington, D.C., and Taipei. In addition to the PRC missile tests surrounding Taiwan's presidential election, Beijing staged two large, air-sea military exercises that continued until March 25, 1996. The Clinton administration announced the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier to the region, led by the USS Nimitz, coming from the Persian Gulf to the Western Pacific, near the Taiwan Strait. The USS Nimitz and its seven escort ships essentially doubled the size of the U.S. naval force off the coast of Taiwan when they joined the USS Independence, the first American aircraft carrier in the region. According to the U.S. military, both aircraft carriers were sent to serve as a stabilizing force, hoping to lower the chances of conflict between China and Taiwan.11 Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense also placed its naval forces on alert, upgrading combat readiness in closer preparation for war. It looked to the world as if there was going to be armed conflict.

Fortunately, all three sides turned to diplomacy to attempt to diffuse the tension. Bilateral diplomacy was increased between Washington, D.C. and Beijing, as well as between Washington, D.C. and Taipei. The director of Foreign Affairs Office of the PRC State Council, Liu Huaqiu, was sent by the PRC government as a special envoy to Washington, D.C. to exchange views with top U.S. officials to discuss mounting military tensions; Ding Mou-shih, the chairman of the National Security Council of Taiwan, was also sent to the United States by Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui to meet U.S. officials on the same issues. It is interesting that envoys from both sides of the Taiwan Strait were in the United States at approximately the same time, talking to separate groups of U.S. officials. The election resulted with President Lee Teng-hui winning re-election with approximately 54% of the popular vote. Post-election, the PRC suggested that its military exercises were successful, since Taiwan was not claiming independence; the Clinton Administration applauded the direct, democratic election and the fact that 'a bullet was dodged' in evading a conflict in the Taiwan Strait through diplomatic actions on behalf of all sides of the conflict.

As tensions were released in the Taiwan Strait, both Taiwan and the PRC demonstrated a stronger will to continue peaceful negotiations. The PRC, of course, reiterated its stance that force could be necessary, but blamed that necessity on 'foreign forces;' pretty much directly blaming the recent tension on the supposed influence that the United States had on Taiwan. In a report from the New China News Agency, PRC Foreign Minister Qian Qichen stated, "We have never undertaken to give up the use of force. This is not directed against the Taiwan compatriots, but against foreign forces attempting to interfere in China's internal affairs and make intrusions, and those on the island trying to bring about 'Taiwan independence.'"12 Of course, Taiwan continued to view the use of force as a direct threat from the communist leaders. The Clinton Administration continued to encourage direct diplomacy across the Taiwan Strait and re-emphasized its support of peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue. According to a U.S. State Department official, "As soon as the situation calms down, we (the U.S.) would want to back away and let the two sides resume a productive exchange to resolve their problems."13 In essence, all sides were playing the diplomatic and military cards to the other side.

In the years since the Taiwan Strait Crisis, both the United State and the PRC have worked to decrease any chance that the level of confrontation will come close to the level of 1996. Through the firm commitment of the United States to its "one-China" policy, an increased support of China's economic future by the U.S. granting China permanent normal trade relations status, and continued diplomatic exchanges, the United States has demonstrated to China that a relationship of mutual understanding and multi-faceted relationships is the best way to maintain stability and security in the Taiwan Strait and in the Asia-Pacific region.

The relationship between the United State and the People's Republic of China will continue to evolve. The current governments of both nations have begun to develop foreign policy agendas that are closer in tune with the international relations theory of complex interdependence than the realist theory that predominated the Cold War. Their policies are increasingly attempting to garner a level of mutually beneficial interactions in order to lead toward cooperation on all fronts of the two nations' agendas. Specifically, the overall relationship between the two nations is increasing the level of importance of economic interdependence in order to break down barriers when the two nations are forced to face other problems in the international arena.

Furthermore, the United States is beginning to use economic linkage to compel the PRC to interact with the global community. No longer is military force the primary tool being utilized in international politics between the two powerful nations. Diplomacy, economic sanctions, and pressure from multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the WTO, are providing the means to solve many of the world's disputes, rather than an initial resort to violent, military means. Also, many levels of communication are occurring, between multi-national corporations and governments, as well as between NGO's and governments. The world is becoming smaller through technology and the increased flow of information, so the United States and the People's Republic of China have changed their policies toward one another to mirror that increased flow of information. This new relationship will bring to the world increased economic growth, regional stability and security, and a higher level of cooperation between the two nations.

1. Timothy Dunne, "Realism," from The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

2. Alexander Kemos, The Influence of Thucydides in the Modern World: The Father of Political Realism Plays a Key Role in Current Balance of Power Theories, from Thucydides's The Peloponnesian War (http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html).

3. Ibid.

4. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, "Realism and Complex Interdependence," from Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, eds., International Relations Theory (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987).

5. Keohane and Nye. Originally from a bulletin issued by the U.S. Department of State, "A New National Partnership," February 17, 1975, page 199.

6. Gathered from personal attendance at a speech given by former Secretary of State Kissinger in October 1999 in Washington, D.C. at a foreign affairs "think-tank", where the Secretary elaborated on the extensive role that multinational organizations are playing on the global stage. He has written extensively that the realist theory that he offered to American foreign policy while he was in his post under President Nixon was formulated during the Cold War and has much less relevance in a situation of increased globalism.

7. Keohane and Nye.

8. Ibid.

9. Table is from Keohane and Nye's article.

10. Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, February 28, 1972 (http://www.fmprc.gov/cn/english).

11. "Nimitz battle group will be in position near Taiwan on Sunday," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 23, 1996 (http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/morechina).

12. "China says Taiwan election shows that voters oppose separation from mainland," The New York Times, March 23, 1996 (http://www.nytimes.com/archives).

13. "ANALYSIS: U.S. hopes Taiwan election will end crisis," Reuters, March 21, 1996 (http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/morechina).

"Analysis: U.S. hopes Taiwan election will end crisis," Reuters Editorial, March 21, 1996, Nando Times Website (http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/morechina).

"China says Taiwan election shows that voters oppose separation from mainland," The New York Times Editorial, March 23, 1996 (http://www.nytimes.com/archives).

Dunne, Timothy, "Realism," and "Liberalism" from John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds., The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Johnston, Alastair Iain, and Ross, Robert S., Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging Power (London and New York: Routledge, 1999).

Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, February 28, 1972, The Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China Website (http://www.fmprc.gov/cn/english).

Kemos, Alexander, "The Influence of Thucydides in the Modern World: The Father of Political Realism Plays a Key Role in Current Balance of Power Theories," from Thucydides's The Peloponnesian War, Hellenic Resources Institute Website, (http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html).

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., "Realism and Complex Interdependence," from Viotti, Paul and Kauppi, Mark, eds., International Relations Theory (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987).

"Nimitz battle group will be in position near Taiwan on Sunday," Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial, March 23, 1996, Nando Times Website (http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/morechina).

Nye, Joseph S., Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (New York: Harper Collins, 1993).

Warkentin, Craig and Mingst, Karen, "International Institutions, the State, and Global Civil Society in the Age of the World Wide Web," based on a paper presented at Duke University, April 9-11, 1999.