This article analyses parallels in these discourses by taking a view that goes beyond the economy as material capabilities and interests common in research on ‘rising powers’. In turn, the similarities seem puzzling given the differences in the bilateral relationship between the US and Japan in the past, and the US and China more recently. The neglect is even more remarkable given the striking similarities in the US discourses on first Japan and then China as not only an ‘unfair economic player’, but also a ‘threat’ to US global preeminence. However, it is rarely taken into consideration that the last comparable debate was conducted only a few decades ago, when Japan was proclaimed the new ‘Number One’. The majority of studies focuses on questions of ‘power shifts’ from West to East-in particular from the US to China-commonly premised on assessments of China’s rapid economic growth. The ‘rise of China’ ranks among the most widely addressed contemporary topics in the field of International Relations. Those who favour being tough on China criticize liberal trade theories as a fig leaf for US commercial interests that ultimately counter the values they claim to advance. Internal differences emerge on the question of the transformative impact of liberal free trade policy on China’s political system, from a liberal theory of history perspective. On China, the main argumentation also centres on the trade deficit being the main cause of US economic problems, and the reasons are also seen in China’s unfairness. US economic policies are also criticized, but internal chains of equivalence partly just shift the blame on to the US administration in terms that it is not being ‘tough enough’ on Japan. The reasons primarily lie in claims that Japan’s unfairness is cemented in its cultural and societal differences. The main argumentation on Japan between 19 was that the trade deficit was the origin of the USA’s economic problems. This corresponds to the political discourse theory concept chains of equivalence and difference. The analytic category of argumentation is demonstrated by whether arguments or argumentation schemes, and their claims containing specific nominations and predications, are being justified or delegitimized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |