نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه جغرافیای سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
2 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
The study seeks to explore the geo-economic and geopolitical functions of the two American and Chinese global actors in the Asia-Pacific region. China as the greatest economic and military power of the Pacific region and, for the next decade, as one of the world's only superpowers, is a Western member of the Pacific and has many interests and economic and military partners in the region. . The two countries are playing a role with two models of cooperation and competing in the Pacific. With increasing economic, technological and military power in China, US concern over the country is increasing. On the one hand, the United States can not take advantage of China's large geo-economic capabilities for its dynamic economy and, on the other hand, China's rapidly expanding economic and military power and the geo-nuclear, territorial, border and security disputes that China has with its Pacific neighbors, the pretext of intervention And provides US oversight in the region. The findings of the research show that the great geo-economic potential of China and the huge benefits that China's growing economy and market, and the role of the country's global role in the global arena will give the prospect of geo-economic cooperation between the two countries more than geopolitical competitions in this century Although the United States will not be able to take advantage of the geopolitical benefits of the Pacific region
Introduction
The Asia Pacific region is a macro region that covers the East and West Pacific and includes all the countries of East Asia, the Southeast, the countries of the Australian continent and the vast Russian territory. On the Pacific coast is North, Central and South America. The US is a Western Pacific and is due to its direct presence in the region (since World War II), with geo-nuclear cooperation and geopolitical rivalry with actors in the region. The twenty-first century, the economists and strategists and great scholars (including Brzezinski, Mirsammer, Kissinger, Taro, Gilpin, etc.) of the Asian-Pacific Century, know that half the population of the planet and the consumption market, the capital of capital and origin Technology will focus in this area. As a result, the United States will devote a large part of its political, economic and security focus to this area in the coming years, so that it can take advantage of the benefits of the Asia-Pacific economic benefits.
Methodology
The methodology of this research is based on the importance of the subject in the present, analytical-descriptive, and at the same time taking advantage of the broad-scale analogy of the Pacific region at the heart of geo-economic cooperation and the geopolitical rivalry between America and China. This research uses library information and documentation, including important foreign and domestic sources, such as geopolitical, geopolitical, international relations, political economy, and international credentials and figures to support the approach used in this paper. Is. Also, the views of professors in this field have been used to reinforce scientific arguments. Forward research has used scientific and rational arguments during the analysis of documents, and has reached a major conclusion of the future of geoeconomic cooperation and the geopolitical rivalry of America with China.
Results and discussion,
Most Americans (Taro, Nai, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Gilpin, Ferguson, Zakaria, etc.) believe that the American Dodger, if it is to mean America's exceptional superiority in military, economic and soft power sources, At the center of the global power balance and management of global interests, it has not ended, although it has been a major weakness. Contrary to what the claimants claim on the start of the Chinese Dome, we have not yet entered the post-American world, certainly the continuity of the American Damage will not be as if it had passed in the twentieth century. The share of the United States in the world economy, which after the Second World War, and up to a decade later, had half the world production, has been declining, and this situation will continue. In the words of Brzezinski, power in the 21st century will be scattered and distributed, with the growth of developed countries and the acquisition of a part of the global contribution of the economy cake, it will reduce the contribution of such powerful powers as the United States, and the complexity resulting from the emergence of many more developed countries, and to In addition to increasing the role of non-state actors, it will be difficult for the country to influence and organize actions for a powerful country like the United States . In the 21st century, leadership does not mean domination, the United States should be ready for a partner in the world to partner in this century. Today, with less advent and lessening American power in the international arena and confronting a more complex world, and many diverse actors, they must make strategic and intelligent choices in both internal and external dimensions, so that in the next few decades they can overcome their supreme power or promise.
Conclusion
The study examines the economic, political and security capabilities of the United States and China and the requirements for geo-economic cooperation between the two countries. China has a keen interest in geo-communal cooperation with the United States and the world, thanks to its vast material and human capacities, the rapid and sustained economic growth (more than four decades), and the ability to export goods and services over the United States. That's why pursuing a policy of détente and cooperation instead of geopolitical competition in its foreign relations. But at the same time, the United States has put geopolitical competition and geo-economic cooperation and in the recent period (2020-2016) the geopolitical and geopolitical competition in its foreign relations agenda. Given that these two major powers account for about 40% of the world's economy and will account for half the global economic contribution over the next decade, the need for the two countries in the future will necessitate geo-communal cooperation more than geopolitical competition.
Keywords
Asia-Pacific region, USA, China, geo-nuclear cooperation, geopolitical competition
کلیدواژهها [English]
20. Agnew, J., 2003, Geopolitics: Re-visioning World Politics, second ed., London: Routledge.
21. Blacksell, M., 2006, Political Geography, Routledge.
22. Blackwill, Robert and Harris, Jennifer,2016, War By Others Means, New York: Published By Belknap Press.
23. Bloot, Geoffrey., 2001, The Geopolitics of Domination, pulication by Routledge.
24. Brzezinski, S., 2012, Strategic Vision: American and the Crisis of Global, Journal of International Politics, No. 8.
25. Brzezinski, Z., 2012, The strategic vision of the United States and the global power crisis, Tehran: Mizan publication.
26. Casarini, F., 2008, The post-American word, New York: Norton compony.
27. Castells, M., 2008, Information Age of the Millennium End, Translated by Ahad Alighillian, Afshin Khakbaz, Tehran: Publishing tarh nou.
28. Clapsa, K., 2006, Man, The State, and War, New York: Columbia University Press.
29. Clinton, H. R., 2011, American Pacific Century, Foreign Policy magazine.
30. Clinton, H., 2011, Economic Statecraft speech, noting the role strong economic capabilities play in underwriting elements of smart power. namely robust diplomacy and development and the strongest military in the world. Speech delivered at the Economic Club of New York, October.
31. Cohen, S.B., 1971, Geography and Politics in a world Divided, New York:Oxford uni press.
32. Cohen, S.B., 1994, Geopolitics in new world Era, USA: west view press.
33. Cohen, S.B., 2014, Geopolitics of the World System, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
34. Dodds, K.,2000. Geopolitics : A Very Short Introductio, London : Oxford University Press.
35. Er, lam Peng and Wei, lim tal, 2018, The rise of China and India: A new Asian Drama, London: World Scientific Group.
36. Fortune, 2018, China- Europe relations: the limits of strategic parternship international politics, No, 47.
37. Friedman, G.,2017, Strategic Forecasting: The Impersonal Dimension of Intelligence,The Return of Geopolitical Risk. New York: Columbia University Press.
38. Garfinkle, A., 2015, The Geopolitical Frame in the Contemporary Middle East, Published for the Foreign Policy Research Institute by Elsevier Ltd, July 14, P. 533.
39. Gilpin, R., 2013, Global Political Economy - Understanding the International Economic Order, Translation by Mohammadzitoun sabz publication.
40. Hall, G. A., 2014, Authority, promotion, and steal, Translated by Gholamali Chagnizadeh and Morteza Dondanpaq, Tehran: Publication of the Sahali.
41. Hammer, A., 2014, Employment Relations in Emerging Economies: China and India, Hangzhou University Conference.
42. Henteh, B. et al., 2012, Views of Southern Countries on New Regionalism, Translated by Alireza Tayeb. Tehran: Publication of the Bureau of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
43. Http://www. Brand magazine.com, 2017.
44. Http://www. Statista.com, 2018.
45. Http://www.China Daily.com, 2018.
46. Http://www.Eurostat,online data code: ext_lt_maineu.com.
47. Http://www.International Development, 2015.
48. Http://www.ITC calculations based on UN COMTRADE and ITC statistics.
49. Http://www.Office of the United States Trade Representative.com
50. Http://www.Qin,Xu and Zhang.com 2016.
51. Http://www.stimated from CEIC Database 2017.
52. Http://www.Web of Science.com. 2017.
53. Http://www.worldometers.com, 2017.
54. Ikenberry, J., 2008, The Rise of China and the future of the west, Forlan Affairs, Journal February, PP. 23-31.
56. Karimipour, Y. and Heidari, M., 2010, Geipolitic Sea Shores from Integrated Coastal Management Perspective. first volume. Tehran: Tarbiatamolem University Press.
57. Kissinger, H., 2012, The future of US- Chinese Relations: conflict is a Choise, not a Necessity. Foreieen Policy.
58. LaCosta, E., 2012, From Geopolitics to the Perspective, Translation of Cyrus Joint Stock Company, Tehran: Amir Kabir Research Institute.
59. Lee Khan nad ,M., 2016, Sino- Indian Relations-from Hostility to mutual cooperations and complementation, Japan center for economic research, Asia Research report.
60. Luttwak, E., 2004, From Geopolitics to Geo- Economics, Francis.
61. Mandelbaum, M., 2011, The Road to Global Prosperity, New York: Simon and Schuster.
62. Mcdougall, D., 2007, Asia Pacific in World Politics, Lynne Rienner publishers.
63. Mearsheimer, J., 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (Updated Edition), Publisher Norton company.
64. Mojtahzadeh, P., 2012, Geography and geographic politics, fourth edition. Tehran: Publication of the Samt.
65. Nye, J. 2011. the future of power, Public Affairs, New York.
66. Petsinger, M., 2016, Geoeconomics Fellow in the US and Americas Programme at Chatham House.
67. Qin, F.; Tao, X. and Zhaoyong, Z., 2016, Economic Cooperation and Interdependence Between China and ASEAN: Two to Tango?, Chinese Global Production Networks in ASEAN, Springer International Publishing, PP. 255-288.
68. Santasombat, Y. ed, 2015, Impact of China, Rise on the Mekong Region palgrave Macmillan.
69. Shahandeh, B., 1995, Politics and Government in Southeast Asia,Tehran: Samt publication.
70. Soilen.s, K., 2012, Geoeconomics. Publisher: BookBoon, London: Electronic edition.
71. Solis, M., 2013, The Containment Fallacy: China and the TPP, Brookings Institution.
72. Solis, M., 2014, Crude Oil Imports by Country, World’s Top.
73. Solomonpour, H., 2015, China in the middle of two continents, Foreign Relations publication, No. 8, PP. 145-178.
74. Taro, L., 2010, Winners and Losers of Globalization, Translated by Massoud Karbassian, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publishing.
75. Thun, E., 2015, The Political Economy of State-Owned Enterprises in China and India, Publisher Norton company.
76. Toffler, Alvin and Haydi, 2010, Power shift, Translated by Shahindokht Kharazmi, Tehran: Scientific publications.
77. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, 2012, Revolutionary wealth, Tehran: Mahi publishing.
78. Toffler, S.,2005, The Politics Of The Third Wave , Publisher Routledge.
79. Westphal, K., 2013, Unconventional oil and Gas-Global consequences.
80. WWW. Merriam-webster.com
81. WWW.QS.com 2019.
82. WWW.World bank, 2017.
83. Zakaria, F., 2014, Game elders, Translation by Abdullah Mola'i, Tehran: Information publication.
84. Zarei, B. and Zainivand, A., 2014, The Strategic Position of the Gulf of Geo-Cancun and the Competitiveness of the Twenty-first Century, Human Geography Research, Vol. 46, No, 2, PP. 311-336.
85. Zarei, B., 2014, Regional studies of the Persian Gulf, Tehran: Tehran University Press.
)