The Changing Intellectual and Political Climate in the China Debate and the Future of International Relations Theory

I begin by examining a "revolt" among a growing number of serious international relations (IR) scholars against the earlier mainstream realist alarmism regarding the China threat. By raising the question of "intention" (regarding power) and the ancillary question whether the rising powerful state is satisfied with the status quo (including how it is treated by the existing hegemon), these discussions led to a different prospect of a rising China. Change in the diagnosis also anticipates new prescriptions, which may account for a detectable change in the congressional climate and more conspicuous shifts in Washington's China policy, as can be seen from its switch to seeing China as a "stakeholder" and Secretary of State Rice's acknowledgement of a U.S. "obligation" to make China act as a "responsible" player. More important, after the chorus of scholarly critiques of the realist paradigm, the subject of IR will most likely be taught differently. For example, to the realist, concerns of anarchy, power, and balancing will have to be added the concerns for hierarchy, intention, and "bandwagoning" (by secondary states) in the study of international relations.