Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

2.1 Deep Engagement

  • US should maintain its global leadership role.
  • ensuring American prosperity
  • establishing and enforcing a rule-based system fitting to US interests
  • maintain stability in key regions
  • policing global commons
  • protecting allies and security partners
  • averting hostile actors from dominating important areas
  • US should maintain its security commitments
  • Retrenchment represents a risk
  • Primacy optimists

2.2 Offshore Balancing

  • Instead of engaging directly, the US could use regional powers to combat the rise of China.
  • Deep engagement unnecessary- consumes too many resources
  • Assumes US is safe from any threat to its territory
  • Other nations free-ride on US
  • Scale back security commitments
  • Retrenchment could stop/slow US decline
  • China is a rising power.
  • Primacy pessimists

1. Importance of the Topic

Power Transition

Power

  • Power is relative.

Other

Countries

Other Countries

  • Hegemony= most stable
  • War likely when rising power challenges existing power

China

USA

Power Balancing

Deep Engagement

Offshore Balancing

  • Hegemony= least stable
  • War likely when a dominant power emerges

Sources

  • Contested Primacy in the Western Pacific: China's Rise and the Future of US Power Projection by Evan Braden Montgomery, 2014
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html?mcubz=1
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/donald-trump-risks-rift-south-korea-appeasement-claim/
  • https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15676490/trump-budget-2018-explained

4.2 General Conclusion

  • Deep engagers vs. offshore balancers
  • Realistic perspective
  • Retrenchment for the US (author's opinion)
  • Team's opinion

Our Article:

Contested Primacy in the Western Pacific: China's Rise and the Future of US Power Projection by Evan Braden Montgomery, 2014

Contents of Presentation:

1. Importance

2. Grand Strategy:

2.1 Deep Engagement

2.2 Offshore Balancing

2.3 Shared Flaws

3. Argumentation for:

3.1 Deep Engagement

3.2 Offshore Balancing

4. Conclusion

4.1 Relative to Korea

4.2 General

2.3 Shared Flaws

  • Unrealistic, optimistic evaluation of US military capabilities
  • Trivialize China's growing military capabilities

3.1 Deep Engagement

  • Extensive security commitments
  • freedom of navigation for international commerce
  • support allies in order to stop conflict in regions of economic interest
  • Why deep enagament?
  • perception of power and psychological influence
  • more likely to prevent expansion of China's soft power
  • response time
  • Ex: WWII took 2 years 2 months to engage.

3.2 Offshore Balancing

  • Primacy pessimists
  • Obligations no longer financially stable
  • Existing grand strategy counterproductive and unnecessary
  • Territory, overseas military presence, military alliances, and local actors
  • Share the burden of global security because of costly wars and the rise of China

Trump Administration

How It Affects China

How It Affects the US

  • China has economic superiority.
  • Lacks a big sphere of influence
  • If China threatens, US will likely attack.
  • China has been demanding the chnage of its current status.
  • Example of offshore balancing
  • His idea of "America first" is what makes allies doubt their security
  • Giving even more funds to military
  • Cutting funds for important departments
  • American economic situation hard for people
  • Looking for a villain to blame
  • Pulling out of commitments (Paris Agreement, NAFTA, etc.)
  • The emergence of new powers is bringing unipolarity to an end.
  • Structural weakness in the US economy
  • Will continue to be the highest power militarily
  • Leader in the West and seen as a "modern" country

4.1 Relative to Korea

Offshore Balancing:

  • Completion of independent national defense capability
  • The actuality of US forces in Korea
  • Improvement in relations with Russia and China

Deep Engagement:

  • Higher risk of outbreak of war
  • Bad influence on the economy of South Korea
  • Weakened foothold in international negotiation
  • Redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea

United States vs. China in Western Pacific

Rachel Warren, Dante Orozco, Valeria Murillo Trujano, Sarai Estacio Guerrero, Celine Joksch, Jinsang Lee, Hallie Froggatt

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi