Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective Essay

Pages: 12 (3969 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 12  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: History - Israel

Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective

Agreement/Disagreement with author's opinion

Instruments of National Power

Analysis of entire region



Israel-Palestine Conflict and the role of U.S.




A Geopolitical Analysis of China from the President's Perspective

This paper is a personal reflection of an opinion article (OPED). The article appeared in Eurasia Review and was written by Maitreya Buddha Samantaray. The following response to this piece of writing is presented assuming the role of President of the United States of America. The review article will include opinion on the quality of analysis done by the writer from a perspective of the U.S. president. Agreement or disagreement with the author's premise regarding geopolitical analysis of China will be presented and substantiated with analyzing past records of U.S. foreign policy compared with today's policy direction. An analysis of entire region with respect to the U.S. policy of regional interests will also be presented in This paper.

Get full Download Microsoft Word File access
for only $8.97.
Thesis statement: The main thesis of this President's perspective is that no single Instrument of National Power (IOP) is exclusively sufficient to further the U.S. interests in the region. An intelligent combination of diplomatic, economic and military instruments has to be utilized in order to further the U.S. interests in Asia.

Essay on Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective Assignment

In order to pursue an inclusive and effective policy in Central and South Asia, the U.S. government has to rely on multiple stakeholders of different countries, each having different capacity to serve the U.S. interests while not disregarding the interests of host countries. The second section of this paper will present personal opinion of President regarding this piece of writing followed by relevant comparison and analysis to substantiate the initial position. References to foreign policy in the past along with its consequences will also be made part of this article. This paper will conclude the findings at the end of analysis.

Agreement/Disagreement with author's opinion

As being President of the U.S., I only partially agree with the author's premise regarding India's proactive strategy on China-Pakistan proximity. The author is correct in asserting that the U.S. did not look Pakistan's engagement with China as positive in its entirety. The visit of Pakistan's premier was aimed at signaling the U.S. regarding the presence of other regional powers that support Pakistan on its stance regarding the on-going conflict in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the author fails to appreciate that these have been few takers of Pakistan's stated stance on Osama Bin Laden's hiding in Pakistan. China may have accorded warm welcome to Pakistan's premier but the consultations that the U.S. emissaries had with their Chinese counterparts reveal that China has time and again encouraged Pakistan to adopt an alternative course of action on its policy in Afghanistan. However, this has been communicated in a concealed manner since China does not want to stale its ongoing strategic projects in Pakistan. Unlike popularly held view of 'Carter Syndrome' alleged to have engulfed me, I would like to opine that there the formation of Pak-China bloc against the interests of the U.S. is not based in reality. In fact, Pakistan has found herself isolated during the past five years due to the multi-lateral approach adopted by President's office.

Had I chosen to isolate Pakistan and China through active diplomacy and more military power being concentrated in the region, either through U.S. led forces or through active engagement of India, matters would have been even worse as they seem today. Unlike my predecessor, I abandoned the term 'war on terror' as it divorced America from the empathy it obtained from Western and Eastern powers alike after the incident of 9/11. The author is also correct in assuming that India has a bigger role to play in the aftermath of Afghan withdrawal. However, the U.S. foreign policy has been flawed in cornering Pakistan while engaging India in the Central Asian region. The U.S. cannot ignore the fact that India does not share a border with Afghanistan and any engagement of India in Afghanistan will be suspected by both Pakistan and China. Considering the U.S. led forces being highly engaged with Pakistan's military force, it would be unwise to twist Pakistan's arms by encouraging more Indian presence in Afghanistan. The U.S. can adopt this policy once the coalition forces have withdrawn from the region post 2014. Until then, the U.S. will have to adopt a prudent policy of pressuring Pakistan to submit to the international agenda. The U.S. influence over Pakistan is significantly compromised when India fails to manage good relations with countries such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, and Pakistan.

Although, the U.S. has differed with China over most of the regional conflicts such as Afghan issue, the North Korea problem, and the issue of Tibet, however I have restrained from making this a focal point of my policy as this will amount to limiting the U.S. interests to these three issues. Whereas the U.S. interests in striking a balance of relations with regional powers is much important to ensure a safe and timely exit of coalition forces in Afghanistan while still having the leverage of an honorable exit. Domestic compulsion of my foreign policy is more intertwined in the split mandate that I have got in the Senate where Republicans dominate. Thus, to encourage India for an even bigger military role in comparison to China will not be prudent enough till 2014.

Instruments of National Power

Economic, military, and diplomatic instruments are available to any President for engaging and disengaging with different countries in the World. The continuity of the U.S. support to Pakistan, both financial and military has also important backdrop. While comparing the U.S. policy of foreign affairs towards Pakistan during 1995-2001, I along with my foreign secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton reached a conclusion that isolating Pakistan, either through financial or military sanctions will only aid India's dominance in the region. Once India becomes too powerful as compared to Pakistan, the latter's chances to seek support from China and China's chances of military support to Pakistan increases. This was the case during the time period of 1995-2000 when Pakistan obtained significant support in nuclear and non-nuclear weaponry from China. If compared with the prevalent U.S. foreign policy towards China and Pakistan, it was more punitive than rewarding. The U.S. used economic and military sanctions to persuade Pakistan whereas this only increased China's involvement in Pakistan's domestic issues and in regional matters.

Thus, to avoid such situation whereas Pakistan has to choose between the U.S. And China, I intend to pursue a more logical policy of engaging both Pakistan and China. By doing so, the U.S. will keep its option open regarding sanctions while achieving same results as the country intends to achieve from sanctions.

Analysis of entire region


The U.S. does not have any easy options on the table to deal with the regional conflicts. The balancing of the U.S. obligations towards human rights as being global power is not an easy task. Iran ability to inflict potential harm to U.S. interests in the region limited due to three reasons. Firstly, there is limited economic and military capacity of Iran to dominate the Gulf region. The country has suffered hard due to management inefficiency of Ahemedinejad led government. Further, the economic sanctions imposed by the UN also restrict Iran from earning foreign currency reserves through its oil exports (Rahigh-Aghsan & Jakobsen, 2010). Last but not the least, there is an increased fragmentation with the Iranian society regarding taking a hardliner towards the U.S. And other Western powers. The rise of Iran is largely due to the death of 'Pan-Arabian Nationalism' but the country faces many risks that will limit its ability to become an active threat to the U.S. interests (Rahigh-Aghsan & Jakobsen, 2010). The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have outspent Iran in military expenditure. GCC countries have spent 15 times more as compared to Iran for military expenses. Further, the U.S. maintains an active engagement policy with all the GCC countries. This offsets the threat emancipating from Iran. Another important impediment to a thaw in U.S.-Iran relationship is in fact validated and recommended by the U.S. public herself as a 2011 Gallup survey indicated being supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship (Oren, 2011).


Unlike the author of the OPED, I as being president of the U.S. am more concerned regarding U.S. Russia relations. Russia has been supporting the Central Asian states to gain increased control of the natural resources of the region as well as increase its political clout.

Israel-Palestine Conflict and the role of U.S.:

The role of U.S. assumes much importance as Israel is a close ally of the U.S. As being president, I am fully aware of the deepest sentiments that prevail in the U.S. population regarding Israel. As mentioned earlier, the Gallup survey and a recent CNN poll indicates towards a high trust level of U.S. public over the U.S.-Israel relationship (Cohen, 2011).


China is the main focus of the article that I have read and I cannot agree… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (12 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

In What Ways Does the Rise of China Affect Australia's National Interest Essay

Are Indian-Israeli Relations Useful for India's National Interests? Thesis

Chinese Acquisition of Nuclear Weapon Research Paper

George W. Bush Administration Policy on Syria Essay

Energy Policy of the People's Republic of China Research Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective" Essay in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective.  (2013, June 25).  Retrieved March 7, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective."  25 June 2013.  Web.  7 March 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective."  June 25, 2013.  Accessed March 7, 2021.