Question

You will be provided with a choice of three essay prompts selected from the following list and asked to write on one of them. Please draw upon the readings and lecture for evidence and examples. 1. Compare and contrast realist and liberal internationalist theories on the consequences of China's rise for regional security. In your view, which set of theories do a better job of explaining Chinese behavior in the Taiwan Strait, Korean Peninsula, South China Sea, or around the Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands (pick two of the four)? 2. Is Japanese foreign policy changing particularly under Prime Minister Abe-and if so howand why? 3. What was or is-China's peaceful rise strategy and what is the logic driving it? 1 4. Southeast Asian countries appear divided-both among themselves and in each country individually -about China's rise. Why? 5. Territorial disputes remain an important potential source of conflict. Review an example of a territorial dispute in Asia. What are the origins of these disputes? Why can't the claimants settle these disputes peacefully?

Answer 1

Question 2 - Is Japanese policy changing under prime minister Abe and if so how and why?

Answer 2 -

In spite of much consideration being paid to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's strategy and local changes, his organization's way to deal with outside policymaking has to a great extent evaded examination. Then, his current, second prevalence has denoted a huge change in the basic leadership process, with the Japanese administration's generally solid clout being disintegrated. The PM has come to apply more power over the Foreign Ministry through the Prime Minister's Office, or the Kantei. Thus, the very wellspring of Japanese discretion has moved from the bureaucratic organizations to the Kantei, while international strategy authorities, beforehand generally in charge of creating Japan's global technique, have rather been consigned to just actualizing the strategies chose at the official dimension.

As indicated by the tried and true way of thinking, policymaking in Japan is just proficient when the pioneer collaborates with the administration, makes the most of its help, and utilizes its ability. This turned out to be particularly evident during the fleeting prevalence of Yukio Hatoyama from the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Hatoyama and his individual gathering individuals wished to accomplish "political initiative," whereby real strategy choices would be made by individuals' agents as opposed to selected authorities. Therefore, the Hatoyama organization endeavored to kill bureaucratic impact and rather engage the official branch. Be that as it may, in spite of different regulatory changes, it just figured out how to debilitate the organization as opposed to fortify the government officials. Since the DPJ had no related knowledge of administering, while bureaucratic guidance and aptitude was purposely avoided, Hatoyama managed maybe the most ineffectively organized, incongruous, and befuddling time of Japanese international strategy. Naoto Kan, who succeeded him as PM, needed to rapidly wrap up the "political authority" explore and bring the administration once again into the overlay. It was apparent that transparently doing battle with the organization can just damage policymaking.

Conversely, Abe flagged his craving to intently participate with the authorities not long after subsequent to being named executive in December 2012. In the meantime, his way to deal with outside policymaking was very active and he bit by bit began fixing control once again the Foreign Ministry, while consigning greater specialist to the Kantei. Abe's grasp on strategy has turned out to be substantial to the point that he has accomplished for all intents and purposes free rein in executing his plan without having to especially stress over a reaction from the bureaucratic foundation. There are three variables which record for Abe's achievement in diminishing bureaucratic power and holding the main position in outside policymaking.

Thanks