After noting the rise of geoeconomics in the post-Cold War era, the paper ascertains how the age of geoeconomics re-defines power and the rules of the balance of power game. Of particular significance is that a nation's economic security eclipses its military security (or traditional national defense). In this context, I examine the meanings of the rise of a re-ascendant China for world politics in general and for Taiwan's future in particular. Considering Taiwan's heavy dependence on imported natural resources and its isolation and exclusion from vital international economic groupings, such as FTA's. ASEAN, ASEM, and the 16-nation Asian super economic bloc in the marking. Finally, I take a prospective look at the prospect of a future cross-Strait integration between Taiwan and mainland China under the impact of the dictate of geoeconomics.

No abstract

No abstract

The author analyzes the post-2003 transformation of China from a revolutionary Communist regime into one of "normal governance" (a term Premier Wen Jiabao coined in 2003), placing the change in a comparative framework pioneered by Crane Brinton in his monumental study of the four classic revolutions (French, English, American, and Bolshevik). Crane Brinton found a universal pattern that he called the Thermidorean reaction, a surprisingly early return to normalcy. In borrowed medical language, he likened it to convalescence following the fever of the crisis stage of revolution. However, it is difficult to identify this stage in the Chinese Revolution. The author traces the long, convoluted course of the Chinese Revolution through four generations of leadership, from Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao, to identify the start of the Thermidorean reaction in China.Editor's Note: This article was written before the series of recent setbacks that included events like the riots in Tibet (and the related interruptions of the Olympic torch relays around the world) and the devastating earthquakes in Sichuan, in the wake of which Beijing has accorded high priority to political loyalty and revived nationalism. These developments may negatively affect the spirit of reform that is discussed in this article in ways presently unfathomable. However, the author believes his major thesis and arguments remain valid.

No abstract