Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Texas, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 77-83).

China-Taiwan relations have been for decades a hot issue in East Asia as well as worldwide. The thesis researches on the China’s foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean region in terms of competition with Taiwan for diplomatic recognition from the perspective of zero-sum and non zero-sum game. This study’s objective is to examine the impact of recently improved cross-Strait relations on the intensity of diplomatic competition for recognition in Latin America and the Caribbean between both sides of the Strait. Two following questions are going to be answered: Is a complete victory in diplomatic competition in Latin America and the Caribbean region a short-term goal for the PRC? How can China’s refusal of its diplomatic recognition by Paraguay be interpreted? First, literature review and theoretical framework is provided. Second, China’s and Taiwan’s policy towards Latin America and the Caribbean is researched. Third, cross- Strait rapproachement is depicted. Fourth, relations between the PRC and Taiwan after year 2005 are presented. Fifth, three case studies of Costa Rica, Panama, Paraguay are discussed. In the study I am going to look for evidence to prove that the rapprochement and the new cross-Strait diplomacy are good signs of non-zero sum game between Taiwan and China with a significant impact on diplomatic competition in Latin America and the Caribbean region. To fulfil the aim of this master thesis I am using secondary data. The scope of the paper in terms of the time period is from the establishment of the PRC but the bigger part of the paper is focused on the recent events.

Arevalo Salas, Amanda Valeria. THE TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA - UNITED STATES - CHINA: WHAT STRATEGIC CHOICES DOES LATIN AMERICA FACE?. Master Thesis (Mgr.). Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Studies. Abstract In recent years, China has increased its influence in Latin America. This expansion can be considered as uncomfortable for the United States because China could displace its historical hegemonic position in the region. By analyzing the role of integration blocks and interest groups, the development of relations of Latin America with China and the United States, risks and uncertainties, this paper will provide possible scenarios for the development of relations between Latin America, China and the United States and it will describe strategies for Latin America to take advantage of the opportunities that may arise.

L’émergence de la Chine dans le système international post-guerre froide pose un défi pour la position hégémonique des États-Unis et l’ordre mondial libéral. Lorsqu’ils tentent d’expliquer ce défi, les spécialistes tendent à se concentrer uniquement soit sur le hard power chinois (en particulier, sa puissance militaire) soit sur son soft power (l’attrait de sa culture et idéologie). Cette thèse développe un cadre d’analyse alternatif inspiré de la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu, articulé autour de la notion de pouvoir symbolique. Elle conçoit la politique internationale en termes d’une lutte symbolique (entre, par exemple, une orthodoxie et une hétérodoxie) dont l’issue est déterminée par au moins trois facteurs cruciaux : contexte, capital et lieux communs. Ce cadre est appliqué à l’analyse du nouveau rôle de la Chine dans le monde depuis la fin de la guerre froide, lequel est indiscutablement l’un des développements les plus remarquables des relations internationales des temps modernes. La thèse démontre que la Chine ne défie pas l’hégémonie des États-Unis et l’ordre mondial libéral au sens conventionnel de la puissance matérielle ou de l’idéologie, mais plutôt au niveau symbolique. La thèse soutient que la conjonction des trois facteurs susmentionnés a été nécessaire à l’influence mondiale de la Chine : (1) la crise de légitimation des États-Unis (sur les plan économique, politique et idéologique), couplée à l’extraordinaire ascension de nouvelles puissances dans le système international comme la Chine, ont créé un contexte historique favorable ou « condition de possibilité »; (2) l’énorme capital symbolique accumulé par la Chine, en raison non seulement de son nouveau statut de grande puissance, mais aussi de son approche pragmatique des questions nationales et internationales, en a fait une source d’inspiration convoitée mondialement ; (3) la mobilisation stratégique par la Chine de son capital symbolique, sous la forme d’un ensemble de lieux communs ‘rhétoriques’, a grandement contribué à légitimer sa puissance, en particulier aux yeux des élites dirigeantes dans le monde en développement, dissimulant ainsi le caractère asymétrique et arbitraire de ses relations. Ensemble, ces trois éléments –contexte, capital, lieux communs– expliquent le pouvoir symbolique de la Chine, c’est-à-dire la perception selon laquelle, contrairement aux États-Unis, elle propose des réponses pertinentes et cohérentes aux problèmes d’organisation sociale, économique et politique de ce monde. L’ascension de la Chine remet ainsi en question le « méta-capital » des États-Unis, c’est-à-dire son monopole sur la production du capital économique, social, culturel et symbolique. L’accent mis sur cette dimension symbolique de la lutte pour définir et imposer la « vision légitime du monde social et ses divisions » révèle une rupture avec la pratique conventionnelle de la politique des grandes puissances, au profit d’une transformation pacifique du système international et d’une diplomatie symbolique. Cet accent sur le pouvoir symbolique ouvre des avenues prometteuses pour l’étude du changement et des sources d’autorité sur la scène politique mondiale, traditionnellement définie comme « anarchique ». / China’s rise within the international system in the post-Cold War era challenges the hegemonic position of the United States and the Western liberal order. In trying to explain this challenge, scholars tend to either focus on Chinese hard power (in particular, its military power) or on its soft power (the attractiveness of its culture and ideology). This thesis develops an alternative Bourdieu-inspired framework addressing symbolic power. It conceptualizes international politics in terms of a symbolic struggle (such as that between orthodoxy and heterodoxy) whose outcome is determined by at least three crucial factors: context, capital and commonplaces. The framework is applied to the analysis of China’s new world role, which is arguably one of the most remarkable developments in modern international relations. The thesis shows that China does not challenge U.S. hegemonic position and the Western liberal order in the conventional sense of material power or ideology, but rather at the symbolic level. The thesis argues that the combination of the three above-mentioned factors has been necessary to China’s worldwide influence : (1) the legitimation crisis of the United States (economically, politically and ideologically), paired with the extraordinary rise of new illiberal powers on the world scene such as China, created a favourable historical context or “condition of possibility”; (2) the huge amount of symbolic capital accumulated by China, not only because of its new status as a great power, but also because of the success of its pragmatic approach to national and international issues, made it become a source of inspiration for countries across the world; (3) the strategic mobilization by China of its symbolic capital, in the form of ‘rhetorical’ commonplaces, greatly contributed to legitimize its power, especially in the eyes of ruling elites in the developing world, thereby dissimulating the asymmetric and arbitrary nature of the Chinese power and relations. Together, these three components -context, capital, and commonplaces- explain the emergence of China as a symbolic power, i.e. the perception that, unlike the United States, China now has the authority to speak the truth and to define causes of and remedies for certain problems and crises. China’s rise challenges the Unites States’ ‘meta-capital’, that is, its monopoly on the production of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. The focus on this symbolic dimension as a ‘weapon’ in the struggle to define and impose the “legitimate vision of the social world and its divisions” reveals a rupture in the conventional practice of great powers politics, pointing to a peaceful transformation of the international system and symbolic diplomacy. It shows that a focus on symbolic power opens promising avenues for the study of change and sources of authority in world politics, traditionally defined as “anarchic”.