(give Inquirer article to read before report) The main debate in this article revolves around the question

which is more preferable: military and territorial expansion or intense economic growth? For Rosecrance, he is inclined toward intense development through economic growth. He says that in IR, there will always be a pursuit of power, and it may or may not involve the demand for extra territory. This was actually the norm pre-WW2 era as the returns of land were high considering that with land came along peasants (or your work force) as well as monopoly over natural resources. WW2 came in, however, and the benefits of land declined primarily because of oil price increases, affecting the whole industrial market. Thus, as the price of natural resources increased, the desire for land acquisition decreased. Rosecrance claims that post-WW2 era still holds the same principle when the costs of military and territorial expansion are high, while its benefits are low. Therefore, economic growth is more preferable than territorial expansion. Economic growth translates to power as well as the frontiers of IR arena are not anymore in hard land but in the economic battlefield. Access to the economies of other states is sufficient power. (Peaceful development can take the place of aggressive expansion).

And Rosecrance segues to the idea that China does specifically this economically, that is, which is indeed peaceful as interstate wars and bloodshed are actually avoided. China is especially sensitive to the fact that it was its economic arrangements that led to its success; and it would not compromise that. Thus, China would not opt for territorial expansion. And if China ever wants to expand its territory, Rosecrance says that this is actually close to impossible as other strong state powers surround it that deter China from doing so Japan, Korea, India, and Russia. My goal here in this report is actually not to present more facts as to how China is an economic world power we already are quite full with all those statistics, and Rosecrance has actually given us enough points to agree that China is an economic power. It is with his other point that I want to contend: China as not utilizing its military power to acquire more land. Because as Filipinos, we certainly are sure that this is not the case.

(SHOW VIDEO) - Main points, especially with regard to China Inquirer Article - Makes comical the claim of China to the Spratleys and by its being a bully, China only makes itself look more stubborn - Claims of China over Spratley, what China can get out of it (connect to Stratfor) - Relief from PNoys SONA Question: Possible ba na magka-war? - China perhaps would be game to get into one but considering international treaties it might not want to get into one; Philippines, on the other hand, would not be into it unless it gets the military support of the US (which as Stratfor maintains is still quite vague) - Stratfor article: Never Fight a Land War in Asia o Cite reasons Closing: - Contrary to what Rosecrance wants to see, China is not as peaceful as he deems it to be. It is actually challenging its own limits of sovereignty by means of historical claims. Its interests nevertheless can be accommodated by its power (economically and militarily) particularly in trying to get the Spratleys. And it has actually started already by its bully tactics. - Challenge for the Philippines is not just to wait and see what happens. Diplomacy might not be a very useful tool as all actors are adamant and firm in their right over the Islands. Then again, perhaps it is worth a try only this time, set the standards based on international treaties.