Asia Pacific In World Politics
EXCERPTED FROMAsia Pacificin World PoliticsSECOND EDITIONDerek McDougallCopyright 2016ISBN: 978-1-62637-553-6 pb1800 30th Street, Suite 314Boulder, CO 80301 USAtelephone 303.444.6684fax 303.444.0824This excerpt was downloaded from theLynne Rienner Publishers websitewww.rienner.com
ContentsixxixiiList of TablesAcknowledgmentsMap of the Asia Pacific Region1 Asia Pacific in World Politics1Part 1 The Major Powers in the Region2 The United States: A Declining Influence?313 China: The Rising Power514 Japan: Not to Be Ignored755 China and the United States: The Central Dynamic1036 Japan and the United States: A Key Alliance1257 China and Japan: A Contentious Relationship139Part 2 Conflicts in Northeast Asia8Taiwan: Where to Next?1599 The Two Koreas: A Continuing Impassevii173
viiiContentsPart 3 Changing Dynamics in Southeast Asia10 International Politics in Southeast Asia19711 Indonesia: An Emerging Power?231Part 4 Other Key Regional Actors12 India: Moving into Asia Pacific27113 Russia: Losing Ground29114 Australia: “Down Under” but Engaged30715 International Organizations: A Growing Role327Part 5 Conclusion16 Emerging Themes353List of Acronyms and AbbreviationsBibliographyIndexAbout the Book361369389407
1Asia Pacificin World PoliticsAs a significant component of world politics, Asia Pacific confrontsmany major issues. This is a region in which the United States,China, and Japan relate directly to one another. The United States was thedominant power in the region in the Cold War (roughly 1945–1989), butthis situation has been challenged in the post–Cold War period as Chinahas grown steadily stronger. Are China and the United States on a collision course or can they cooperate? Where does Japan, as another majoreconomic power, fit in this picture? Japan has maintained its alliance withthe United States, while also developing a more independent direction; itdoes not wish to see the region dominated by China. Tensions have continued throughout the early twenty-first century in relation to Korea, andthe Taiwan issue also remains unresolved. In Southeast Asia the variousstates have faced numerous “nation building” challenges, none more sothan Indonesia. Many groups oppose the authority of the existing states,and these tensions often spill over into the international arena. Throughout Asia Pacific one can also observe the expanding presence of regionaland global organizations. Does this presence amount to much, and if sowhat? Are we moving into an era when states, both major and lesser powers, will become less significant for Asia Pacific international politics?This book is concerned with this whole range of issues and questions asthey appear in the current phase of world politics in Asia Pacific.In providing a study of international politics in Asia Pacific, weneed to have working definitions of both “international politics” and“Asia Pacific.” Both terms are often taken for granted but, in fact, bothare open to debate. We will begin with a discussion of how the terms international politics and Asia Pacific are used in this book, and thenexamine the historical context of international politics in Asia Pacific,1
2Asia Pacific in World Politicsand some of the major features of contemporary Asia Pacific. At the endof the chapter there is an overview of the plan of the book.Defining International Politics and Asia PacificInternational PoliticsAn everyday definition of “international politics” encompasses politicalrelationships transcending state boundaries. Political relationships concern the pursuit of power and influence. Often the focus is on the relationship between states. While this dimension is certainly a very important aspect of international politics, it would be an oversimplification tosee this as the whole. A broader view allows scope for actors other thanstates. These include international organizations, transnational corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. Along with states, these actors seek to further their objectives in the global arena. The term “globalpolitics” is emerging to denote the wide variety of actors involved andthe range of issues that arise. International or global issues in the contemporary world cover not just traditional military security, but manyother forms of security (defense against terrorism being the most obvious one in the post–September 11 world). There are also major questions concerning economics, culture and religion, the environment,human rights, and the movement of people (immigration, refugees), tomention some of the more significant. The term “globalization” suggests the way many of these issues are dealt with at a global level. Atthe same time there are also movements and processes countering globalization or attempting to point it in a different direction. The continuing role of states is relevant here, as are developments at the regionaland substate levels. “Antiglobalization” movements are not necessarilyopposed to globalization as such, but certainly argue in favor of givinggreater attention to the social, political, and environmental impacts ofthe prevailing economic orthodoxy.The different views on the nature of international politics are reflected in some of the important theoretical approaches. At one levelthese approaches can be distinguished on the basis of how they characterize the key actors and processes in international politics. There canalso be differences relating to the significance and content of the moraldimension of international politics. During the Cold War the realist approach dominated the study of international politics. In the post–ColdWar era this approach has been challenged by newer approaches such asliberalism (also referred to as liberal institutionalism) and globalizationtheory. Various critical approaches emphasize the importance of moral
Asia Pacific in World Politics3goals. There is also an issue about whether the major theories are tooWestern-oriented. Culturalistic approaches emphasize the way factorsspecific to particular states or societies (in this case in the Asian context) influence international behavior. We will briefly review some ofthe major theoretical approaches, since one needs to be aware of the assumptions underlying the analysis presented in this book.1Mid-twentieth-century realism is associated with writers such asE. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.2 Their focus was on the role of statesin international politics, and how the behavior of states is motivated bypower considerations. States sought to protect and advance their national interest. At a minimum national interest involved the protectionof a state’s territorial integrity, but broader strategic, economic, societal,and cultural dimensions were usually also involved. A state’s ability toachieve its objectives was determined by its power, involving military,economic, political, and other dimensions. The balance of power wasthe most important feature in the functioning of international politics. Inpursuing their objectives states sought to make common cause withother states having similar interests in a given situation. They would actto oppose states seen as threatening those interests. Traditional realistswere opposed to moralism in international politics, that is, the beliefthat good would prevail through means such as international law and international organization irrespective of power realities. Morgenthau inparticular was also critical of ideologically motivated crusades. Nevertheless Carr and Morgenthau, although differing in their approaches,both saw moral principles as a very important feature of internationalpolitics. The issue was to work out what those principles should be andhow they should be implemented.In the latter decades of the twentieth century an important development was the emergence of neorealism, associated in particular with Kenneth Waltz.3 Waltz’s key argument was that the international behavior ofstates derived from the anarchical character of international politics. Stateshad to protect themselves in a situation where there was no overriding authority. Balancing behavior was the most obvious example of how statessought to achieve their security goals. In Waltz’s view international politics was best explained in terms of the nature of the system as a whole,rather than by focusing on the characteristics of states or even human nature. He gave less explicit attention to moral issues than did Carr and Morgenthau. Nevertheless goals such as peace and security are important toWaltz. His concern is to show how the achievement of such goals is dependent upon understanding how states function in international politics.Liberalism (or liberal institutionalism) provides an important alternative to the various versions of realism.4 As an approach to international
4Asia Pacific in World Politicspolitics, liberalism places some emphasis on the role of states but alsogives attention to other actors such as international organizations, transnational corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. Whereas realism focuses on the high politics of security issues, liberalism putsmore emphasis on issues concerning economic and social interactions(low politics). The interdependence of all actors in the international domain is a particular theme. In general, liberalism is not explicitly concerned with moral issues. There is, however, an assumption that increasing interdependence will promote international peace and humanwelfare.Some of the themes in liberalism are developed further in globalization theory.5 Globalization as a theoretical approach is particularlyimportant in fields such as sociology and international political economy, but it also has implications for understanding international politics. The key point is that increasingly political, economic, social, andcultural processes need to be understood on a global level. In the economic domain there is an assumption (no doubt oversimplified) that theglobal marketplace is dominant. Individual states have less control overtheir destiny in such a situation (although this can vary with the particular state, of course). From this perspective the high politics of realismis dealing with only one aspect of a very complex world, and is thusgrossly oversimplified. While some globalization theorists see the phenomenon leading to a more cosmopolitan and fairer world, this is notnecessarily the case. The antiglobalization movement is in some respects a misnomer as supporters of this movement are not necessarilyopposed to globalization as such. What they are critical of is the ideathat the global marketplace should be regarded as some kind of juggernaut that necessarily takes priority over other kinds of values articulatedthrough various political means, whether states or groups based in civilsociety.The emphasis on viewing international politics from the perspectiveof underlying values is a key feature of various critical approaches.Some of the approaches come under the general term of “critical theory,” although there are also more specific formulations (e.g., the various feminist perspectives on international politics). Some of the criticalapproaches have distinctive views on the functioning of internationalpolitics. The most obvious example is the way in which feminist approaches see the various actors and processes of international politics asgendered, and with generally adverse effects on women. Irrespective ofthe interpretation of international processes, critical approaches sharethe view that it is necessary to discern the values implicit in international politics at various levels, and to subject those values to critical
Asia Pacific in World Politics5scrutiny. The complementary challenge is to develop and implementvalues that will more fully strengthen humanity than does existing international politics. An important issue here is whether priority shouldbe given to participation in states (as argued by communitarians) or tothe global arena (the cosmopolitan position).All of the approaches that have been outlined so far are global inperspective but have been developed primarily in a Western context.The culturalistic approach argues that in explaining the dynamics of international politics one needs to give greater attention to factors that arespecific to particular states and cultures. Lucian Pye suggests that contrary to the view that power is “a single basic phenomenon which operate[s] according to universal principles, regardless of time, place or culture . . . people at different times and in different places have had quitedifferent understandings of the concept of power.”6 One needs to beaware of the specific and general values that people involved in international interactions (whether in a governmental role or otherwise)bring to their task, and of the factors affecting those values. These factors can include the impact of history, as well as more immediate considerations of economics and domestic politics. One cannot assume thatfactors operating at a global level necessarily determine the behavior ofindividual actors. Factors specific to particular actors also need to betaken into account. Different levels are relevant, and to focus simply onone level is to risk oversimplification of a complex reality. In terms ofthe moral dimension of international politics the culturalistic approachdraws attention to the diversity of perspectives in the world. SamuelHuntington argued that this diversity represents a fundamental “clash ofcivilizations.”7 An alternative view is that while there is clearly diversity, different manifestations of a considerable degree of underlyingunity in humanity are represented.8At one level the approach to international politics in this book iseclectic. The study is not intended as a theoretical work, but it draws ona number of approaches. There is a strong emphasis on the role ofstates, but not to the exclusion of other actors. While at a general levelstates as such might have declined in significance in international politics, they still play a dominant role in relation to many issues. This isparticularly the case with the major powers in the region, but applies toother states too. The book has a major emphasis on strategic issues inAsia Pacific, but economic issues are also considered, and there is someattention to the “new international agenda.” Taking up the argument ofthe culturalistic approach, there is a strong emphasis on the particularcircumstances of the relevant actors. These circumstances cover not justculture in the general sense, but other more specific factors such as the
6Asia Pacific in World Politicsimpact of domestic politics and the economic environment. Moral issues emerge mainly through the analysis of the perspectives of key actors. Issues of peace, security, and justice are foremost. An importantquestion concerns the extent to which states see these issues primarilyin terms of national interests, as compared to broader conceptions of regional and global interests. The underlying motivation of other actors isalso relevant in this context. An important consideration is the extent towhich the processes of international politics in Asia Pacific limit theability to achieve desired moral goals.Asia PacificHaving indicated the approach taken to international politics in thisbook, it is also necessary to define the use of the term “Asia Pacific.”All regions are constructs. States generally promote definitions of regions to suit their own purposes. The concept of Asia Pacific dates fromthe 1960s and 1970s.9 It was promoted by countries such as the UnitedStates, Japan, and Australia as a means of linking East Asia to the widerPacific region. “Asia Pacific” highlights the Asian dimension in a waythat “Pacific region” does not. “East Asia” is obviously more geographically limited and excludes powers such as the United States and Australia. “Far East” as a term is Eurocentric and historically dated. From apolitical perspective “Asia Pacific” legitimizes the involvement of theUnited States in East Asian affairs. The United States cannot describe itself as an Asian power but its extensive involvement in the Pacific justifies describing it as part of Asia Pacific. US support has been a majorfactor in enabling the concept to become established.10 Although theydo not carry the weight of the United States, Pacific-oriented Westerncountries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have similar reasons for supporting the construct. In the case of Japan an important factor behind its support was that while the concept provided a justificationfor continued US involvement in East Asian affairs, it also multilateralized that involvement. From Japan’s perspective this meant that if tensions arose in US-Japanese relations, there could be possibilities for defusing such tensions in wider regional settings.As previously indicated, the term “Pacific region” does not containany specific reference to Asia. The major alternative regional constructhas been “East Asia,” which excludes Western powers such as theUnited States. From the late 1980s the main advocate for this approachwas Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia from 1981 to2003. Although Malaysia became a member of Asia-Pacific EconomicCooperation (APEC), formed in 1989, Mahathir’s preference was for anEast Asian Economic Grouping or Caucus. The “East Asian” approach
Asia Pacific in World Politics7received a fillip at the time of the Asian economic crisis in 1997, withthe subsequent emergence of ASEAN Plus Three (i.e., the members ofthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations, together with China, Japan,and South Korea). In December 2005 a new grouping, known as theEast Asia Summit, emerged following a meeting in Kuala Lumpur.India’s increasing involvement in Asia-Pacific affairs has led to thecoining of yet another term, “Indo-Pacific,” favored obviously by India,but also used by other powers such as Australia on occasions. Generallyspeaking “Asia Pacific” remains more common than “Indo-Pacific.”The usual definition of “Asia Pacific,” and the one used in thisbook, includes East Asia and the Western powers of the Pacific (theUnited States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand). East Asia can be divided into Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. Northeast Asia coversChina (including Hong Kong), Taiwan (claimed by China), Japan, SouthKorea (Republic of Korea, or ROK), North Korea (Democratic People’sRepublic of Korea, or DPRK), Russia (specifically the Russian Far Eastor Pacific Russia), and Mongolia. Southeast Asia comprises Brunei,Burma (known officially as Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste (EastTimor), and Vietnam. Apart from Timor-Leste, all of the Southeast Asiancountries are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN). While Australia and New Zealand are the major powers ofthe South Pacific, the entire Pacific islands region comes within a definition of Asia Pacific. Together with Australia and New Zealand, the independent and self-governing island states constitute the Pacific IslandsForum. The most significant of the island states are Papua New Guineaand Fiji. It should also be pointed out that some definitions of Asia Pacific include not just the United States and Canada, but the Pacificseaboard countries of Latin America. Mexico, Peru, and Chile are members of APEC, for example. India also interacts with Asia Pacific in various ways.There is some focus in this book on the major powers of Asia Pacific: the United States, China, and Japan. Because these powers areparticularly engaged in Northeast Asia, there is a strong emphasis onthat subregion. At the same time attention is also given to SoutheastAsia as another significant subregion. While the role of the major powers receives special attention, lesser but still significant powers are alsoconsidered. These include Taiwan, the two Koreas, Indonesia, Russia,an
Asia Pacific in World Politics 1 As a significant component of world politics, Asia Pacific confronts many major issues. This is a region in which the United States, China, and Japan relate directly to one another. The United States was the dominant power in the region in the Cold War (roughly 1945–1989), but
In providing a study of international politics in Asia Pacific, we need to have working definitions of both "international politics" and "Asia Pacific." Both terms are often taken for granted but, in fact, both are open to debate. We will begin with a discussion of how the terms international politics and 1 Understanding Asia Pacific
various facets of politics — the Indian Constitution, politics in India, and political theory. Contemporary World Politics enlar ges the scope of politics to the world stage. The new Political Science syllabus has finally given space to world politics. This is a vital development. As India becomes more prominent in international politics and as
Asia Pacific School 2019 28-30 October 2019, Conrad Hong Kong Pierre Briens Managing Director, Head of Aviation, Transportation Sector, Investment Banking Asia Pacific BNP Paribas Vincent Lam SVP Asia Pacific - Aircraft Remarketing Air Partner Vivien Guo Vice President, Transportation Sector, Investment Banking Asia Pacific BNP Paribas Simon Ng
importance of Asia and the Pacific, and develop a specialist expertise in the region will be at a distinct advantage in the context of Australia's continued engagement with the Asia Pacific century. By studying Asia Pacific studies, you will ensure your role in shaping Australia's future. Lead UNDErSTAND, ENgAgE & LEAD
The Authoritative Guide to the Future of Broadband Digital Content, Distribution & Technology in Asia ASIA PACIFIC PAY-TV & . trends, markets and companies shaping the development of the dynamic media sector. Events. MPA conferences focus on the media & telecoms industry across Asia Pacific and around the globe. . Asia Pacific Cable .
sia-Pacific Defense Outlook: Key Numbers4 A 6 Defense Investments: The Economic Context 6 Strategic Profiles: Investors, Balancers and Economizers . Asia-Pacific Defense Outlook 2016 Asia-Pacific Defense Outlook 2016. 3. Asia-Pacific Defense Outlook: . two-thirds of the region's economic product and nearly 75 percent of the 2015 regional .
Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development Republic of the Marshall Islands Country Plan Summary . updated to document future Pacific Women activities in RMI . Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, ILO, Asia Pacific Working paper series. 3 UNDP. 2009. Marshall Islands MDG Report p 16-18. 4 Republic of the Marshall Islands Ministry of .
1 1 Novel engineered high performance sugar beetroot 2D nanoplatelet-cementitious 2 composites 3. 4. Hasan Hasan. 1, Bo Huang , Mohamed Saafi. 1 *, Jiawei Sun. 2, Yin .
