Intra-asian International Relations

George T. Yu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429726262
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This collection of authoritative papers prepared by some of America's most eminent scholars in the field provides us with an up-to-date analysis of the complex and rapidly changing relations among China, Russia, Japan, and the countries of South and Southeast Asia. The contributors discuss in depth the major issues faced by the policymakers of each country, examining also the role of the U.S. in order to furnish greater perspective and a more realistic picture. Among the issues considered are Sino-Soviet relations, interdependence versus national assertiveness, economic interaction, and the effects of international conflict. The analyses of individual countries are supplemented by a broader view of actors and issues in regional and international contexts; equally important, the emphasis on contemporary aspects allows a look at current trends and the dynamics of future Asian international relations.

1. Introduction

George T. Yu

The end of World War II was a watershed in intra-Asian international relations; it brought Western domination of Asia to an end and ushered in a trend toward greater regional autonomy and interaction. To be sure, the Korean War, the Sino-Soviet conflict, the Vietnam War, and other events obscured this new development, exaggerating the continued dependence of Asian countries upon external sources while diverting attention from increasing intra-Asian interaction. The greater level of relations among the regional actors has not meant exclusion of external sources; nor has it meant that Asian countries have severed or intend to sever linkages with countries outside Asia. What developments in Asia have shown has been the changing nature of Asian international relations: toward greater Asianization and more involvement of the Asian states with each other.

This volume is an attempt to analyze the present and future patterns of intra-Asian international relations. There is a great need for such studies of the individual actors, the dominant issues, the patterns of interaction, and the relationships between and among the regional actors and their linkages to the world. For a variety of reasons, our understanding of Asian developments has tended to lag behind the fast pace of events. The post-Vietnam years for Asians and others have been a period of adjustment and uncertainty; they have also been a period of questioning and waiting. This does not excuse specialists on Asia from examining Asian international relations; it does make the work of the specialist exceedingly difficult. A great deal of skill, including an in-depth knowledge of the individual Asian actors and the region and training and experience in international political analysis, is required of the specialist for any meaningful assessment of present developments and future trends.

The contributors to this volume have been drawn from among America's most eminent specialists in the field. They know the Asian actors and the region and are skilled analysts of international politics. To the extent practicable, they deal with similar questions and issues; each author has attempted to analyze intra-Asian relations from his special perspective while also considering the impact of his subject upon the larger Asian scene.

One of the fundamental concerns of the contributors has been to examine how the Asian countries perceive their environment and how this perception has influenced their foreign policies and behavior patterns. From their comments on the past and the present, the contributors go on to offer predictions about the future policies and behavior of the Asian countries and intra-Asian relations.

In the first essay, Professor Robert A. Scalapino deals with intra-Asian relations in a broad fashion. After examining some geopolitical factors, the imperial legacies, and the immediate post-World War II era, he looks at the impact of the two events, the two immediate causes, that transformed Asian international relations: the Korean War and the Sino-Soviet conflict. He sees two primary trends. First, there is a trend toward Asianization, including a "more intricate and intensive involvement of the Asian states with each other—in harmony or in conflict." Second, there is a movement away from exclusive linkages toward "the politics of equidistance." Equidistance, according to Professor Scalapino, means for the Asian countries a search "for a position that affords contact with all parties of significance, yet with some economic, political, or military relations tailored specifically to their particular position."

Professor Scalapino concludes his survey of intra-Asian relations with an assessment of the future. He sees a trend toward a balance of weakness, with both internal and external Asian actors possessing only limited power to determine developments. Two scenarios are offered; both promise new directions in intra-Asian international relations.

The centrality of military-security concerns in the foreign policy and behavior of the People's Republic of China is the subject of Professor A. Doak Barnett's study of China in Asia. Professor Barnett argues that major shifts in China's foreign policy can be best understood in relation to changes in China's perception of external security threats, especially when linked to the Sino-Soviet conflict. Three crucial turning points in the Sino-Soviet conflict are discussed, points at which vital security considerations were involved and which are ultimately related to shifts in China's foreign policy. There follows a discussion of China's overall strategic world view, including comments on the "publicly articulated three-world schema" and the unstated view of the key roles of the five major power centers. While Professor Barnett maintains that it is more important to examine what China actually does, he also recognizes the contribution of official statements as indications of China's basic approach to strategic problems. In this context, he examines MaoTsetungs's 1940 directive "On Policy" and the 1971 commentary written when the directive was republished. Professor Barnett finds that the documents "are extremely revealing with regard to strategic premises and assumptions" of China. Among others, they point to the application of "flexible united-front strategies."

Looking into the future, Professor Barnett concludes that security problems will continue to be the basic foreign policy concern of China. However, like Professor Scalapino, he suggests that China's military weakness or inferiority greatly limits its pursuit of security, especially against the Soviet Union or the United States or both.

Professor Donald S. Zagoria explores the important problem of the Soviet Union and Asia. The central question of the essay is why the Soviet Union, despite its massive military power, has been unable to project its power and influence upon Asia. As Professor Zagoria states, the Soviet Union has neither genuine allies nor untroubled relations with the major countries in Asia. To explain this phenomenon, the Soviet Union's relations with China, Japan, and North Korea are examined; the Soviet Union's interaction with southern Asia is also explored. In every instance, the fortunes of the Soviet Union in Asia are found to be at a low ebb.

This is especially true of Soviet relations with China, a major Soviet failure in Asia. A host of factors have contributed to the Sino-Soviet conflict, including cultural, psychological, geopolitical, as well as the factors of national interest and ideology. However, the immediate factor that deepened the conflict was "Soviet overreactions to the Chinese threat," symbolized by the massive Soviet military buildup on the Chinese frontier. Professor Zagoria suggests that it was the Soviet policy of overreaction that "lost" China, "the most significant Russian loss of the entire postwar era."

Professor Zagoria concludes that a primary factor in the low fortunes of the Soviet Union in Asia is "the shortcomings of Moscow's own policy," a policy rigidly concerned with frontier security and massive military buildups. A consequence has been the weak political position of the Soviet Union in Asia.

The success of Japan as a global economic power is well recognized. Less known has been Japan's role in Asia. Professor Donald C. Hellmann explains Japan's growing intra-Asian relations in terms of economic ties, political-diplomatic actions, and Asia as a factor in Japanese domestic politics. These forces, more than Japan's visible global economic role and relations with the major powers, will determine the international future of Japan.

Nowhere does Professor Hellmann better illustrate the allimportant Japanese role in Asia than in his discussion of the economic linkages. Comparing Japan's trade since 1970 with the European Economic Community and Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, he notes that "Tokyo now does almost ninety percent as much trade with two small developing nations and a city-colony in Asia (all resource-poor) as is done with the entire European Economic Community...." Nor is this all. Japan has become the first or second leading trading partner of every country in East and Southeast Asia. Much of Japan's official developmental assistance is concentrated in Asia. In short, a "web of economic intercourse," to use Professor Hellmann's term, has drawn Japan deeply into Asian affairs, making Japan increasingly dependent upon Asia.

Japan's role in Asia has been furthered by a growing political-diplomatic entanglement. This includes deepening relations with the People's Republic of China and a new intensity of contacts with South Korea. Professor Hellmann concludes his essay with a review of Japan's fluid and uncertain domestic political situation, a consequence of changing American policy toward Asia, new Japanese-American relations, and Japan's own internal developments. A problem for the future, given the weakness of Japanese domestic politics in a time of strong foreign policy leadership needs and given Japan's increasing Asian orientation, including mounting dependence upon the "politically volatile and unpredictable developing nations," is Japan's future role in Asia. According to Professor Hellmann, Japan will be taking an uncharted course.

Southeast Asia was once highly visible in global politics. Now, since the end of- the Vietnam conflict in 1975, it is of limited interest. But Southeast Asia's own search for a new orientation may be just beginning. Dr. Guy J. Pauker explains the consequences brought on by the end of the war, compares conditions in the region between the present and the 1950s, examines some of the dominant regional political and economic trends, and reviews the relationships between the Southeast Asian countries and the major powers. In every instance, one finds that after the experiences of the Vietnam conflict the countries of Southeast Asia are reassessing their own role and that of the region.

In reviewing the relationships between the countries of Southeast Asia and the major powers, Dr. Pauker suggests a state of great uncertainty. He finds that "none of the major powers seems eager at this time to increase substantially their political and economic involvement in the affairs of South-east Asia." As for the Southeast Asian countries themselves, the trend seems to be away from dependence upon an external source and toward nonalignment. However, this does not deny the existence of important linkages and the need for such between Southeast Asian countries and states outside the immediate area, as in Japanese-Southeast Asian economic relations. What Dr. Pauker does say is that Southeast Asia is a "high-risk region," with little likelihood in the long run of the development of reliable political alliances or economic partnerships between a Southeast Asian country and a major power.

Dr. Pauker concludes his essay on a somber note. Beset with political and economic tensions on the one hand and with continued importance to the powers due to its strategic location on the other, Southeast Asia will remain a volatile and unpredictable region.

Next, Professor Richard L. Park analyzes India's Asian relations. Beginning with a review of India's domestic and foreign experiences and a survey of its trade patterns, he then examines India's interaction with its Asian neighbors. India's relations with the United States and the Soviet Union are also discussed. As Professor Park notes, India's foreign policy has been most active in South Asia; this has been linked to India's concern with its national security. Directly and indirectly, India's interaction with China, the Soviet Union, and the United States has also been governed by the security issue. Outside of relations with South Asia and the superpowers and China, India's links to Southeast Asia has been moderate, while relations with Japan have been strictly those of trading partners. Professor Park concludes that outside of South Asia, India's Asian relations have been weak.

Looking to the future, new patterns of Indian-Asian relations are coming into focus. Among those suggested by Professor Park are improved Sino-Indian ties, greater economic cooperation between Japan and India, and increased interaction between Southeast Asia and India. Clearly, India could be expected to play a greater role in Asia were it not for its domestic political economy.

The final chapter in this volume discusses some of the earlier essays and presents the views of the author, Dr. Morton I. Abramowitz. The focus is on the perceptions of the Asian actors and "how this perception might influence their interactions" and a review of the major issues relating to intra-Asian relations, issues that "will profoundly influence the peace and stability of the region.'' In discussing the Asian actors, Dr. Abramowitz makes a number of important points, including taking issue with Professor Barnett's stress upon the security factor as the concern in Chinese foreign policy and behavior. Dr. Abramowitz "would elevate domestic politics to near-paramount importance as a determinant of Chinese policy, foreign and domestic." Among the key issues that require the attention of all Asian actors are the Sino-Soviet conflict, economic relations, and internal conflict. All are serious issues in a highly volatile environment. Commenting on the Sino-Soviet conflict, Dr. Abramowitz makes an observation that might well be applied to all aspects of intra-Asian relations, namely, while there are good reasons to expect a pattern of continuity, we must not overlook the possibilities for change.

We began this review of the essays with the comment that intra-Asian relations are undergoing great changes. One is toward greater Asianization, a movement away from the politics of alliances with external sources and toward the politics of equidistance. Another theme common to the essays is the basic weaknesses of the Asian actors, politically, economically, and militarily. While new patterns of interaction are coming into focus, the future of intra-Asian relations is filled with uncertainties. There can be no question that developments in Asia are of great importance, to Asians as well as Americans. Whatever future developments may be, intra-Asian relations deserve our serious and continuous attention and study.

2. Intra-Asian Relations: An Overview

Robert A. Scalapino

In sharp contrast to the situation in Europe, interstate relations in Asia have been characterized by great volatility and an absence of any consistent pattern in recent years. The European scene may be changing. Instability in southern Europe, the uncertainties relating to American policies, and the widening divergences within East Europe could signal a troubled future. Nevertheless, the Helsinki Conference in its own fashion put an official seal upon a type of regional order that, while incomplete, partly bifurcated, and not without elements of tension, has consistently evolved in the post-1945 era. Under this order, relations between and among the states of the region have become increasingly regularized and predictable, and the threat of international conflict appears to have been reduced. In Asia, however, such developments are not a part of recent history.

Some Geopolitical Factors

Why? Geography, historical factors, political culture, and the timing of Asian development combine to give this region unique features affecting both domestic and international politics. Let us start with geography and a touch of history. In the vast area labeled "Asia" there are few well-demarcated, traditionally sanctioned ethnic-physical units. Only South Asia as a region generally has the geographic barriers that create reasonable discrete units; here, too, significant ethnic-cultural diversity exists, cutting across modern national boundaries.

Continental Asia, now the political legacy of the great march of two empires, Russian and Chinese, is demarcated only by the vastness of its arid interior, alleviated by occasional mountain ranges, yet with few natural boundaries. If history had moved in a different direction, we would witness today a series of buffer states here, ruled by the indigenous peoples of the region—Kazakh, Uzbek, Mongol, and Tibetan. This would have made the problem of Sino-Soviet relations at once more complex and more hopeful, since buffer states between empires can serve as neutralizing zones. But this is not to be.

Similarly, the boundaries of Asia's two other major regions, Northeast and Southeast Asia, are ill-defined in geographic terms. Both are part continental, part island, and reflect a diversity of topography that has in turn affected every aspect of culture and relatively complex ethnic distribution, especially in the case of Southeast Asia. Diversity, moreover, extends within national boundaries. With Japan being a prominent exception, most such boundaries are recent and frequently the product of arbitrary political division connected with colonialism or war. Thus, the ethnic-cultural groups that coexist within current state boundaries remain largely unassimilated. Few Asian states have come close to completing what we call "the nation-building process," and the elements of alienation, separateness, and violence based upon ethnic-cultural differences bulk large in domestic politics.

The Diverse Imperial Legacies

Chinese and Indian colonialism of the pre-Western era in paradoxical fashion contributed simultaneously to a broader cultural identity and intensified divisions. The cultural reach of these two great civilizations extended further and lasted longer than their military-political controls. Almost all of Northeast Asia became a part of the Confucian world. With China as its center, this world was governed by very special concepts of interstate relations, concepts resting upon comfortable ambiguities. Suzerainty prevailed where sovereignty could not be implanted. Influence extended beyond the reach of control. Economic intercourse and social relations both served and defined political roles. The basis for political organization of a complex, extended type was laid throughout significant parts of Asia.

The Indian penetration of South and Southeast Asia took similar forms, but with different results. The social and religious impact that flowed in various waves from India was less conducive to the type of political integration related to the Confucian order. Buddhism and Hinduism, together with the Sanskrit language, created a social more than a political order, although the existence of a linkage here should not be denied. Nonetheless, the Chinese legacy, being the more secular, was also more related to those societal-wide organizational forms that serve both as prerequisites and progenitors of politicization. In some measure at least, this fitted the two empires—and their tributaries—unevenly for the political trials that lay ahead

Although no Pope existed to divide Asia, the Sino-Indian fault line ran in such a fashion as to include Annam and Tonkin in the Confucian orbit together with the whole of Northeast Asia. Laos, Cambodia, Cochin China, and the Himalayan societies, on the other hand, were more deeply influenced by the diverse traditions emanating from the I...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• The Contributors
• Preface
• 1. Introduction.
• 2. Intra-Asian Relations: An Overview
• 3. China and the Balance of Power in Asia
• 4. The Soviet Union and the Far East
• 5. Japan and Asia: Growing Entanglement
• 6. Southeast Asia Reexamines Its Options
• 7. India's Asian Relations
• 8. Asian Actors and Issues
• Selected Bibliography