scholarly journals Waiting for Hard Balancing?

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moch Faisal Karim ◽  
Tangguh Chairil

The continuity of stable peace in East Asia, especially Southeast Asia, since the end of the Cold War raises one major question: why is there no apparent balancing behaviour against China, the emerging great power in East Asia? In response to this question, exceptionalists argue that there will be no balancing behaviour against China from Southeast Asian states, while soft balancing theorists argue that the balancing behaviour has already occurred in the form of institutional balancing. This article refutes those arguments and maintains that balancing behaviour is not yet apparent in Southeast Asian balancing, yet it exists in an indirect form. In order to make this argument, this article examines the recent military build-up among Southeast Asian states as well as recent assessments of the ineffectiveness of the Southeast Asian regional security framework. The article also further analyses the conditions under which Southeast Asia’s indirect balancing might turn into hard balancing.

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Putri Pratama ◽  
Darang Sahdana Candra

The Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) is a regional security institution in Southeast Asia, with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom as its members. As one of the oldest, and still existing, regional security institution in the Southeast Asia region, FPDA’s existence seems to be unheard of, compared to the region’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or even the Cold War’s Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Although FPDA was created in the height of the Cold War, as well as in response to the potential hegemonic Indonesian threat to former British colonies, the institution is still exist even after both original existential threat wanes. In the end, how the FPDA can maintain its existence in the changing security dynamics in the region, especially after the end of the Cold War, is an interesting piece of puzzle to be solved.


Author(s):  
Kenton Clymer

The U.S. relationship with Southeast Asia has always reflected the state of U.S. interactions with the three major powers that surround the region: Japan, China, and, to a lesser extent, India. Initially, Americans looked at Southeast Asia as an avenue to the rich markets that China and India seemed to offer, while also finding trading opportunities in the region itself. Later, American missionaries sought to save Southeast Asian souls, while U.S. officials often viewed Southeast Asia as a region that could tip the overall balance of power in East Asia if its enormous resources fell under the control of a hostile power. American interest expanded enormously with the annexation of the Philippines in 1899, an outgrowth of the Spanish-American War. That acquisition resulted in a nearly half-century of American colonial rule, while American investors increased their involvement in exploiting the region’s raw materials, notably tin, rubber, and petroleum, and missionaries expanded into areas previously closed to them. American occupation of the Philippines heightened tensions with Japan, which sought the resources of Southeast Asia, particularly in French Indochina, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia). Eventually, clashing ambitions and perceptions brought the United States into World War II. Peeling those territories away from Japan during the war was a key American objective. Americans resisted the Japanese in the Philippines and in Burma, but after Japan quickly subdued Southeast Asia, there was little contact in the region until the reconquest began in 1944. American forces participated in the liberation of Burma and also fought in the Dutch Indies and the Philippines before the war ended in 1945. After the war, the United States had to face the independence struggles in several Southeast Asian countries, even as the Grand Alliance fell apart and the Cold War emerged, which for the next several decades overshadowed almost everything. American efforts to prevent communist expansion in the region inhibited American support for decolonization and led to war in Vietnam and Laos and covert interventions elsewhere. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, relations with most of Southeast Asia have generally been normal, except for Burma/Myanmar, where a brutal military junta ruled. The opposition, led by the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi, found support in the United States. More recently American concerns with China’s new assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea, have resulted in even closer U.S. relations with Southeast Asian countries.


Author(s):  
Simon Creak

Despite being minnows on the world stage, Thailand and the newly independent countries of Southeast Asia embraced sport during the Cold War as a means of nation and region building. This essay examines the political dimensions of the South East Asia Peninsular Games—the precursor of today’s Southeast Asian Games—founded in 1959 by US ally Thailand. This event reflected and reinforced the Cold War culture of Thailand and Southeast Asia. The games embodied motifs of regional friendship and antagonism between the “free” anti-Communist and neutralist nations of peninsular Southeast Asia; domestically, they embodied key themes in the domestic Cold War culture of Thailand, including nationalism, developmentalism, the revival of the monarchy, and militarization. This essay examines the Thai military junta’s objectives in founding the event, the effectiveness of the inaugural South East Asia Peninsular (SEAP) Games, and the cultural and semiotic features that reinforced the games’ major themes.


2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff Wade

The questions of how and when the Cold War manifested itself in Southeast Asia are here examined through the perceptions of Britain and Australia to regional and global events from 1945 to 1950. Both had major stakes in the eventual results of the local contentions in Southeast Asia, as well as in the global effects of great power rivalry. Yet even for these powers, determining when they believed the Cold War came to Southeast Asia is dependent on the definition adopted. By 1946, there was already recognition of entrenched ideological conflict in Southeast Asia, and that this threatened Western interests. In 1947, there was recognition of connections between the local communist parties and the ‘global designs’ of the Soviet Union. In 1948, there was the outbreak of armed violence in Burma, Malaya and Indonesia, though there was no evidence of direct Soviet involvement in these. Ultimately, however, it was the establishment of the PRC in 1949 (as a major regional communist power), in tandem with plans by non-communist states to coordinate policy against communism, which was seen as marking the arrival of fully-fledged Cold War in Southeast Asia.


Author(s):  
Orakhelashvili Alexander

This chapter begins with examining the context in which the US government decided to impose the quarantine against Cuba in 1962, in response to the Soviet nuclear missile placement in Cuba. The legality of the US measures is examined against the Charter of the United Nations, the OAS regional security framework, and general international law including the regime of belligerent rights. The final section addresses the precedential value of this incident, especially the ways in which legal advisers addressed the complex legal issues surrounding the Cuban missile crisis.


Author(s):  
Paul Midford

This chapter analyzes Japan’s experience with, and motivations for participating in, security multilateralism. It considers the historical legacies of a lack of multilateral interaction when international relations in East Asia were governed by the Sinocentric tributary system, the security multilateralism of the Washington system of the 1920s, Japan’s failed multilateral Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during the Pacific War, as well as Tokyo’s security isolationism during the Cold War, before turning to Japan’s pivot from 1991 toward embracing regional security multilateralism. It argues that Japan’s promotion of security multilateralism since 1991 is part of a broader shift away from security isolationism and toward global and regional security engagement on bilateral and multilateral levels. Japan’s 1992 decision to begin participating in UN peacekeeping and its promotion of the ASEAN Regional Forum’s creation through the 1991 Nakayama proposal are examples of Japan’s post–Cold War security multilateralism. The chapter argues that Japan’s embrace of security multilateralism after the Cold War, like its embrace of security isolationism during the Cold War, has been driven by its reassurance strategy of convincing other East Asian nations that Japan can be trusted as a military power that will not repeat its pre-1945 expansionism. Moderating its alliance security dilemma vis-à-vis the US is another motivation for Japan’s promotion of security multilateralism. Since 2000 Japan has promoted the creation of other regional security multilateral forums, including the counter-piracy ReCAAP organization, the East Asian Summit, the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus Dialogue Partners, and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum.


Author(s):  
Ni Luh Bayu Purwa Eka Payani

ABSTRAKSetelah Perang Dingin berakhir, AS mulai menguasai dunia baik dari segi ideologi maupun pengaruh lainnya. Asia Timur merupakan salah satu medan peperangan antara ideologi liberal dan komunis, yang sampai saat ini ketegangan antar negara masih terjadi. Situasi yang tidak pasti dan tidak stabil membuat AS sebagai pemenang perang serta aliansi dari Jepang dan Korea Selatan, ikut campur dalam mengatur pemetaan keamanan di kawasan tersebut. Ketidakstabilan muncul saat negara-negara di kawasan berusaha untuk melakukan military build-up untuk mengimbangi kekuatan negara lain, konflik-konflik internal antar negara, serta provokasi senjata nuklir Korea Utara yang tidak hanya mengancam kawasan tetapi juga AS. Untuk menghadapi ini, AS perlu meningkatkan perannya dalam menjawab ketidakstabilan keamanan di kawasan Asia Timur.Kata kunci: ketidakstabilan, keamanan regional, aliansi militer.ABSTRACTAfter The Cold War ended, US started to dominate the whole world with its ideology and other influences. East Asia is one of the battlefields between Liberal and Communist Ideology, which is until now; the tense is still felt among the countries. The uncertain and unstable situation made US as a victor and close alliance to Japan and South Korea to intervene in setting security map in the region. Instability emerges when the countries within region try to build their military up (military buildup) to offset one another, internal conflicts between countries, and nuclear provocation by North Korea, which is not only threatening region but also the US existence in the region. To encounter these challenges, US needs to increase its role in settling instability in East Asia.Keywords: instability, regional security, military alliance


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document